Advertisement

Educational Research for Policy and Practice

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 67–77 | Cite as

The roles of teacher efficacy in instructional innovation: its predictive relations to constructivist and didactic instruction

  • Youyan NieEmail author
  • Gim Hoon Tan
  • Albert Kienfie Liau
  • Shun Lau
  • Bee Leng Chua
Article

Abstract

Constructivist instruction has been implemented in the current instructional innovation in Singapore. Large scale survey study was conducted to examine the roles of teacher efficacy in implementing the innovative constructivist instruction. The results showed that the positive correlation between teacher efficacy and constructivist instruction was stronger than the correlation between teacher efficacy and didactic instruction. The study suggests that policy makers and school leaders should try to improve teacher’s efficacy beliefs so that innovative instruction could be effectively implemented by school teachers.

Keywords

Teacher efficacy Constructivist instruction Didactic instruction Instructional innovation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allinder R. M. (1994) The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education 17: 86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura A. (1994) Self-efficacy. In: Ramachaudran V. S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior. Academic Press, New York, pp 71–81Google Scholar
  3. Bandura A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown A. L., Palincsar A. S. (1989) Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In: Resnick L. B. (Ed.), Cognition and instruction: Issues and agendas. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 393–451Google Scholar
  5. Cantrell S. C., Callaway P. (2008) High and low implementers of content literacy instruction: Portraits of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education 24: 1739–1750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chua S. K. C. (2009) Futuristic schools: “Little Red Dot” strategies in a globalised economy. International Journal of Learning 16: 393–404Google Scholar
  7. Cohen J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  8. Friedman I. A., Kass E. (2002) Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-organisation conceptualisation. Teaching and Teacher Education 18: 675–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fullan M. (2001) The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Ghaith G., Yaghi H. (1997) Relationship among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes towards the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education 13: 451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guskey T. R. (1988) Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education 4: 63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guthrie J. T., Van Meter P., Hancock G. R., Alao S., Anderson E., McCann A. (1998) Does concept-oriented reading instruction increase strategy use and conceptual learning from text?. Journal of Educational Psychology 90: 261–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guthrie J. T., Van Meter P., McCann A. D., Wigfield A., Bennett L., Poundstone C. C., Rice M. E., Faibisch F. M., Hunt B., Mitchell A. M. (1996) Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly 31: 306–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guthrie J. T., Wigfield A., Barbosa P., Perencevich K. C., Taboada A., Davis M. H., Scafiddi N. T., Tonks S. (2004) Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 96: 403–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guthrie J. T., Wigfield A., VonSecker C. (2000) Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 92: 331–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hacker D. J., Tenent A. (2002) Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology 94: 699–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamilton D. T., Moore A. L., Pellegrino J. W. (2001) The motivational and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference?. American Educational Research Journal 38: 611–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hickey L. S., McCaffrey D. F., Stecher B. M., Klein S. P., Robyn A., Bugliari D. (2003) Studying large-scale reforms of instructional practices: An example from mathematics and science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 25: 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luke A., Rahim R. A., Koh K. H., Lau S., Ismail M., Hogan D. (2005) Innovation and enterprise in classroom practice: A discussion of enabling and disenabling pedagogical factors in P5 and S3 classrooms. Centre for Research in Instruction and Practice, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  20. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2009). Report of the Primary Education Review and implementation committee. Retrieved from http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Singapore/Singapore_SERI_2010.pdf.
  21. Mullis I. V. S. (2000) TIMSS 1999 Mathematics items: Released set for eighth grade. International Study Centre, BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. Newmann F. M. et al (1996a) Authentic achievement—restructuring schools for intellectual quality. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  23. Newmann F. M., Marks H. M., Gamoran A. (1996b) Authentic instruction and student performance. American Journal of Education 104: 280–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nie Y., Lau S. (2010) Differential relations of traditional and constructivist instruction to students’ cognition, motivation, and achievement. Learning and Instruction 20: 411–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Palincsar A. S., Brown A. L. (1984) Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 2: 117–175Google Scholar
  26. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). Curriculum and instruction: A 21st century skills implementation guide. http://p21.org/documents/p21-stateimp_curriculuminstruction.pdf.
  27. Perkins D. (1999) The many faces of constructivism. Educational leadership 57(3): 6–11Google Scholar
  28. Saklofske D. H., Michayluk J. O., Randhawa B. S. (1988) Teachers’ efficacy and teaching behaviors. Psychological Reports 63: 407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sharpe L., Gopinathan S. (2002) After effectiveness: New directions in the Singapore school system?. Journal Educational Policy 17: 151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shuell T. J. (1996) Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In: Berliner D. C., Calfree R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. Simon & Schuster Macmillan, New York, pp 726–764Google Scholar
  31. Smerdon B. A., Burkam D. T., Lee V. E. (1999) Access to constructivist and didactic teaching: Who gets it? Where is it practiced?. Teacher College Record 101: 5–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith J. B., Lee V. E., Newmann F. M. (2001) Instruction and achievement in Chicago elementary schools. Consortium on Chicago School Research, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  33. Tan C. (2006) Creating thinking schools through ‘Knowledge and Inquiry’: The curriculum challenges for Singapore. Curriculum Journal 17: 89–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tschannen-Moran M., Woolfolk Hoy A. (2001) Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education 17: 783–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Woolfork A. E., Hoy W. K. (1990) Perspective teachers’ sense of efficacy and believe about control. Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Youyan Nie
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gim Hoon Tan
    • 2
  • Albert Kienfie Liau
    • 1
  • Shun Lau
    • 3
  • Bee Leng Chua
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychological Studies Academic Group, National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Huamin Primary SchoolSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyThe University of Hong KongHong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations