Advertisement

European Journal of Psychology of Education

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 299–322 | Cite as

Teacher self-efficacy as a long-term predictor of instructional quality in the classroom

  • Josef Künsting
  • Victoria Neuber
  • Frank Lipowsky
Article

Abstract

In this longitudinal study, we examined teachers’ self-efficacy as a long-term predictor of their mastery goal orientation and three dimensions of instructional quality: supportive classroom climate, effective classroom management, and cognitive activation. Mastery goal orientation was also analyzed as a predictor of instructional quality. Teachers’ optimism, engagement, and strain were assessed to gain information about the construct validity of the scales on self-efficacy and mastery goal orientation. We analyzed the self-report data of 203 German in-service teachers who participated in all of three time points of assessment (the years 2001, 2008, and 2011). Confirmatory factor analyses supported the assumed three-dimensionality of instructional quality. Teacher self-efficacy was found to be relatively stable and to be a long-term predictor of instructional quality as indicated by the results of latent variable modeling. Moreover, instructional quality is predicted by mastery goal orientation, which in turn is regressed on self-efficacy. As supported also by bias-corrected bootstrapping, mastery goal orientation partially mediated the relationship between classroom climate and self-efficacy. Results and an outlook for future research are discussed.

Keywords

Teacher self-efficacy Instructional quality Mastery goal orientation Measurement invariance Stability Longitudinal prediction Mediation 

References

  1. Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2005). Classroom climate. In S. W. Lee, P. A. Lowe, & E. Robinson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of school psychology (pp. 88–90). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332. doi: 10.1007/BF02294359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86–95. doi: 10.1177/088840649401700203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  7. Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology , 99, 274–284. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274.
  8. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: New developments and techniques (pp. 269–296). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  11. Baumert, J., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Dubberke, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., et al. (2009). Professionswissen von Lehrkräften, kognitiv aktivierender Mathematikunterricht und die Entwicklung von mathematischer Kompetenz (COACTIV): Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente [Professional knowledge of teachers, cognitively activating math lessons, and the development of mathematical competence (COACTIV): Documentation of the scales]. Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung.Google Scholar
  12. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers' mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133–180. doi: 10.3102/0002831209345157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bollen, K. A., & Long, S. (Eds.). (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Bong, M. (2006). Asking the right question. How confident are you that you could successfully perform these tasks? In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 287–305). Greenwich: Information Age.Google Scholar
  15. Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychological Review, 15, 1–40. doi: 10.1023/A:1021302408382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Borich, G. D. (2007). Effective teaching methods: Research-based practice (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Brophy, J. E. (2000). Teaching. Brussels: International academy of education / International Bureau of Education (IAE).Google Scholar
  18. Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 239–253. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Butler, R. (2007). Teachers’ achievement goal orientations and associations with teachers’ help-seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 241–252. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Campbell, J., Kyriakidis, L., Muijs, D., & Robinson, W. (2004). Assessing teacher effectiveness: Developing a differentiated model. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carver, C., Scheier, M., & Segerstrom, S. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 879–889. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chen, F. F., Sousa, K. H., & West, S. G. (2005). Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 471–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cousins, J. B., & Walker, C. A. (2000). Predictors of educators’ valuing of systemic inquiry in schools. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation (Special Issue), 25–52.Google Scholar
  27. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Dicke, T., Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Kunter, M., Schmeck, A., & Leutner, D. (2014). Self-efficacy in classroom management, classroom disturbances, and emotional exhaustion: A moderated mediation analysis of teacher candidates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 569–583. doi: 10.1037/a0035504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: An introduction to statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  31. Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling , 8, 430–457. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5.
  32. Evans, E., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Evertson, C. (1989). Classroom organization and management. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 59–70). Toronto: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  34. Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493–541). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63–69. doi: 10.1016/0742-051X(88)90025-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627–643. doi: 10.3102/00028312031003627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology , 43, 495–513.Google Scholar
  39. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 638–645. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hattie, J. C. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  42. Henson, R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 137–150. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3703_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 774–786. doi: 10.1037/a0032198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117–144. doi: 10.1080/03610739208253916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 21–43. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Klieme, E., Schümer, G., & Knoll, S. (2001). Mathematikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I: Aufgabenkultur und Unterrichtsgestaltung. [Mathematics instruction at secondary level. Task culture and instructional design]. In Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (Ed.), TIMSS-Impulse für Schule und Unterricht. Forschungsbefunde, Reforminitiativen, Praxisberichte und Video-Dokumente (pp. 43–57). Munich: Medienhaus Biering.Google Scholar
  48. Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  49. Kline, P. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kounin, J. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  51. Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research, 9, 231–251. doi: 10.1007/s10984-006-9015-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lanahan, L., McGrath, D. J., McLaughlin, M., Burian-Fitzgerald, M., & Salganik, L. (2005). Fundamental problems in the measurement of instructional processes: Estimating reasonable effect sizes and conceptualizing what is important to measure. The American Institutes for Research website. http://www.air.org/files/AERA2005Fundamental_Problems11.pdf. Retrieved 2011.09.12.
  53. Lipowsky, F. (2003). Wege von der Hochschule in den Beruf – Eine empirische Studie zum beruflichen Erfolg von Lehramtsabsolventen in der Berufseinstiegsphase. [Ways from the college into the job – An empirical study on occupational success of teaching profession degree holders during teacher career entry]. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  54. Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Klieme, E., Reusser, K., & Pauli, C. (2009). Quality of geometry instruction and its short-term impact on students’ understanding of the Pythagorean Theorem. Learning and Instruction, 19, 527–537. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  56. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big-five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491. doi: 10.1037/a0019227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 568–592. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. doi: 10.1007/BF02294825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Midgley, C. (Ed.). (2002). Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 395–436). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  61. Mortimer, J. T., Finch, M. D., & Kumka, D. (1982). Persistence and change in development: The multidimensional self-concept. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 263–313). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  62. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2011). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  64. Parkay, F., Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S., & Proller, N. (1988). A study of the relationships among teacher efficacy, locus of control, and stress. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21, 13–22.Google Scholar
  65. Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38, 109–119. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09332374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008a). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008b). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder (Eds.), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13–54). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1992). Contextual effects on the self- perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Retelsdorf, J., Butler, R., Streblow, L., & Schiefele, U. (2010). Teachers' goal orientations for teaching: Associations with instructional practices, interest in teaching, and burnout. Learning and Instruction, 20, 30–46. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17, 51–65. doi: 10.3102/00346543068002202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. D. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of randomized field trial. Journal of Educational Research, 101, 50–60. doi: 10.3200/JOER.101.1.50-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schmitz, G., & Schwarzer, R. (2000). Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung von Lehrern: Längsschnittbefunde mit einem neuen Instrument. [Self-efficacy of teachers: Longitudinal results with a new instrument]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 14, 12–25. doi: 10.1024//1010-0652.14.1.12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analyses. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 152–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G. S., & Daytner, G. T. (1999). The teacher self-efficacy scale. Available at: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/teacher_se.htm. (last retrieve Sept. 2015).
  76. Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77, 454–499. doi: 10.3102/0034654307310317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 611–625. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education , 26, 1059–1069. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001.
  79. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2013). Teachers' perceptions of the school goal structure: Relations with teachers' goal orientations, work engagement, and job satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 199–209. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2013.0 9.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114, 68–77. doi: 10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Slavin, R. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  82. Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90. doi: 10.1086/209528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stefanou, K. C., Perenceivich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39, 97–110. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3902_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tschannen-Moran, M., & McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110, 228–245. doi: 10.1086/605771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944–956. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(0 1)00036-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research , 68, 202–248. doi: 10.3102/00346543068002202.
  88. Turner, J. C., Cox, K. E., DiCintio, M., Meyer, D. K., Logan, C., & Thomas, C. (1998). Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 730–745. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Petzel, T. (1999). Arbeitsbelastung und gesundheitliche Beschwerden von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern: Einflüsse von Kontrollüberzeugungen, Mobbing und Sozialer Unterstützung. [Teachers‘ job strain und health disorders: Effects of control beliefs, bullying, and social support]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 46, 269–280.Google Scholar
  90. Wheatley, K. F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 747–766. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In K. J. Bryant, M. Windle, & S. G. West (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281–324). Washington, DC: APA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wolters, C., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 181–193. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke-Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343–356. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Davis, H. A. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the achievement of adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 117–138). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  95. Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Kurz, N. M. (2008). Teacher’s academic optimism: The development and test of a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 821–835. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862. doi: 10.3102/00028312031004845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josef Künsting
    • 1
  • Victoria Neuber
    • 2
  • Frank Lipowsky
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Educational ScienceUniversity of Regensburg, PPSRegensburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Educational Science, FB01University of KasselKasselGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Educational Science, FB01University of KasselKasselGermany

Personalised recommendations