Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative examination of Canadian and American pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for literacy instruction

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explored Canadian and American pre-service elementary teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for literacy instruction, as well as the contextual factors (i.e., course and field experiences) that contribute to these self-efficacy beliefs. Survey data were collected over a two-year period at the beginning and end of a required elementary literacy methods course that assessed pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy for literacy instruction. A content analysis of the American and Canadian literacy methods course syllabi was also conducted. Paired t test results showed no significant difference in pre-service teachers’ literacy teaching self-efficacy scores from pre-test to post-test; however, there was a significant difference in the pre-service teachers’ literacy efficacy beliefs related to oral reading from the beginning to the end of the course. A weak negative correlation was found between the Canadian pre-service teachers’ total Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy for Literacy Instruction (TSELI; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2011) scores and their teaching experience specific to literacy instruction, r = − .1, p = .04. There was a positive correlation between Canadian pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy scores related to engagement and differentiated instruction and their volunteer and work experiences. A positive correlation existed between Canadian and American pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy for reading/writing connections and university coursework related to literacy instruction. Implications for literacy teacher educators and recommendations for literacy instruction are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Otaiba, S., Lake, V. E., Greulich, L., Folsom, J. S., & Guidry, L. (2012). Preparing beginning reading teachers: An experimental comparison of initial early literacy field experiences. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(1), 109–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armor, D. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles minority schools (Report No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

  • Ashton, P. T., Webb, R. B., & Doda, N. (1983). A study of teachers’ sense of efficacy (Final Report, National Institute of Education Contract No. 400-79-0075). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 231 834).

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory, Prentice-Hall series in social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, S. M., Eslami, Z. R., Joshi, R. M., Slattery, G. P., Jr., & Hammer, J. (2016). Perceptions and knowledge of literacy constructs by elementary school teachers of ELLs. The Educational Forum, 80(1), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostock, L., & Boon, H. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ literacy self-efficacy and literacy competence. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 22(1), 19–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cakiroglu, E. (2008). The teaching efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers in the USA and Turkey. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(1), 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network (CLLRN). (2009). National strategy for early literacy: A summary report. London, ON: CLLRN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carreker, S., Joshi, M., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2010). Spelling-related teacher knowledge: The impact of professional development on identifying appropriate instructional activities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 148–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CAST. (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caudle, L. A., & Moran, M. J. (2012). Changes in understandings of three teachers’ beliefs and practice across time: Moving from teacher preparation to in-service teaching. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 33(1), 38–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, S. (2016). An exploratory study examining the influence of the number of reading methods courses on pre-service and in-service teacher perceptions of ability to teach reading. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(2), 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2016). Key shifts in English language arts. Retrieved from: http://www.corestandards.org/.

  • Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2009). Key factors to support literacy success in school-aged populations. Canadian Education Statistics Council. ISBN 978-0-88987-191-5.

  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson Group. (2014). The framework. Retrieved from http://www.danielsongroup.org/framework/.

  • Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, A. M., & Atkinson, T. S. (2001). Learning to teach struggling (and nonstruggling) elementary school readers: An analysis of pre-service teachers’ knowledge. Reading Research and Instruction, 41(1), 83–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enochs, L. G., Smith, P. L., & Huinker, D. (2000). Establishing factorial validity of the mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 194–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feifer, S. G., Nader, R. G., Flanagan, D. P., Fitzer, K. R., & Hicks, K. (2014). Identifying specific reading disability subtypes for effective educational remediation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(1), 18–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher self-efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 627–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haverback, H. R., & Parault, S. J. (2008). Pre-service reading teacher efficacy and tutoring: A review. Educational Psychology Review, 20(3), 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haverback, H. R., & Parault, S. J. (2011). High efficacy and the preservice reading teacher: A comparative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 703–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfrich, S. R., & Clark, S. K. (2016). A comparative examination of pre-service teacher self-efficacy related to literacy instruction. Reading Psychology, 37(7), 943–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, E. H., & Mesmer, H. A. E. (2013). Upping the ante of text complexity in the Common Core State Standards: Examining its potential impact on young readers. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 44–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoddinott, J., Lethbridge, L., & Phipps, S. (2002). Is history destiny? Resources, transitions and child education attainments in Canada: Final report. Ottawa, ON: Human Resources Development Canada, Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Dyslexia Association. (2010). Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading. Baltimore, MD: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Literacy Association. (2017). International Literacy Association’s 2017 standards for the preparation of literacy professionals. Newark, DE; Urbana, IL: Authors.

