Introduction

Internationally, education systems have always been subject to various types of reforms. These can be large scale, driven by trends such as the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM) (Sahlberg, 2015) or smaller teacher-initiated changes in a single school. When the purposes of education are perceived as not being met, reforms become necessary to initiate improvement (Min, 2019). Whilst reform is not a new phenomenon, the accelerating rate at which it is occurring puts teachers under pressure to support, implement, and be co-creators of change (Cerit, 2019). All teachers are impacted by change regardless of career stage, including pre-service teachers (PST) who more than ever are expected to be classroom-ready. These graduates are the future of education, who will implement new curriculum and assessment and deal with challenges associated with change agendas (Fomunyam, 2014).

The impetus for this review is the writers’ context. The state of Queensland, in Australia, has recently implemented significant curriculum and assessment reform. This reform was initiated to address perceived issues of equity and accessibility in senior secondary schooling (Polesel et al., 2020). As teacher educators in this state, we are in the position of preparing PSTs for a new system as well as providing support for in-service teachers. As such we were interested in how teacher self-efficacy (TSE) might be affected during times of change. As noted by Ma et al. (2021), TSE remains one of the most important psychological constructs to understand teacher motivation. An overview of the factors that influence TSE in a context of reform and how teachers can be supported to maintain high TSE is presented in this review.

Teacher self-efficacy is defined as the degree to which a person has conviction to successfully execute behaviours to produce outcomes or have confidence/belief in their own ability to teach effectively (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). High TSE belief is an indicator of willingness to support, implement and create positive change, persevere during challenges, be open to new ideas and try teaching strategies even if considered risky (Cerit, 2019; Charalambous & Philippou, 2010). According to Bandura (2006), being high on the TSE scale is commensurate with overcoming obstacles in domains. In this review, the domain is education reform.

There have been several narrative and systematic reviews (see for example Koniewski, 2019; Tümkaya & Miller, 2020) around self-efficacy in education. The Australian Education Researcher has also published studies about TSE, for example, Ma et al. (2021) highlighted the importance of maintaining pre-service teachers’ high TSE between ITE and entering schools to teach. Fernandes et al. (2019) and Wang et al. (2016) suggested various support mechanisms to foster high TSE. Whilst these studies are informative, none deal specifically with TSE during curriculum and/or assessment reform. The purpose of this systematic review is to specifically examine TSE during change.

Research design and procedures

Systematic reviews are commonly used in a range of professions including psychology and nursing and are becoming widespread in education (Alexander, 2020). This type of review was chosen as it provides a clear and precise way to review literature and enable replication of search processes (Moher et al., 2015). Systematic reviews are beneficial for identifying gaps and future research directions (Petticrew, 2006).

This review combines two approaches; contractual and authorial as outlined by Dixon-Woods (2016). The contractual approach emphasises procedure. For this, the first ten steps of the Systematic Quantitative Literature Review (SQLR) method (Pickering & Byrne, 2014) (Fig. 1) were followed. In combination with the SQLR method, aspects of Search, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation and Research type (SPIDER) (Cooke et al., 2012) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Moher et al., 2015) were utilised.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Systematic Quantitative Literature Review step process (Pickering & Byrne, 2014, p. 539)

Full size image

The authorial approach involves applying expertise in the analysis and interpretation of data (Dixon-Woods, 2016). For this, elements of Bandura’s (1986b) Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), specifically the triadic reciprocality model and the four sources of TSE, were used to analyse the data.

The model of triadic reciprocality illustrates the reciprocal relationships between environmental (E), personal/cognitive (P/C), and behavioural (B) determinants in human behaviour. Bandura (2012) refers to this as an interactionist model; in other words, it is not just the environment or an individual that is the locus of causation. Rather, human functioning is a product of the interaction between the environmental, personal/cognitive, and behavioural determinants in a triadically reciprocal way.

Environmental determinants could include both teachers’ physical and perceived environments. An example of the physical environment could be class size and perceived might be teachers’ expectations of their school providing professional learning (PL). Personal/cognitive determinants are influences such as knowledge, beliefs, values, and biological endowment (e.g. age, sex, genetics), for example knowledge and understanding of the reformed senior secondary syllabuses. Finally, behavioural determinants are the “personal production of action[s] for an intended outcome” (Bandura, 1977, p. 6). If the model of triadic reciprocality is applied to our local context and using the examples from above, if a school doesn’t provide PL about the new curriculum and assessment reforms (E), teachers’ understandings of the new content (P/C) might be limited and cause feelings of stress and anxiety (P/C) thus the teacher may not be confident with the subject matter and therefore their enactment of teaching the new curriculum (B) may be less effective. When analysing the studies included in this review, it became apparent that environmental, personal/cognitive, and behavioural determinants were useful for organising the findings.

The second part of the analysis using the authorial approach utilised Bandura’s (1977) model of TSE, specifically the four sources of self-efficacy. Grounded in SCT, TSE is a self-referent belief of capability shaped by four sources of efficacy information (Bandura, 1977). These four sources from which teachers achieve self-efficacy are mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social/verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Any of these sources could be developed in the context of curriculum and assessment reform. Mastery experiences are successful, authentic performances in an activity, for example, teaching (Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Vicarious experiences are observations of other teachers’ role modelling of (in)effective practice (Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Social/verbal persuasion is instilling, through talk, a belief that somebody can do something (Bandura, 1986b), for example, colleagues’ verbal encouragement (Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009). Emotional arousal refers to the type of emotion an individual experiences when anticipating/completing a task such as teaching; for example, self-efficacy could be lowered if a teacher experiences stress (Tschannen-Moran & McMaster, 2009).

Research topic and questions

The first two steps in the SQLR method involve defining the topic (Step 1) and formulating research questions (Step 2). The topic is the interaction between curriculum and/or assessment reform and TSE. The following research questions were formulated to guide the review and underpin Steps 3–10:

RQ1:

What factors within environmental, personal/cognitive, and behavioural determinants influence teacher self-efficacy in a context of reform?

RQ2:

How can teacher self-efficacy be supported in a context of reform?

Search process

To identify keywords (Step 3) and search databases (Step 4), the SPIDER strategy (Cooke et al., 2012) was adapted. Initial search terms were created and iteratively trialled by the authors. Thesaurus databases enabled the identification of possible synonyms for each search term. This process led to the search terms in Table 1. All research designs and associated methods were considered in this search.

Table 1 SPIDER search terms
Full size table

Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC, and ProQuest Education databases were chosen because they are the authoritative databases in education and collectively index research with both psychological and sociological underpinnings. Google Scholar was also searched using an abridged version of the search terms to locate studies that may have been missed in the original search. From this search, 250 studies were identified.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria and screening process

A set of inclusion criteria was established (Step 5). Empirical journal articles and book chapters in English were considered in this review providing a foundation of evidence-based research. The concept of self-efficacy was coined by Bandura in 1977, therefore no date range was set. For inclusion, studies focussed on three criteria:

  • research in a context of school-based change or reform, for example, curriculum and/or assessment reform (reforms taking place in other contexts were excluded (Grossman et al., 2007) as were studies from health and medicine (Tolsgaard, 2013);

  • teachers or pre-service teachers who were affected by reforms in schools; and

  • research that measures the impact of reform/change on teacher confidence and/or TSE (studies focussing on students’ self-efficacy were excluded (Weekes et al., 2011).

Excluded studies did not fulfil one or more of these criteria.

The bibliographic details of 250 studies were exported from databases and imported into an Endnote library. Once duplicates were removed, all authors screened 10% of abstracts against the inclusion criteria and discussed until consensus was reached. Further studies were excluded based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Some of these did not focus on how a school-based reform affected teachers (Andersen et al., 2017), were not empirical (Harrison, 2017), focussed on students (Midgley et al., 1989), or were not about TSE and/or confidence. This resulted in 32 studies included in the final dataset as outlined in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

PRISMA flow diagram

Full size image

Analysis and interpretation

To analyse and interpret the 32 studies Steps 6–10 of the SQLR method were followed. Using Microsoft Excel, a database was structured (Step 6) under the broad categories of bibliographic details, location, research design, theoretical framework, method, participants, and summary of results. In line with Step 7, the first author catalogued 10% of papers. Once catalogued, one or more key words were assigned to document the type, reason, and instigator of the reform. Additionally, studies were assigned key words in line with the research questions. These were refined as the first author became more familiar with the data (Step 8). Once all studies were entered on the spreadsheet (Step 9), the data were analysed and interpreted, and summary tables were produced (Step 10). Table 2 includes an overview of the 32 studies included in this review, and whether the participants were pre-service or in-service teachers.

Table 2 Profile of included articles
Full size table

Following the authorial approach, a deductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) using Bandura’s (2011) model of triadic reciprocality in line with SCT was used. As mentioned in “Research design and procedures” section, according to Bandura (1986b), SCT consists of environmental, personal/cognitive, and behavioural determinants. These determinants provided a rigorous theoretical frame to answer the research questions. Additionally, Bandura’s (1977) four sources of self-efficacy provided a robust framework for discussing the mechanisms outlined in the studies to support teachers during reform.

Findings

The findings are divided into two sections. First, following the SQLR approach, the demographics of the studies are quantified and outlined in terms of location and research design (methodology and participants). The second section is structured around the two research questions using the determinants from Bandura’s SCT (1986b) as the categories. To answer RQ1, the themes within each category are the factors influencing TSE; in RQ2 themes are support mechanisms.

Section 1: Research locations and designs

The publications were categorised by the country where the research took place (“Research location” section) and the research design (“Research design” section).

Research location

As can be seen in Fig. 3, studies related to self-efficacy and reform were worldwide. America (n = 6), Australia (n = 4), Ireland (n = 3), and Turkey (n = 3) were the countries where most research around self-efficacy and reform have occurred. Studies predominantly took place in metropolitan locations (n = 18), limiting the ability to comment on the self-efficacy and confidence of pre-service and in-service teachers in regional/rural areas.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Studies by geographical location

Full size image

Research design

The next section reports on the methodology and participants in the empirical studies included in this review.

Methodology

Studies reviewed used quantitative (n = 21), qualitative (n = 15) and mixed methods (n = 3) research designs. Seven reported using both quantitative and qualitative methods but did not identify as mixed methods. Six of the quantitative studies used SCT as the theoretical framework. Earlier work around TSE was mainly quantitative (Hughes, 1999; Johnson et al., 1999; McCormick et al., 2006). More up-to-date studies used both quantitative (n = 38–1623 participants), qualitative (n = 1–110 participants), and mixed methods (n = 1–371 participants). It was interesting to note that 21 of the 32 selected studies were published in the last decade, despite Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy being over 40 years old. This could be because of the accelerating rate of reform as alluded to earlier.

Participants

Participants in the studies were pre-service (n = 19) and in-service (n = 16) teachers. Some included both (n = 3). Those that focussed on pre-service teachers, predominantly selected participants from a single university. In 11 studies, pre-service teachers were in their final year of an undergraduate degree or post-graduate teaching qualification and seven studies did not report the stage of ITE. Ten of the studies that focussed on in-service teachers were conducted across multiple sites in metropolitan areas, perhaps indicating convenience sampling. Only two studies included teachers in regional or rural locations. The prevalence of studies focussing on pre-service teachers reveals the importance of the theory–practice nexus where tertiary and school sectors need to work collaboratively.

Section 2: factors that influence—and support mechanisms for—teacher self-efficacy in a context of reform

High Teacher Self-Efficacy is a contributing factor to teachers’ likelihood to overcome obstacles and respond positively to change (Bandura, 2006). Therefore, acknowledging factors that can influence TSE and implementing support mechanisms becomes essential for teacher success during reform. In the next sections, the two research questions are reported on from an analysis of the 32 studies using Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986a) as the framework.

What factors within environmental, personal/cognitive, and behavioural determinants influence TSE in a context of reform?

In response to RQ1, Table 3 summarises the factors influencing TSE during reform. In the studies, there were more instances of factors lowering TSE (N = 66, 25 studies) than supporting high TSE development (N = 29, 18 studies) in contexts of educational reform. Four studies reported one factor influencing TSE, whilst 28 studies highlighted multiple influencing factors operating concurrently. These factors are discussed below, with the text organised in line with Table 3 and in the following order: (1) environmental, (2) personal/cognitive, (3) behavioural.

Table 3 Environmental, personal/cognitive and behavioural factors’ influence on TSE in a context of reform
Full size table

The analysed studies reported four factors within the environment that can lead to higher TSE belief during educational reform (see Table 3). School/university provision of quality training and materials to support reform implementation was the most cited factor strengthening TSE (n = 8). These studies indicated that ITE programs with reform-focussed curricula (Ahsan et al., 2013; Barros et al., 2014; Gleeson et al., 2015; Ogan-Bekiroglu, 2009; Robertson & Al-Zahrani, 2012; Romero-Contreras et al., 2013), school-based PL for teachers (Johnson et al., 1999; Romero-Contreras et al., 2013) and teaching resources (Ahsan et al., 2013) supported the development of high TSE.

When considering the factors which lower TSE during reform, the prevalence of environmental determinants was notable. When pre-service or practising teachers perceive that their environment is not supporting them to confidently implement reform, their TSE is lowered. This was apparent in 15 studies that reported School/university not supporting teachers’ implementation of reform as a factor influencing TSE. Thirteen of the 15 studies involved pre-service teachers (n = 10) and beginning teachers in their first year (n = 3). In these studies, participants indicated that Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programs did not provide an environment conducive to preparing new teachers to teach confidently during reform (Ahsan et al., 2013; Malak, 2013). Increased workload/time constraints were another environmental factor. For example, Saylor and Kerkhoff (2014) found that teachers in North Carolina felt overwhelmed with the workload and lack of instruction time to achieve expected student outcomes, and Fontaine et al. (2011), in Canada, found that beginning teachers felt ill-prepared to deliver new assessment regimes concomitantly with their regular teaching workloads. Technology reform was also attributed to increased workload and consequential lack of time to learn how to use new tools, resulting in a negative impact on TSE (Liang et al., 2006).

Other environmental determinants, with both positive and negative influences on TSE, included school leadership (n = 4) and student engagement (n = 3). For example, Gonzalez et al. (2017) and Min (2019) found that TSE varied depending on how valued and supported school leaders made their teachers feel. Concerning student engagement, studies by Charalambous and Philippou (2010) and Forlin et al. (2010) found that where students held negative attitudes towards new pedagogies and inclusive practices respectively, teachers’ self-efficacy suffered. However, where students positively engaged in newly introduced constructivist approaches (Cerit, 2019), teachers were more willing to implement change confidently, thus TSE was positively affected.

The remaining factors categorised as environmental determinants affecting TSE were disparate and specific to a small number of studies. These factors included: high-stakes assessment (n = 3), crowded classrooms (n = 2), new technology (n = 1) and gender discrimination (n = 1) (negative factors) and collaboration with colleagues (n = 2) (positive factor).

As well as environmental, personal/cognitive determinants can influence TSE during reform. As shown in Table 3, studies (n = 7) revealed that teachers who had experience and expertise in the domain being reformed felt more confident and had higher TSE (Forlin et al., 2010; Lambe, 2007; Robertson & Al-Zahrani, 2012; Romero-Contreras et al., 2013). In contrast to this, the most frequent personal/cognitive determinant found to lower TSE was expertise and experience teaching in the pre-reform system (n = 7). Charalambous and Philippou (2010) explained this phenomenon—“teachers who were more comfortable with pre-reform approaches tended to be more critical of the reform” (p. 14). Personal/Cognitive determinants also included factors such as not enough experience teaching the new requirements and influence of other teachers’ negative and positive responses as influencing TSE (Barros et al., 2014; Forlin et al., 2010; Pešková et al., 2019; Lambe, 2007; Min, 2019).

Another factor within personal/cognitive determinants that had a varied impact on TSE is pre-tertiary educational experiences (n = 6). For example, Ahsan et al.’s (2013) study in Bangladesh revealed that where pre-service teachers had prior educational experiences before entering ITE and teaching, they were more likely to have higher self-efficacy. However, Lambe’s (2007) study in Northern Ireland found that even though inclusivity was a major reform, it was difficult to realise because of the entrenched beliefs and already present religious tensions formed during individuals’ schooling years.

Finally, understanding and using legislative documents (n = 3) increased TSE. Other personal/cognitive determinants of Insecurity and Anxiety (n = 4) and concern about the impact of reform on students (n = 3) had a negative influence. Studies by Barros et al. (2014), Forlin et al. (2010), McCormick et al. (2006) and Putwain and von der Embse (2019) found that when in-service teachers were faced with curriculum and inclusive education reform, they became insecure and anxious about their teaching, thus negatively impacting their TSE.

Behavioural determinants affecting TSE were limited to two studies. Cerit (2019) discovered that in schools where reform adoption was unsuccessful there was a higher instance of teachers with lower TSE. This lower TSE correlated with active refusal to implement the stipulated changes. This could be interpreted that the teachers placed no value on the change process (P/C). In contrast, in Barros et al.’s (2014) study where teachers planned and implemented curriculum reform, TSE was higher perhaps because there was improved knowledge and understanding (P/C). Both studies are examples of where behavioural determinants influence personal/cognitive determinants.

In summary and responding to RQ1, it became obvious that environmental determinants can be particularly influential in both supporting and lowering TSE during reform. Dominant factors included school and/or ITE provision of quality PL opportunities, resourcing, and time-release to implement new agendas. Other less frequently reported factors included opportunities to work collaboratively with colleagues, strong leadership, and bringing students on the change journey. Notably, however, 17 of these studies reported that despite the number of factors that could lower TSE, when TSE was quantitatively measured using scales, it remained high. Therefore, factors that negatively influence TSE do not necessarily equate to low TSE, just lower.

RQ2: How can teacher self-efficacy be supported in a context of reform?

Based on the literature in this review, Table 4 tabulates various support mechanisms that have been implemented by schools, universities, and governments during reform. The findings are organised according to Table 4 and numerical counts of papers.

Table 4 Support mechanisms needed to support highly self-efficacious teachers during reform
Full size table

Most studies suggested that school-based PL can help strengthen TSE during reform (n = 22). Opportunities for PL include small group collaboration and mentoring initiatives (n = 12), information sessions (n = 10), classroom observations (n = 4), one-on-one help (n = 3) and support from psychologists (n = 2). Eight studies reported that more than one of these PL activities was needed. Putwain et al. (2015), for example, suggested a combination of information sessions, emotional support, and collaboration/mentoring initiatives to develop TSE and reduce stress.

Several studies pointed out the importance of support mechanisms needed in ITE during reform. Approaches included specifically designing ITE curriculum to include subjects in the domains being reformed (n = 19), for example curriculum, assessment, or inclusive education. Additionally, eight studies emphasised providing opportunities for completing professional experience where reforms are being implemented. These studies pointed out the significance of the theory–practice nexus; that is, ITE programs and practicums working in tandem to develop TSE. These mechanisms in ITE are focussed on supporting pre-service teachers’ knowledge and experience (personal/cognitive).

The final group of papers reported that TSE could be developed if there were improvements in the broader environment. These included a slower pace of change (n = 4), teacher involvement in reform decision-making (n = 3), improved school facilities and smaller class sizes (n = 1), and further reform of standardised testing (n = 1). For example Pešková et al. (2019) found that teachers were more likely to accept change when implemented slowly.

Whilst nine studies focussed on the implementation of a single support mechanism in one location (i.e. school or university) (Ahsan et al., 2013; McCormick et al., 2006), 16 studies noted that support was needed across school PL, ITE, and/or the broader reform environment. For example, Saylor and Kerkhoff (2014) suggested that beginning teachers implementing top-down curriculum change desired quality ITE subjects addressing reform, mentoring within schools, and slow implementation of curriculum change.

In summary, and responding to RQ2, the literature revealed that there are various support mechanisms needed to improve pre-service and in-service teachers’ knowledge (P/C) during change. These mainly focussed on PL, course design/structure in ITE, or positive environmental conditions (E). It is also interesting to note that no support mechanisms are explicitly designed to change teacher behaviour, but the model of triadic reciprocality assumes that a change in P/C and/or E determinants will also impact teachers’ behaviours (B). Furthermore, authors agreed that to achieve successful reform/change, more than one approach across multiple sites and determinants is needed to support high TSE.

To take this analysis further, the support mechanisms mentioned above, classified using SCT, are now examined using Bandura’s (1977) four sources of self-efficacy which are mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and emotional arousal. This is summarised in Table 5.

Table 5 SCT juxtaposed with the four sources of self-efficacy
Full size table

As shown in Table 5, support mechanisms with a focus on knowledge (P/C) provide more opportunities for the four sources of TSE to be activated. The only support mechanism from the literature that fulfils all four sources of TSE is professional experience in the domain being reformed. Studies that recommended this mechanism revealed that when pre-service teachers and supervising teachers work together in classrooms, new practices can be trialled. For example, Ahsan et al. (2013), Forlin et al. (2010), Lambe (2007) and Malak (2013) maintain that pre-service teachers on practicums that offer effective inclusive practices are given opportunities for mastery experiences in inclusivity, thus promoting their confidence and leading to a positive cycle of TSE. Additionally, these pre-service teachers have vicarious experiences as they watch their supervising teachers role model inclusivity in action. Moreover, where supervising teachers give positive feedback (social/verbal persuasion), confidence is instilled, and negative emotional reactions may be mitigated (emotional arousal).

Four support mechanisms categorised as environmental determinants positively impact teachers’ emotions which can be high during change. By improving conditions to foster positive experiences, teachers may feel less stress and anxiety about change and a greater sense of agency, resulting in positive emotional experiences. It is noteworthy that here the findings reveal emotional arousal as the most frequently enacted. However, according to Bandura (1977), emotional arousal has the least impact on TSE. In response to the findings of this systematic review, the next section provides several recommendations to leaders to support teachers during reform.

Conclusion and recommendations

This paper has presented a systematic review of the academic literature related to TSE during reform. Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and were analysed in-depth. These studies were geographically diverse with slightly more situated in the global west. Four types of reform were revealed: curriculum reforms, for example, changes in the content of Irish mathematics curriculum documents (Ní Fhloinn et al., 2018), assessment reforms, for example, implementation of high-stakes examinations in America (Gonzalez et al., 2017), inclusive education reform in Mexico as a result of changes in UNESCO policy in relation to human rights (Forlin et al., 2010), and technology reform, for example the integration of ICT into schools in Saudi Arabia (Robertson & Al-Zahrani, 2012). When the factors affecting TSE were categorised according to SCT, most studies reported factors situated within the environment. Twenty-eight of the 32 studies reported factors that reduce TSE during reform. This means that support mechanisms are needed to help teachers and pre-service teachers navigate a reform environment, especially where mastery experiences are lacking because the reform is new.

At the onset of this paper, the authors outlined their impetus for doing this review: their current working context. For this final section, based on what they have learned, they make several recommendations that could be applied to their local context, or any other reform context.

First, with regards to ITE, the literature spells out that universities and schools need to work together to include professional experiences where opportunities for the four sources of self-efficacy can be realised. Furthermore, pre-service teachers must be versed in the reforms taking place and be given time for reflection. Additionally, the current authors recommend that university courses could include knowledge about change models so that pre-service teachers have an appreciation of the effects of change. Being able to theorise change enables pre-service teachers (and teachers) to understand change/reform so they can engage deeply and critically.

Second, related to schools, the literature emphasises that leaders must include multiple forms of PL for their teachers, for example, PL on the domain being reformed. It is also clear that schools need to offer mentoring, and emotional support mechanisms. By enhancing teachers’ knowledge of the reform, and allowing time for effective implementation of new requirements, teachers will feel supported to positively enact change and maintain, if not increase, their TSE. There is also evidence arising from this review to suggest time-release/induction should be a priority for beginning teachers so they can successfully navigate the domains being reformed. With regards to the student body, they should be given a voice in change processes where appropriate.

Of course, to enable change, government bodies need to support teacher educators, school leaders, and teachers to keep abreast of what is happening. For example, in the writers’ current context the local curriculum authority has been proactive in conducting PL for all stakeholders involved. Academics were invited to undertake research to inform the change process and all teachers were invited to partake in surveys at multiple stages of syllabus revision. From a research perspective, given the accelerating frequency and impacts of reform on TSE, more studies of the influence of education reform on TSE in varied locations including regional and rural areas are needed. This study has exposed the paucity of research in this field. Change by its very nature is uncertain so teachers and pre-service teachers need to be supported during these uncertain times.