  • International Literacy Association and National Council of Teachers of English. (2017). Literacy teacher preparation [Research advisory]. Newark, DE; Urbana, IL: Authors.

  • International Reading Association. (2010). Standards for reading professionals—Revised 2010. Newark, DE: Authors.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leader-Janssen, E. M., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2013). Preservice teachers’ content knowledge and self-efficacy for teaching reading. Literacy Research and Instruction, 52(3), 204–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Learning Disabilities Association of Niagara Region. (2017). Programs. Retrieved from http://ldaniagara.org/programs/.

  • Lipp, J., & Helfrich, S. R. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ growth in understandings of best practice literacy instruction through paired course and field experience. Reading Horizons (Online), 55(2), 44–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmberg, L. E., Hagger, H., & Webster, S. (2014). Teachers’ situation-specific mastery experiences: Teacher, student group and lesson effects. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29(3), 429–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloch, B., Flint, A., Eldridge, D., Harmon, J., Loven, R., Fine, J., et al. (2003). Understanding, beliefs, and reported decision making of first-year teachers from different reading teacher preparation programs. The Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 431–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGhie-Richmond, D., Irvine, A., Loreman, T., Cizman, J. L., & Lupart, J. (2013). Teacher perspectives on inclusive education in rural Alberta. Canada. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 195–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self-and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(4), 379–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. (2014). What teachers don’t know and why they aren’t learning it: addressing the need for content and pedagogy in teacher education. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 19(2), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2012 reading report card. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2015 reading report card. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Educational Statistics. (2013). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from the 2011–12 schools and staffing survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of English and International Reading Association. (1996). Standards for the English language arts . Urbana, IL, & Newark, DE: Authors.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Report of blue ribbon panel on clinical preparation and partnerships for improved student learning. Washington, DC.: NCATE.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NVivo 11. (2017). Qualitative data analysis computer software. Doncaster, VIC: QSR International Pty Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okumus, F., & Wong, K. K. (2007). A content analysis of strategic management syllabi in tourism and hospitality schools. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 7(1), 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ontario Ministry of Education. (2006). The Ontario curriculum grades 1–8: Language revised. Toronto, ON: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Retallick, M. S., & Miller, G. (2010). Teacher preparation in career and technical education: A model for developing and researching early field experiences. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 25(1), 62–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, M. (2012). The challenges of supporting new teachers: A conversation with Linda Darling-Hammond. Educational Leadership, 69(8), 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 611–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spear-Swerling, L., Brucker, P. O., & Alfano, M. P. (2005). Teachers’ literacy-related knowledge and self-perceptions in relation to preparation and experience. Annals of Dyslexia, 55(2), 266–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SPSS Software. (2012). PASW statistics. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada. (2009). Literacy counts. Ottawa, ON: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 171–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17), 137–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theoharis, G., & Causton-Theoharis, J. (2011). Preparing pre-service teachers for inclusive classrooms: Revising lesson-planning expectations. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(7), 743–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Johnson, D. (2011). Exploring literacy teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: Potential sources at play. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 751–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of professional commitment. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 303–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washburn, E. K., Binks-Cantrell, E. S., Joshi, R. M., Martin-Chang, S., & Arrow, A. (2016). Preservice teacher knowledge of basic language constructs in Canada, England, New Zealand, and the USA. Annals of dyslexia, 66(1), 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Hospitality, and Continuing Studies, Widener University, 1 University Place, Chester, PA, 19013, USA

    Katia Ciampa

  2. Department of Teacher Education, Brock University, Saint Catharines, Canada

    Tiffany L. Gallagher

Authors
  1. Katia Ciampa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tiffany L. Gallagher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katia Ciampa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ciampa, K., Gallagher, T.L. A comparative examination of Canadian and American pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for literacy instruction. Read Writ 31, 457–481 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9793-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9793-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation