View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Self-Efficacy Development in Student Teachers: The Critical Role of School Placement

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Self-Efficacy Development in Student Teachers: The Critical Role of School Placement
Language: English
Authors: Jason Richard Power (ORCID 0000-0002-9082-7380), Raymond Lynch (ORCID 0000-0001-6617-8133), Kinnari Atit (ORCID 0000-0002-3287-6336)
Source: European Journal of Teacher Education. 2026 49(1):129-151.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Student Teachers, Self Efficacy, Student Placement, Student Experience, Stress Management, Job Satisfaction, Foreign Countries, Student Teaching
Geographic Terms: Ireland
DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2023.2288555
ISSN: 0261-9768
1469-5928
Abstract: This study examines student teachers' self-efficacy development as they complete their first professional placements in a school environment. Teacher Self-efficacy has previously been linked to teacher adaptability, retention within the profession and effectiveness. The current study samples a population of undergraduate and postgraduate student teachers (n = 643) both pre and post two school placements which are contained within their degree program. A repeated cross-sectional design was employed using the Teacher Self-efficacy Scale. The research findings suggest that initial school placement experiences play a key role in the self-efficacy development of student teachers. Self-efficacy reports consistently increased in line with professional experience, as did reports of job satisfaction. Conversely, reports of stress related to classroom management and workload consistently dropped. The complete open data set is linked for potential review and/or future independent use. Implications for the optimisation of teacher education structures are outlined and future research areas are identified.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1503194
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFcdEc830D1dZQyAbVQFb9hAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPpS4EOdZb0h2lRzUwIBEICBmuHNhlwiCG9KZ26s738maKl0ULpoRlbuqEPzAvWqaim2AA9jqBFjv0wakfOQA7OiBJ--8g7ah8WrOVTOI0O-olZSD4rUQqN47nveJftgVb4Cut52bONrARwQxWjxJ1jODAZU_hy36lKY6gKRnez6fyrfR82k9BWLpWylPn70uD2GGiSSpWgLTCeD6PNdqjbBOPzyfycee_Oaa_g=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0190931187;54n01jan.26;2026Jan20.04:56;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0190931187-1">Self-efficacy development in student teachers: the critical role of school placement </title> <p>This study examines student teachers' self-efficacy development as they complete their first professional placements in a school environment. Teacher Self-efficacy has previously been linked to teacher adaptability, retention within the profession and effectiveness. The current study samples a population of undergraduate and postgraduate student teachers (n = 643) both pre and post two school placements which are contained within their degree program. A repeated cross-sectional design was employed using the Teacher Self-efficacy Scale. The research findings suggest that initial school placement experiences play a key role in the self-efficacy development of student teachers. Self-efficacy reports consistently increased in line with professional experience, as did reports of job satisfaction. Conversely, reports of stress related to classroom management and workload consistently dropped. The complete open data set is linked for potential review and/or future independent use. Implications for the optimisation of teacher education structures are outlined and future research areas are identified.</p> <p>Keywords: Self-efficacy; student teacher; stress; job satisfaction, school placement</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-2">1. Introduction</hd> <p>Teacher Self-efficacy, the beliefs teachers hold regarding their ability to influence student learning, has been the subject of considerable study and has been linked with job satisfaction, attrition, teacher stress, teaching effectiveness, and student achievement (Klassen and Tze [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref1">33</reflink>]). High Teacher Self-efficacy can positively affect teachers' beliefs about teaching and instructional techniques (Skaalvik and Skaalvik [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref2">59</reflink>]). These self-efficacy beliefs have been found to influence the goals that teachers set, how they respond to setbacks (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref3">65</reflink>]) and how they respond to curricular reform (McGarr et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref4">42</reflink>]; Power and Sorby [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref5">54</reflink>]). Despite the widespread acknowledgement of the importance of these beliefs, 'little evidence exists about how [teachers'] efficacy beliefs change or solidify across stages of a career' (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref6">65</reflink>], 238). This is especially relevant for student teachers in light of the high rate of attrition within the profession in the degree completion and early career stage (Nguyen et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref7">44</reflink>]). In the quarter century since Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref8">65</reflink>]) identified this need, relatively few studies have examined teacher self-efficacy development, and have instead focused on relationships with stress, retention, and student learning as well as other relevant variables (Kim, Jörg, and Klassen [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref9">26</reflink>]; Klassen and Usher [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref10">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Hoy and Spero (Hoy and Burke Spero [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref11">24</reflink>], 346) note that a 'fairly consistent finding' is that 'personal efficacy for teaching increases during college teacher preparation and student teaching'. Several studies have highlighted the important role that practicum/school placement experiences play in the advancement of student teachers' self-efficacy (Martins, Costa, and Onofre [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref12">41</reflink>]; Palmer [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref13">48</reflink>]). However, in contrast, Lin and Gorrell ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref14">37</reflink>]) note a decrease in student teachers' sense of self-efficacy over the course of their studies and placement. Gurvitch and Metzler ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref15">22</reflink>], 442) also found that 'that efficacy levels that were established through coursework experiences decreased once the field experience portion began'. Gurvitch and Metzler ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref16">22</reflink>], 442) hypothesised that such variances in the findings may be due to disparities in the level of supports provided to students while on placement and/or due to 'fundamental differences of the field experience component within the teacher education program structures'. Therefore, further research is required to explore the relationship between school placement experiences and Student Teacher Self-efficacy across multiple programmes and jurisdictions.</p> <p>The necessity for the current study is based on two key premises: 1.) self-efficacy is linked to a wide range of desirable teacher traits, beliefs and behaviours (Klassen and Tze [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref17">33</reflink>]; Marjolein and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref18">40</reflink>]), and 2.) initial classroom-based experiences influence a wide range of teacher traits, beliefs and behaviours (Klassen and Durksen [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref19">29</reflink>]; Mulholland and Wallace [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref20">43</reflink>]). Although some studies have examined self-efficacy as it pertains to pre-service or student teachers, most utilise a cross-sectional design that is more suited to exploring relationships between factors as opposed to exploring potential developmental influences, such as the research conducted by Carbonneau et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref21">13</reflink>]). Additionally, many studies focus on teacher self-efficacy as it relates to a specific act within teaching such as technology use (Han, Sug Shin, and Yujung [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>]; Lemon and Garvis [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref23">36</reflink>]; Power et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref24">51</reflink>]) which, although useful relative to the specific domain, does not provide insight into the potential development of self-efficacy in pre-service teachers across school placement experiences.</p> <p>Having established that self-efficacy is linked with a myriad of positive teacher traits and behaviours, and having identified an apparent gap in the literature when it comes to examining the development of self-efficacy across school placement periods, this paper aims to explore the development of student teacher self-efficacy as participants engage in their first professional teaching experiences. These preliminary professional experiences are broadly referred to as 'School Placements'. These placements are common within teacher education undergraduate and postgraduate programs globally and typically involve providing formal feedback and mentorship to student teachers as they adopt their professional roles within a school environment.</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-3">1.1. Development of self-efficacy</hd> <p>Social cognitive theory, within which self-efficacy theory is based, offers some insight into the development of self-efficacy across disciplines (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]), however relatively little research has been conducted on the formation of teacher self-efficacy (Labone [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref27">35</reflink>]; Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref28">64</reflink>]). Bandura proposes four primary sources of self-efficacy; <emph>Mastery Experiences, Social Persuasions, Vicarious Experiences, and Physiological State</emph> (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref29">7</reflink>]). Of these, mastery experiences are considered the most potent source of self-efficacy.</p> <p>Mastery experiences refer to previous successful outcomes and inform self-efficacy judgements (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref30">7</reflink>], 80). Self-efficacy judgements based on mastery experiences can be influenced by situational factors, such as perceived task difficulty (Power [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref31">53</reflink>]; Power, Lynch, and McGarr [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref32">52</reflink>]). This highlights the complex nature of the judgements that individuals make when considering their success in a given endeavour (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref33">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Vicarious Experiences are derived from observations of comparable peers as they successfully complete an activity. For example, shadowing an established teacher as they effectively manage a learning environment can result in increased self-efficacy for the student teacher. It is worth noting that this source of self-efficacy is typically more impactful when the individual considers the performance of the person who they are observing to be within their own capabilities if given the chance to develop and practice (Usher and Pajares [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref34">66</reflink>]). If they believe the performance is exceptional and beyond the range of what they could potentially achieve, even with ample time to develop, then the value of this source will be diminished.</p> <p>Social Persuasions refers to experiences where the individual receives feedback from a peer or colleague. The student teacher will frequently experience these types of events through structured and unstructured events within their degree and school placements. An example of a structured feedback session would include a visit from a tutor who would observe their lesson and provide detailed feedback after a lesson in accordance with the set criteria. Unstructured events could include casual conversations with more established colleagues within the school environment or through conversations with other student teachers.</p> <p>Physiological State refers to the ques that an individual's body produces in response to engagement with an activity. These can be perceived as positive or negative based on broader self-efficacy beliefs. For example, as a student teacher engages with their first class of their placement, it is likely that they will experience several physiological ques. They may have an elevated heart rate and sweaty palms. For an individual with relatively high self-efficacy, derived from the previously outlined sources, this may be interpreted as positive excitement. Conversely an individual with relatively low self-efficacy may interpret these ques in a negative manner and experience debilitating stress. This negative impact could then influence performance in the moment leading to a negative spiral. The complex nature of the Physiological State source is outlined by Bandura [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref35">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref36">7</reflink>]) and this complexity is reflected in the ongoing debate related to its utility within self-efficacy theory (Sheu et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref37">58</reflink>]; Usher and Pajares [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref38">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>In examining Teacher Self-efficacy, Malmberg, Hagger, and Webster ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref39">39</reflink>]) focused on situation specific mastery experiences. They found that these experiences were predictive of Teacher Self-efficacy and that increases in classroom experience tended to result in higher reports of Teacher Self-efficacy. This level of granularity aligns with Bandura's [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref40">8</reflink>] guidance regarding scale construction and domain specificity when examining Self-efficacy development. The previously developed, and widely used Teacher Self-efficacy Scale created by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref41">63</reflink>]) reflects this situation-specific focus with a tri-partite model. The scale focuses on efficacy beliefs associated with Student Engagement, Classroom Management, and Instructional Strategies.</p> <p>Although a significant number of studies have linked increased professional experience with increased Teacher Self-efficacy (Gabriele and Joram [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref42">18</reflink>]; Klassen and Ming Chiu [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref43">30</reflink>]; Malmberg, Hagger, and Webster [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref44">39</reflink>]), this positive relation appears to be dependent on several contextual factors (Clark, Byrnes, and Sudweeks [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref45">15</reflink>]; Ghaith and Yaghi [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>]; Hoy and Burke Spero [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref47">24</reflink>]). Mastery experiences can be negatively impacted by a range of environmental factors (Bandura and Locke [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref48">9</reflink>]). Given the complex and varied nature of school systems across regions, countries, and cultures, it is probable that these system variances can have an impact on Self-efficacy beliefs (O'Neill and Stephenson [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref49">45</reflink>]; Svenja, Kunter, and Van de Vijver [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref50">60</reflink>]). Therefore, any link between experience and Teacher Self-efficacy should be considered relative to the environment in which it is being examined. In order to explore the potential influence of the earliest professional experiences, this study focuses on measures of student Teacher Self-efficacy before and after their initial formal experiences of structured school placements, during which the student teachers continually reflect on and evaluate their own performance.</p> <p>Although research examining student Teacher Self-efficacy is comparatively scarce to research examining Teacher Self-efficacy, there are some studies that offer insight into this formative phase of development. For example, research suggests that self-efficacy beliefs are especially malleable within this early stage of teacher development (Pendergast, Garvis, and Keogh [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref51">49</reflink>]). When considering student teachers, Klassen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref52">32</reflink>]) suggested that a focus on specific elements of teacher education programs and their potential influence on Teacher Self-efficacy could enhance the utility of the theory. Subsequent research, employing a rare example of sequential mixed methods design, suggests that self-efficacy increased throughout a practicum experience. However, a considerable level of individual variance was also noted (Klassen and Durksen [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref53">29</reflink>]). Within their qualitative analysis, Klassen and Durksen ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref54">29</reflink>]) suggest that mentor teachers play a critical role in the development of student Teacher Self-efficacy and potentially explain some of the individual variances observed in the quantitative data. Pfitzner-Eden ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref55">50</reflink>]), in considering changes to student Teacher Self-efficacy across different activities, suggests that changes over school placement experiences are predictive of intent to complete courses of study. In a study comparing different student teacher education models, Clark, Byrnes, and Sudweeks ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref56">15</reflink>]) concluded that classroom experiences appeared to be linked to mastery experiences, and as a result were fundamental to the development of student Teacher Self-efficacy. However, the level of explained variance in reports of Teacher Self-efficacy requires further consideration. Subsequent correlational studies have raised further questions regarding the nature of the sources of self-efficacy and have called for a focused examination of components of teacher education programs (Clark and Newberry [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref57">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-4">1.2. Teacher job satisfaction and stress</hd> <p>Teacher job satisfaction is frequently studied alongside teacher stress and self-efficacy. Across a wide range of societies and educational structures, job satisfaction is reported as inversely related to teacher stress and burnout. Similarly, studies have shown consistent links between teachers who report high job satisfaction and high self-efficacy (Klassen et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref58">32</reflink>]). This is reflected in the most widely used research instruments examining self-efficacy which frequently include satisfaction and stress variables for a range of theory building and analytical practicalities (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref59">8</reflink>]; Klassen et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref60">28</reflink>]). From a research design and validity perspective, these examples highlight the utility of job satisfaction when examining the relatively more complex topic of Teacher Self-efficacy.</p> <p>From a broader perspective, job satisfaction has been associated with increased performance (Judge et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref61">25</reflink>]). Within the teaching profession, job satisfaction has also been linked to student and teacher well-being, retention, and teacher effectiveness (Klassen and Tze [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref62">33</reflink>]). In addition, collective efficacy has been found to act as a mediator of teacher stress (Klassen [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref63">27</reflink>]). When examining factors contributing to job satisfaction, Toropova, Myrberg, and Johansson ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref64">62</reflink>]) found that workload and classroom management were relevant contributors. This is reflected in earlier studies that examined the interplay between job satisfaction, stress, and self-efficacy (Klassen and Ming Chiu [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref65">30</reflink>]). Research by Putwain and von der Embse ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref66">57</reflink>]) suggests that teachers who report high levels of self-efficacy are more capable when dealing with stress that has resulted from curriculum change while also being more willing to adopt new practices and curricula.</p> <p>In summary, Teacher Self-efficacy has been linked to a wide range of positive teacher behaviours, capabilities, and beliefs; however, questions remain regarding the development of Teacher Self-efficacy. Noting the importance of early formative student teacher experiences (Pendergast, Garvis, and Keogh [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref67">49</reflink>]) and the need to explore the potential influence of specific elements of program design (Klassen et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref68">32</reflink>]), student teacher school placement experiences are presented as a worthy topic of further study.</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-5">1.3. Aim of the study</hd> <p>A review of over 40 years of research suggests that Teacher Self-efficacy studies have tended to focus on practicing teachers and how their self-efficacy relates to factors, such as burnout, stress, and effectiveness (Marjolein and Koomen [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref69">40</reflink>]). Very few of the 165 eligible studies in the review related to student teachers and none examined potential development within initial school placements. In their review of research examining student teacher development, Ongrsquo and Jwan ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref70">46</reflink>]) highlight the importance of school placement experiences with respect to initial competency development, underlining a distinct gap in the literature surrounding the potential influences of initial school placements on Student Teacher Self-efficacy.</p> <p>Considering this apparent gap in the literature, the current study aims to provide insights regarding the development of Student Teacher Self-efficacy across two school placement experiences. The following research questions reflect this aim:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How, if at all, do reports of Student Teacher Self-efficacy vary across student teachers' initial school placement experience?</item> <p></p> <item> How, if at all, do reports of Student Teacher Self-efficacy vary across student teachers' second and final school placement experience?</item> <p></p> <item> How, if at all, do reports of Student Teacher Self-efficacy vary between Undergraduate and Postgraduate student teachers?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0190931187-6">2. Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0190931187-7">2.1. Participants and procedure</hd> <p>A repeated cross-sectional design was used where participants completed the Teacher Self-efficacy Scale pre and post a prescribed School Placement period as part of their teaching degree programs. All participants were drawn from a population of student teachers who were completing either an undergraduate or postgraduate teaching degree qualification from the same university. This degree would qualify participants to teach in post primary schools (high school). Undergraduate participants engage in a total of two 10-week school placements in the second and fourth year of their 4-year degree. Postgraduate participants also engage in a total of two 10-week school placements in the latter half of their first year and the first half of the second year of their two-year master's degree program. These school placements typically occur in two different schools. Placements within the undergraduate and postgraduate programs follow the same feedback and assessment systems where experienced tutors visit, observe, and provide feedback.</p> <p>The postgraduate programme is a conversion programme for those who have a bachelor's degree in a cognate subject area and wish to qualify as post primary teachers of that subject. Both the undergraduate and postgraduate teacher education programmes follow the same overall school placement structure. Convenience sampling was employed and potential participants were provided with an email linking to a digital version of the survey and all necessary information as well as consent materials. Survey logic design ensured that review and indication of informed consent was provided prior to survey access. These materials were reviewed in advance of circulation and the project was granted ethical clearance [2020_03_49_EHS] by the Education and Health Sciences research ethics committee within the host institution. A breakdown of participants across degree level and placement is presented in Table 1. All participants were completing a teacher education program within a university in the south of Ireland.</p> <p>Table 1. Participant breakdown.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Degree Level</td><td>Total</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Undergrad</td><td>Placement</td><td>Pre School Placement 1</td><td>159</td></tr><tr><td>Post School Placement 1</td><td>125</td></tr><tr><td>Pre School Placement 2</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>Post School Placement 2</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>429</td></tr><tr><td>Postgrad</td><td>Placement</td><td>Pre School Placement 1</td><td>77</td></tr><tr><td>Post School Placement 1</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>Pre School Placement 2</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Post School Placement 2</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>214</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>Placement</td><td>Pre School Placement 1</td><td>236</td></tr><tr><td>Post School Placement 1</td><td>183</td></tr><tr><td>Pre School Placement 2</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>Post School Placement 2</td><td>109</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>643</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0190931187-8">2.2. Instruments</hd> <p>Teacher Self-efficacy was examined using the Teachers' Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES) originally developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref71">63</reflink>]). This scale was selected based on its rigorous development and close alignment to the tenants of self-efficacy theory, relative to its contemporaries Hoy and Burke Spero, ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref72">24</reflink>])). The TSES measures Teacher Self-efficacy using 3 subcomponents including Classroom Management, Student Engagement, and Instructional strategies. Participants responded to the 11 items using a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal). This format is considered the short form TSES and has demonstrated suitable reliability and validity in previous uses (Klassen et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref73">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Job Satisfaction was represented by two items as used by Caprara et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref74">11</reflink>]). These included: 1) 'I am satisfied with what I achieve in work', and 2) 'I feel good at work'. Finally, Stress was measured using six items developed by Boyle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref75">10</reflink>]). A final item related to class size was added to the survey as this factor has been highlighted to be relevant to teacher stress (Gates, Wolverton, and Gmelch [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref76">19</reflink>]), is a matter of ongoing political debate (Department of Education & Skills [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref77">17</reflink>]), and has previously been used within a conceptualisation of teacher stress that demonstrated suitable reliability levels (Klassen and Usher [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref78">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-9">3. Results</hd> <p>The complete dataset, as collected and analysed, is available for review and/or future independent reuse under an Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and to support future meta-analyses (Power [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref79">55</reflink>]) through the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/hs8rm/?view_only=72f9e8cec76544ee9c77c2ab469e02a5</p> <p>Prior to evaluating the data relative to the previously outlined research questions, the structure of the TSES scale (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref80">63</reflink>]) was evaluated using a confirmatory factor analysis (See Figure 1).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Standardised CFA of Self-efficacy model.</p> <p>The chi-square value = 176.308 (<emph>p</emph> <.001) was considered alongside other commonly used fit indicators such as X<sups>2</sups>/df. MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref81">38</reflink>]) suggest that values below 5 indicate a suitable fit, noting the current model value of <emph>X</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><emph>/df</emph> = 4.3. Model fit is further supported by additional fit indices as presented in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2. CFA of Self-efficacy model.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td><italic>X</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>X</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup><italic>/df</italic></td><td><italic>RMSEA</italic></td><td><italic>CFI</italic></td><td><italic>TLI</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>176.308</td><td>41</td><td>4.3</td><td>0.072</td><td>0.954</td><td>0.938</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The <emph>X</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><emph>/df</emph> value of 6.02, in conjunction with the <emph><bold>X</bold></emph><sups><emph><bold>2</bold></emph></sups> value of 78.359, suggests a poor fit for the included stress variables (MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref82">38</reflink>]). The Classroom stress latent variable shows more consistent loading across items. Workload demonstrates less consistent loading. Thus, future use of the TSES for student teachers could consider the design of item WS1: '<emph>How great a source of stress is having too much work to do?'</emph> This is likely due to reduced relevance to the role of the student teacher population of the current study and refinement of the Workload Stress latent variable could potentially benefit from a distinction in the source of the workload (Academic program tasks or teaching tasks). Further optimisation of the scale for student teachers may benefit from redeveloping these four items (WS1–4) to more closely align with the typical workload of a student teacher.</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-10">3.1. How do reports of student teacher self-efficacy vary across the initial school placement...</hd> <p>As shown in Figure 2 the post school placement reports are consistently numerically higher across all components of Self-efficacy and Job Satisfaction. Stress related to classroom and workload were numerically lower.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Pre and post school placement 1.</p> <p>In evaluating the differences outlined in Figure 2, the significance and associated effect sizes should be considered (See Table 4). Model fit statistics for the Classroom and Workload Stress scale are presented in Table 3. A statistically significant increase in Job Satisfaction (<emph>p</emph> <.001) and a corresponding medium effect size (Cohen's <emph>d</emph> =.612) were observed. Similarly, a statistically significant increase in reported Self-efficacy was observed (<emph>p</emph> <.001); however, this increase resulted in a smaller effect size (Cohen's <emph>d</emph> =.424). Although reports of Stress were lower post school placement, these differences were not statistically significantly different (<emph>p</emph> =.057), and this is reflected in the associated effect sizes (Cohen's <emph>d</emph> =.188).</p> <p>Table 4. Pre and post school placement 1.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>t</td><td>df</td><td>Sig.</td><td>Mean Difference</td><td>Std. Error Difference</td><td>Cohen's d</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>6.217</td><td>417</td><td><.001</td><td>.61966</td><td>.09967</td><td>.612</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Management</td><td>5.644</td><td>417</td><td><.001</td><td>.50640</td><td>.08972</td><td>.556</td></tr><tr><td>Student Engagement</td><td>2.641</td><td>417</td><td>.009</td><td>.23913</td><td>.09054</td><td>.260</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Strategies</td><td>1.979</td><td>417</td><td>.048</td><td>.19035</td><td>.09617</td><td>.195</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy Total</td><td>4.308</td><td>417</td><td><.001</td><td>.32302</td><td>.07498</td><td>.424</td></tr><tr><td>Workload Stress</td><td>2.108</td><td>417</td><td>.036</td><td>−.25402</td><td>.12048</td><td>.208</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Stress</td><td>1.222</td><td>417</td><td>.223</td><td>−.15798</td><td>.12932</td><td>.120</td></tr><tr><td>Stress Total</td><td>1.910</td><td>417</td><td>.057</td><td>−.21286</td><td>.11146</td><td>.188</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3. CFA of Classroom and Workload Stress.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td><italic>X</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>X</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup><italic>/df</italic></td><td><italic>RMSEA</italic></td><td><italic>CFI</italic></td><td><italic>TLI</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>78.359</td><td>13</td><td>6.02</td><td>0.088</td><td>0.963</td><td>0.939</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A table outlining the degree of correlations and relative significance for the pre placement 1 sample is presented in Table 5. Significant and large correlations are observed for self-efficacy and its components. Significant medium correlations are observed when considering job satisfaction and self-efficacy. Both components of Stress (Workload <emph>r</emph> =.149, Classroom <emph>r</emph> =.051) demonstrate low correlation values when considering their relationships to self-efficacy.</p> <p>Table 5. Correlation matrix of factors for Pre-placement 1 sample.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Classroom Management</td><td>Student Engagement</td><td>Instructional Strategies</td><td>Self-efficacy Total</td><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>Workload Stress</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classroom Management</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Student Engagement</td><td>.527**</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Instructional Strategies</td><td>.480**</td><td>.568**</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy Total</td><td>.826**</td><td>.856**</td><td>.794**</td><td>–</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>.425**</td><td>.459**</td><td>.391**</td><td>.517**</td><td>–</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Workload Stress</td><td>.056</td><td>.120</td><td>.214**</td><td>.149*</td><td>.074</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Stress</td><td>−.056</td><td>.039</td><td>.173**</td><td>.051</td><td>.113</td><td>.591**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).</p> <p>2 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).</p> <p>Similarly, a correlation matrix for the post school placement 1 sample is presented within Table 6. Similar relations between variables are present in both pre and post placement data.</p> <p>Table 6. Correlation matrix of factors for post-placement 1 sample.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Classroom Management</td><td>Student Engagement</td><td>Instructional Strategies</td><td>Self-efficacy Total</td><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>Workload Stress</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classroom Management</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Student Engagement</td><td>.439**</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Instructional Strategies</td><td>.381**</td><td>.565**</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy Total</td><td>.771**</td><td>.844**</td><td>.785**</td><td>–</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>.527**</td><td>.527**</td><td>.513**</td><td>.653**</td><td>–</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Workload Stress</td><td>−.052</td><td>−.014</td><td>−.047</td><td>−.046</td><td>−.092</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Stress</td><td>−.079</td><td>.012</td><td>−.098</td><td>−.065</td><td>−.109</td><td>.618**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-11">3.2. How do reports of student teacher self-efficacy vary across the initial school placement...</hd> <p>In summary, although not statistically significant, it is perhaps worthwhile noting that reports of stress under the stress factors of Classroom Stress and Workload Stress were found to be lower post participants' initial school placement experience. Correspondingly, there was a statistically significant increase in participants' self-reported levels of Self-Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Classroom Management abilities across their initial school placement.</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-12">3.3. How do reports of student teacher self-efficacy vary across the second and final school...</hd> <p>Similar to student teachers' responses related to school placement 1, there were numerical increases in all components of Self-efficacy and Job Satisfaction when comparing responses pre and post school placement 2 (See Figure 3).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Pre and post school placement 2.</p> <p>The mean comparisons and relative effect sizes for each of these comparisons is outlined in Table 7. Significant increases in Self-efficacy and its components are observed. A significant increase in Job Satisfaction is also observed.</p> <p>Table 7. Pre and post school placement 2.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>t</td><td>df</td><td>Sig.</td><td>Mean Difference</td><td>Std. Error Difference</td><td>Cohen's d</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>3.019</td><td>223</td><td>.003</td><td>.47075</td><td>.15592</td><td>.403</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Management</td><td>2.318</td><td>223</td><td>.021</td><td>.31630</td><td>.13644</td><td>.309</td></tr><tr><td>Student Engagement</td><td>3.527</td><td>223</td><td>.001</td><td>.45326</td><td>.12850</td><td>.470</td></tr><tr><td>Instructional Strategies</td><td>2.678</td><td>223</td><td>.008</td><td>.40158</td><td>.14993</td><td>.357</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy Total</td><td>3.532</td><td>223</td><td>.001</td><td>.38936</td><td>.11025</td><td>.471</td></tr><tr><td>Workload Stress</td><td>.533</td><td>223</td><td>.594</td><td>−.10632</td><td>.19939</td><td>.071</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Stress</td><td>1.043</td><td>223</td><td>.298</td><td>−.25310</td><td>.24271</td><td>.139</td></tr><tr><td>Stress Total</td><td>.891</td><td>223</td><td>.374</td><td>−.16923</td><td>.18992</td><td>.119</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A Pearson correlation matrix outlining correlation size and significance between factors for the pre placement 2 sample is outlined in Table 8.</p> <p>Table 8. Correlation matrix of factors for Pre-placement 2 sample.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Classroom Management</td><td>Student Engagement</td><td>Instructional Strategies</td><td>Self-efficacy Total</td><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>Workload Stress</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classroom Management</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Student Engagement</td><td>.319**</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Instructional Strategies</td><td>.457**</td><td>.567**</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy Total</td><td>.740**</td><td>.806**</td><td>.837**</td><td>–</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>.420**</td><td>.445**</td><td>.390**</td><td>.529**</td><td>–</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Workload Stress</td><td>−.017</td><td>.088</td><td>.182</td><td>.103</td><td>−.122</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Stress</td><td>−.151</td><td>.130</td><td>.035</td><td>.009</td><td>−.082</td><td>.534**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).</p> <p>A Pearson correlation matrix outlining correlation size and significance between factors for the post placement 2 sample is outlined in Table 9.</p> <p>Table 9. Correlation matrix of factors for post-placement 2 sample.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Classroom Management</td><td>Student Engagement</td><td>Instructional Strategies</td><td>Self-efficacy Total</td><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>Workload Stress</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Classroom Management</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Student Engagement</td><td>.390**</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Instructional Strategies</td><td>.587**</td><td>.553**</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy Total</td><td>.840**</td><td>.769**</td><td>.847**</td><td>–</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>.584**</td><td>.315**</td><td>.411**</td><td>.548**</td><td>–</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Workload Stress</td><td>.047</td><td>.217*</td><td>.136</td><td>.154</td><td>−.068</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Classroom Stress</td><td>−.227*</td><td>.155</td><td>.007</td><td>−.048</td><td>−.131</td><td>.505**</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).</item> <item>6 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).</item> </ulist> <p>When considering the Pearson matrices pre and post placement 2, there appears to be an increase in the strength of the relationship between Classroom Management and overall Self-efficacy beliefs. The explained variance for the pre placement (<emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.548) is below the post placement explained variance (<emph>R</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.705). The relationship between overall self-efficacy, workload stress and classroom stress remain insignificant. When considered alongside the CFA presented in Figure 4, it is reasonable to conclude that the construct of stress as represented within this measure, and in the context of the current study, has considerable room for improvement both in terms of internal consistency and predictive value when it comes to examining Student Teacher Self-efficacy.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4. Standardised CFA of Classroom and Workload Stress.</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-13">3.4. How do reports of Student Teacher self-efficacy vary across the second and final school...</hd> <p>Mirroring the findings across the initial school placement experience, on average participants' levels of Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction were found to have increased post their second and final school placement experiences. Although not statistically significant, on average participants' stress levels also witnessed a small numerical decrease over this second school placement experience.</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-14">3.5. How do reports of student teacher self-efficacy vary between undergraduate and postgradu...</hd> <p>Comparisons of Undergraduate and Postgraduate student teachers, prior to and after their first school placement experience, are outlined in Table 10.</p> <p>Table 10. Undergraduate and postgraduate comparisons in SP1.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>t</italic></td><td>df</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Mean Difference</td><td>Std. Error Difference</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pre SP 1</td><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>.173</td><td>234</td><td>.863</td><td>.02516</td><td>.14576</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Self-efficacy Total</td><td>1.316</td><td>234</td><td>.189</td><td>.14420</td><td>.10956</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Stress Total</td><td>.583</td><td>234</td><td>.561</td><td>.08542</td><td>.14662</td></tr><tr><td>Post SP 1</td><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>1.142</td><td>181</td><td>.255</td><td>.17476</td><td>.15301</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Self-efficacy Total</td><td>.668</td><td>181</td><td>.505</td><td>.07678</td><td>.11487</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Stress Total</td><td>.243</td><td>181</td><td>.808</td><td>−.04745</td><td>.19495</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>No significant difference in Job Satisfaction, Self-efficacy or Stress was observed pre or post School Placement 1 when comparing undergraduate and postgraduate student teachers (See Table 11). This suggests that undergraduate and postgraduate teachers are starting from a comparable baseline of self-efficacy beliefs.</p> <p>Table 11. Differences across placements.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>t</italic></td><td>df</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td>Mean Difference</td><td>Std. Error Difference</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pre SP 2</td><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>.754</td><td>113</td><td>.453</td><td>.18095</td><td>.24014</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Self-efficacy Total</td><td>.505</td><td>113</td><td>.615</td><td>.08240</td><td>.16326</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Stress Total</td><td>2.455</td><td>113</td><td>.016</td><td>.62971</td><td>.25646</td></tr><tr><td>Post SP 2</td><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>.782</td><td>108</td><td>.436</td><td>.17337</td><td>.22171</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Self-efficacy Total</td><td>1.158</td><td>108</td><td>.250</td><td>.19075</td><td>.16476</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Stress Total</td><td>1.562</td><td>108</td><td>.121</td><td>.47280</td><td>.30276</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Similarly, no statistically significant differences were observed between undergraduate and postgraduate student teachers pre and post School Placement 2, with the exception of reported Stress prior to School Placement 2 (See Table 11). Postgraduate student teachers reported statistically significantly higher levels of Stress <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref83">113</reflink>) = 2.455, <emph>p</emph> =.016 (<emph>M</emph> = 6.47, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.39) when compared to undergraduate student teachers (<emph>M</emph> = 5.9, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.4) prior to School Placement 2. However, this difference was not evident in comparisons between postgraduate and undergraduate student teachers post School Placement 2. This should be considered alongside the overall drop in reported Stress levels across School Placement 2 outlined in Table 7 and Figure 5.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 5. Comparison of all groups.</p> <p>Figure 5 outlines comparisons between all groups based on experience relative to school placements. T-tests examining potential differences across placement 1 and placement 2 are reported within Table 12. Consistent patterns of increasing Self-efficacy and Job Satisfaction are evident. Conversely reports of stress are consistently lower for the more experienced groups.</p> <p>Table 12. Pre school placement 1 compared with post school placement 2.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>t</td><td>df</td><td>p</td><td>Mean Difference</td><td>Std. Error Difference</td><td>Cohen's d</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Job Satisfaction</td><td>8.290</td><td>344</td><td><.000</td><td>1.01032</td><td>.12187</td><td>.719</td></tr><tr><td>Self-efficacy</td><td>6.434</td><td>344</td><td><.000</td><td>.58927</td><td>.09159</td><td>.509</td></tr><tr><td>Stress</td><td>−3.937</td><td>344</td><td><.000</td><td>−.54753</td><td>.13906</td><td>−.683</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A comparison of the least (pre School Placement 1) and most experienced (post School Placement 2) samples for Job Satisfaction, Self-efficacy, and Stress can be seen in Table 11. The differences between pre school placement 1 and post school placement 2 are consistently significantly different and indicative of a medium effect size (MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref84">38</reflink>]) when considering the associated <emph>Cohen's d</emph> values. These results confirm that Job Satisfaction and Self-efficacy improved with experience and Stress decreases with experience.</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-15">3.6. How do reports of student teacher self-efficacy vary between undergraduate and postgradu...</hd> <p>In summary, the only statistically significant difference between undergraduate and post-graduate participants was observed in the reported level of Stress prior to their second school placement experience. On average, postgraduate students reported higher levels of stress prior to this final placement. It is worth noting again that both undergraduate and postgraduate participants follow a similar school placement structure over the same time periods. Both cohorts reported comparable baseline Student Teacher Self-efficacy levels prior to proceeding out on their first school placement experience.</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-16">3.7. Results summary</hd> <p>Reports of self-efficacy are consistently higher from groups with greater classroom-based experience. Significant increases are observed across school placement 1 and 2. No significant increases are observed in the interval between the end of school placement 1 and the start of school placement 2. This pattern is also evident in reports of job satisfaction. Conversely, reported stress decreases across placement 1 and placement 2. No significant difference in self-efficacy is evident when comparing between undergraduate and postgraduate student teachers at any time point, with the exception of a slight, but significant, increase in reported stress from postgraduate student teachers prior to placement 2.</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-17">4. Discussion</hd> <p>Malmberg, Hagger, and Webster ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref85">39</reflink>], 430) note that 'prior successes – mastery experiences – build a robust basis for personal efficacy while failure undermines it'. The vast majority of student teachers who engage with school placement each year pass their placement experience and thus experience some level of success from a programme assessment perspective. This is also true for the participants in the current study and may, in part, help explain why self-efficacy was shown to be consistently higher after gaining more professional experience. This was also uniformly consistent across the sub factors of Classroom Management, Student Engagement and Instructional Strategies. Akhter et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>], 82) found that if student teachers' 'experiences were positive, self-efficacy was increased, and if their experiences were negative, then self-efficacy was decreased' and that 'student-teachers' self-efficacy levels increased by interacting and assessing students' performance'. This pattern is also reflected in the broader literature (Kim, Jörg, and Klassen [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref87">26</reflink>]; Klassen and Tze [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref88">33</reflink>]; Klassen et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref89">32</reflink>]). The unique contribution of the current study is based on the repeated observations of increased self-efficacy for teaching across two school placement experiences. The vast majority of studies examine Student Teacher Self-efficacy relative to correlates such as job satisfaction or stress, using singular time point cross-sectional designs. The current study provides evidence that highlights the specific potential value of school placement in the development of Teacher Self-efficacy and suggest that school placement experiences eclipse university-based experiences in the cultivation of these essential beliefs regarding teacher competence.</p> <p>In addition to providing essential classroom experience, each participant in this study was assigned a school placement tutor that provided key formative feedback prior to, during, and post their school placement experiences. The student teachers also worked closely with 'co-operating teachers' in their respective schools. As part of this feedback process, key 'medals' (areas of teaching strength) and 'missions' (areas for professional development) are raised and the student teachers are provided with opportunity to remediate any areas of concern. This cycle of feedback is designed specifically to help promote students' pedagogical expertise. Combined with the opportunity to engage directly with students, such feedback presents opportunities for student teachers to recognise 'mastery experiences' (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref90">5</reflink>]) and thus, may contribute to the consistent growth in self-efficacy scores recorded by this study. Our findings align with the work of Taffe and Knipe (Taffe, Richard, and Sally [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref91">61</reflink>], 428) who found 'that practicum has a measurable effect on an individual's sense of personal competence and achievement'. However, this claim also must be put into context, as several authors have noted that student teachers can experience significant anxiety before going on their first school placement (Akhter et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>]; Akinsola [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref93">2</reflink>]; Preece [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref94">56</reflink>]). As highlighted by Goh and Matthews ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref95">21</reflink>], 98) the 'feeling of fear of the unknown and uncertainty would generate both feelings of excitement and anxiety'. The mere experience of engagement with school placement helps remove the 'fear of the unknown' and thus mitigates concerns and promotes student teacher confidence. This was noted by Akinsola ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref96">2</reflink>], 41) who found that 'students were more confident at the second teaching practice and the level of anxiety was lower than at their first teaching practice'.</p> <p>At an individual sub-factor level, the largest mean differences were observed with respect to Student Engagement and Job Satisfaction, with Job Satisfaction demonstrating the largest effect size across School Placement 1(Cohen's <emph>d = 0.612</emph>) and the former, Student Engagement, demonstrating the largest effect size across School Placement 2 (Cohen's <emph>d = 0.470</emph>). In contrast, the area of Classroom Stress demonstrated the highest level of mean decrease between pre- and post-school placement time points. Oral ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref97">47</reflink>]) suggests that concerns around classroom and behaviour management can be a significant source of student teacher anxiety but found that school placement experience 'plays an important role in decreasing their anxiety levels concerning the behavior management and the teaching management' (p. 2909). This is supported by the current study where engagement with school placement corresponded with a reduction in classroom-related teacher stress. The increase in levels of Job Satisfaction across School Placement 1 corresponded with a significant decrease in workload stress and may reflect a reduction in student teacher anxiety due to engaging in their first placement experience. Interestingly, across the second placement experience it was Student Engagement that demonstrated the largest effect size, which may reflect a shift in focus for student teachers with greater focus placed on the engagement of school students during their second placement. This may in part be explained by Fuller's concerns-based model of teacher development (Conway and Clark [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref98">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is clear from this study that engagement with school placement experiences corresponded with a marked increase in student teacher's level of self-efficacy, as well as a reduction in perceived teacher stress. Previous work by Caprara et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref99">12</reflink>], 485) has highlighted that teachers' self-efficacy beliefs can contribute 'significantly to student's achievement'. Consequently, it is essential that programmes of Initial Teacher Education endeavour to promote experiences that can support the advancement of Teacher Self-efficacy. The findings of this study suggest that school placement can be a very important pedagogical experience for student teachers in this regard. However, the authors are not arguing for the unchallenged inclusion of increased or extended exposure to school placement for students. For school placement to have a significant positive influence on student teachers' self-efficacy beliefs, students must be afforded the opportunity to experience success (mastery experiences) while on placement. This is supported by the work of Clark, Byrnes and Sudweeks ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref100">15</reflink>], 180) who suggest 'that simply extending the culminating field-based experience without sufficient mentoring, support, and modelling may be less helpful and less meaningful in building teacher self-efficacy'. Therefore, it is essential that, prior to going on placement, student teachers are provided with the requisite knowledge and skillsets to help them advance as student teachers while on school placement. Such preparatory foundation and professional studies work may result in a temporary increase in student teachers' levels of anxiety prior to school placement as they are presented with the complexities of the professional role of a teacher and potential examples of the challenges they may face while on placement. Such impermanent concerns may be an inevitability for many students as initial teacher educators endeavour to provide them with opportunities to develop the essential resources required to meet the professional demands of school placement. With this in mind, the authors argue that it is essential, where possible, that school placement experiences are incremental in nature and that initial placement experiences are as supportive as possible for students while balancing the needs of the students they are teaching. Student teachers should be provided with timely, formative feedback to give them the opportunity to address shortfalls and learn from any mistakes made. The findings of this study suggest that it is important to build into school placements structured opportunities for students to potentially experience success through the guided support of cooperating teachers and school placement tutors. In the context of this study, these recommendations apply equally to both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes of initial teacher education with no significant difference in self-efficacy found between undergraduate and postgraduate student teachers at any time point.</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-18">5. Conclusions</hd> <p>The current study identified a significant increase in Student Teacher Self-efficacy across both school placement experiences. The largest effect size across the first student placement was with respect to Job Satisfaction and across the second placement was in Student Engagement. The findings suggests that engagement in school placement experiences is integral to the advancement of student teachers' beliefs around their ability to effectively perform their future role as professional teachers and to promote student learning. Given the significant influence that school placement experiences appear to have on Student Teacher Self-efficacy, it is important that such experiences are scaffolded and supported through effective initial teacher education programme design and resourcing. While further research is required to better understand the full causes of the increase in Student Teacher Self-efficacy observed in this study, the work of Bandura ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref101">7</reflink>]) identified four primary sources of self-efficacy, the first three of which may be directly of concern here for programme designers of initial teacher education. <emph>Mastery Experiences</emph> may be purposefully and systematically promoted through the scaffolded introduction and immersion of student teachers in their first school placement experiences. <emph>Social Persuasions</emph> may be advanced through regularised and formalised constructive feedback from experienced cooperating teachers and school placement tutors. It is important that student teachers are inculcated into the process of receiving and engaging with constructive, critical feedback in advance of school placement and that their first experience of such critical feedback on their pedagogy is not in the challenging environment of their first placement. The use of microteaching experiences in advance of school placement may provide students with a safer environment in which to engage with such critical feedback on pedagogy in advance of placement (Arsal [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref102">3</reflink>]). Finally, Vicarious Experiences can be stimulated through the structured inclusion of observations of experienced teachers as part of the school placement experience. Such observations may also support the scaffolded immersion of student teachers into their first school placement experience.</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-19">5.1. Limitations and future research</hd> <p>The between group comparisons within the current design have yielded interesting results and serve to direct future research. However, more sophisticated approaches based on repeated measure longitudinal designs have additional potential value as teacher educators seek to further understand student teachers' beliefs and potential links to their initial professional development. In addition, a mixed methods design could facilitate a deeper understanding of the factors that are impacting these reports. A deductive approach based on the proposed sources of self-efficacy (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref103">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref104">8</reflink>]) is suggested as a potentially fruitful direction. A mixed methods approach has the potential to identify factors linked with the sources of self-efficacy, and by extension allow teacher educators to identify the specific elements of their programs that facilitate Student Teacher Self-efficacy development. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis employed within the current study suggests that the TSES scale (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref105">63</reflink>]) is suitable for use in examining student teachers' self-efficacy beliefs relative to their school placement experiences. However, it is probable that student teachers begin forming self-efficacy beliefs from the start, and possibly before, the commencement of their formal teacher education programs (Pendergast, Garvis, and Keogh [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref106">49</reflink>]). A modified version of the TSES that refined items related to workload stress, as it relates to student teacher workload experiences specifically, could potentially yield program design insights as well as improved reliability. This could facilitate a focus on formative earlier experiences, such as micro-teaching, and provide a mediating variable for use in more complex statistical models.</p> <p>Although a consistent pattern of increased Self-efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and lower reports of Stress, are evident; the identification of mechanisms that may have influenced these developments is beyond the remit of the current study. Additional data related to performance and mentorship experiences have the potential to provide further insight. Data related to performance and experience should be prioritised when considering future designs that seek to explore potential relationships with Teacher Self-efficacy. In addition, internal comparisons between teacher education programs may highlight differences in design or cohort characteristics that could further inform teacher educators as they refine existing program designs. Due to sample size limitations these comparisons were not possible within the current study.</p> <p>While these limitations are noteworthy, the current study provides novel insights into the development of Student Teacher Self-efficacy across an academic program and its multiple school placements. The data suggests that the TSES is both a suitable and useful instrument for future research involving student teachers, with potential for further optimisation in the included stress variables. At a time of considerable change within teacher education, and in the context of growing teacher recruitment and retention challenges (Klassen et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref107">31</reflink>]), a greater understanding of Student Teacher Self-efficacy beliefs is posited as both a valuable and prescient topic worthy of further study.</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-20">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0190931187-21">Data availability statement</hd> <p>The complete dataset, as collected and analysed, is available for review and/or future independent reuse under an Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) through the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/hs8rm/?view_only%E2%80%89=%E2%80%8972f9e8cec76544ee9c77c2ab469e02a5</p> <ref id="AN0190931187-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref86" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Akhter, N., N. Kanwal, Q. Fatima, and M. Khalid Mahmood. 2016. " Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Anxiety in Student-Teachers with Reference to Their Teaching Practices at School Placement." Journal of Educational Research 19 (1): 73 – 85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref93" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Akinsola, M. K. 2014. " Assessing Pre-Service Teachers Teaching Anxiety." American Journal of Educational Research 2 (12A): 41 – 44. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-2-12A-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref102" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Arsal, Z. 2014. " Microteaching and Pre-Service teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy in Teaching." European Journal of Teacher Education 37 (4): 453 – 464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.912627.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref103" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 1982a. " Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency." The American Psychologist 37 (2). https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref90" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 1982b. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref25" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs NJ : Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref26" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 1997. Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York : Freeman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref33" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. 2012. " On the Functional Properties of Perceived Self-Efficacy Revisited." Journal of Management 38 (1): 9 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref48" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A., and E. A. Locke. 2003. " Negative Self-Efficacy and Goal Effects Revisited." Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (1): 87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boyle, G. J., M. G. Borg, J. M. Falzon, and A. J. Baglioni Jr. 1995. " A Structural Model of the Dimensions of Teacher Stress." The British Journal of Educational Psychology 65 (1): 49 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caprara, G. V., C. Barbaranelli, L. Borgogni, and P. Steca. 2003. " Efficacy Beliefs as Determinants of teachers' Job Satisfaction." Journal of Educational Psychology 95 (4): 821. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.821.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caprara, G. V., C. Barbaranelli, P. Steca, and P. S. Malone. 2006. " Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs as Determinants of Job Satisfaction and students' Academic Achievement: A Study at the School Level." Journal of School Psychology 44 (6): 473 – 490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carbonneau, K. J., Y. Ardasheva, L. Lightner, S. N. Newcomer, G. Ernst-Slavit, J. A. Morrison, and S. J. Morrison. 2022. " Moving Beyond the Classroom: Pre-And In-Service teachers' Self-Efficacy for Working with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students." Teaching Education 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2022.2104832.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, S., and M. Newberry. 2019. " Are We Building Preservice Teacher Self-Efficacy? A Large-Scale Study Examining Teacher Education Experiences." Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 47 (1): 32 – 47. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2018.1497772.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, S. K., D. Byrnes, and R. R. Sudweeks. 2015. " A Comparative Examination of Student Teacher and Intern Perceptions of Teaching Ability at the Preservice and Inservice Stages." Journal of Teacher Education 66 (2): 170 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114561659.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conway, P. F., and C. M. Clark. 2003. " The Journey Inward and Outward: A Re-Examination of Fuller's Concerns-Based Model of Teacher Development." Teaching & Teacher Education 19 (5): 465 – 482. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00046-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department of Education & Skills. 2020. " National Briefing Note on Education at a Glance 2020 OECD Indicators." In A Country Profile for Ireland : Dublin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabriele, A. J., and E. Joram. 2007. " Teachers' Reflections on Their Reform-Based Teaching in Mathematics: Implications for the Development of Teacher Self-Efficacy." Action in Teacher Education 29 (3): 60 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2007.10463461.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gates, G. S., M. Wolverton, and W. H. Gmelch. 2007. Emerging Thought and Research on Student, Teacher, and Administrator Stress and Coping. IAP.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ghaith, G., and H. Yaghi. 1997. " Relationships Among Experience, Teacher Efficacy, and Attitudes Toward the Implementation of Instructional Innovation." Teaching & Teacher Education 13 (4): 451 – 458. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00045-5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goh, P. S.-C., and B. Matthews. 2011. " Listening to the Concerns of Student Teachers in Malaysia During Teaching Practice." Australian Journal of Teacher Education 36 (3): 92 – 103. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n3.2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gurvitch, R., and M. W. Metzler. 2009. " The Effects of Laboratory-Based and Field-Based Practicum Experience on Pre-Service teachers' Self-Efficacy." Teaching & Teacher Education 25 (3): 437 – 443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.08.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han, I., W. Sug Shin, and K. Yujung. 2017. " The Effect of Student Teaching Experience and Teacher Beliefs on Pre-Service teachers' Self-Efficacy and Intention to Use Technology in Teaching." Teachers & Teaching 23 (7): 829 – 842. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2017.1322057.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoy, A. W., and R. Burke Spero. 2005. " Changes in Teacher Efficacy During the Early Years of Teaching: A Comparison of Four Measures." Teaching & Teacher Education 21 (4): 343 – 356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Judge, T. A., C. J. Thoresen, J. E. Bono, and G. K. Patton. 2001. " The Job Satisfaction–Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review." Psychological Bulletin 127 (3): 376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, L. E., V. Jörg, and R. M. Klassen. 2019. " A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Teacher Personality on Teacher Effectiveness and Burnout." Educational Psychology Review 31 (1): 163 – 195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9458-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M. 2010. " Teacher Stress: The Mediating Role of Collective Efficacy Beliefs." Journal of Educational Research 103 (5): 342 – 350. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383069.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M., M. Bong, E. L. Usher, W. Har Chong, V. S. Huan, I. Y. Wong, and T. Georgiou. 2009. " Exploring the Validity of a teachers' Self-Efficacy Scale in Five Countries." Contemporary Educational Psychology 34 (1): 67 – 76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.08.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M., and T. L. Durksen. 2014. " Weekly Self-Efficacy and Work Stress During the Teaching Practicum: A Mixed Methods Study." Learning & Instruction 33 : 158 – 169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M., and M. Ming Chiu. 2010. " Effects on teachers' Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction: Teacher Gender, Years of Experience, and Job Stress." Journal of Educational Psychology 102 (3): 741. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M., J. V. Rushby, T. L. Durksen, and L. Bardach. 2021. " Examining Teacher Recruitment Strategies in England." Journal of Education for Teaching 47 (2): 163 – 185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1876501.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M., V. Tze, S. M. Betts, and K. A. Gordon. 2011. " Teacher Efficacy Research 1998–2009: Signs of Progress or Unfulfilled Promise? " Educational Psychology Review 23 (1): 21 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M., and V. M. Tze. 2014. " Teachers' Self-Efficacy, Personality, and Teaching Effectiveness: A Meta-Analysis." Educational Research Review 12 : 59 – 76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, R. M., and E. L. Usher. 2010. " Self-Efficacy in Educational Settings: Recent Research and Emerging Directions." In The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and Achievement, edited by T. C. Urdan and S. A. Karabenick, 1 – 33, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Labone, E. 2004. " Teacher Efficacy: Maturing the Construct Through Research in Alternative Paradigms." Teaching & Teacher Education 20 (4): 341 – 359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.013.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lemon, N., and S. Garvis. 2016. " Pre-Service Teacher Self-Efficacy in Digital Technology." Teachers & Teaching 22 (3): 387 – 408. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1058594.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, H.-L., and J. Gorrell. 2001. " Exploratory Analysis of Pre-Service Teacher Efficacy in Taiwan." Teaching & Teacher Education 17 (5): 623 – 635.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacCallum, R. C., M. W. Browne, and H. M. Sugawara. 1996. " Power Analysis and Determination of Sample Size for Covariance Structure Modeling." Psychological Methods 1 (2): 130.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malmberg, L.-E., H. Hagger, and S. Webster. 2014. " Teachers' Situation-Specific Mastery Experiences: Teacher, Student Group and Lesson Effects." European Journal of Psychology of Education 29 (3): 429 – 451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0206-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marjolein, Z., and H. M. Koomen. 2016. " Teacher Self-Efficacy and Its Effects on Classroom Processes, Student Academic Adjustment, and Teacher Well-Being: A Synthesis of 40 Years of Research." Review of Educational Research 86 (4): 981 – 1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martins, M., J. Costa, and M. Onofre. 2015. " Practicum Experiences as Sources of Pre-Service teachers' Self-Efficacy." European Journal of Teacher Education 38 (2): 263 – 279.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGarr, O., O. Mc Cormack, J. O'Reilly, R. Lynch, J. Power, J. Hennessy, N. O'Meara, et al. 2023. Exploring the Introduction of the Framework for Junior Cycle: A Longitudinal Study. Interim report No. 2. University of Limerick.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mulholland, J., and J. Wallace. 2001. " Teacher Induction and Elementary Science Teaching: Enhancing Self-Efficacy." Teaching & Teacher Education 17 (2): 243 – 261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00054-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nguyen, T. D., L. Pham, M. G. Springer, and M. Crouch. 2019. " The Factors of Teacher Attrition and Retention: An Updated and Expanded Meta-Analysis of the Literature." Annenberg Institute at Brown University 19 – 149.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Neill, S., and J. Stephenson. 2012. " Does Classroom Management Coursework Influence Pre-Service teachers' Perceived Preparedness or Confidence? " Teaching & Teacher Education 28 (8): 1131 – 1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ongrsquo, C. O., and J. O. Jwan. 2009. " Research on Student Teacher Learning, Collaboration and Supervision During the Practicum: A Literature Review." Educational Research & Reviews 4 (11): 515 – 524.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oral, B. 2012. " Student Teachers' Classroom Management Anxiety: A Study on Behavior Management and Teaching Management." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42 (12): 2901 – 2916. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00966.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palmer, D. H. 2006. " Sources of Self-Efficacy in a Science Methods Course for Primary Teacher Education Students." Research in Science Education 36 (4): 337 – 353.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pendergast, D., S. Garvis, and J. Keogh. 2011. " Pre-Service Student-Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs: An Insight into the Making of Teachers." Australian Journal of Teacher Education 36 (12): 46 – 57. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n12.6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfitzner-Eden, F. 2016. " I Feel Less Confident so I Quit? Do True Changes in Teacher Self-Efficacy Predict Changes in Preservice teachers' Intention to Quit Their Teaching Degree? " Teaching & Teacher Education 55 : 240 – 254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Power, J., P. Conway, C. Ó Gallchóir, A.-M. Young, and M. Hayes. 2022. " Illusions of Online Readiness: The Counter-Intuitive Impact of Rapid Immersion in Digital Learning Due to COVID-19." Irish Educational Studies 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2022.2061565.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Power, J., R. Lynch, and O. McGarr. 2019. " Difficulty and Self‐Efficacy: An Exploratory Study." British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12755.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Power, J. R. 2018. " The Influence of Task Difficulty on Engagement, Performance and Self-Efficacy." In Explorations in Technology Education Research – Helping Teachers Develop Research Informed Practice, edited by J. P. Williams and D. Barlex. Melbourne : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Power, J. R., and S. A. Sorby. 2020. " Spatial Development Program for Middle School: Teacher Perceptions of Effectiveness." International Journal of Technology & Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09587-w.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Power, J. R. 2021. " Enhancing Engineering Education Through the Integration of Open Science Principles: A Strategic Approach to Systematic Reviews." Journal of Engineering Education 1 (6). https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20413.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preece, P. F. W. 1979. " Student Teacher Anxiety and Class‐Control Problems on Teaching Practice: A Cross‐Lagged Panel Analysis." British Educational Research Journal 5 (1): 13 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putwain, D. W., and N. P. von der Embse. 2019. " Teacher Self-Efficacy Moderates the Relations Between Imposed Pressure from Imposed Curriculum Changes and Teacher Stress." Educational Psychology 39 (1): 51 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1500681.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheu, H.-B., R. W. Lent, M. J. Miller, L. T. Penn, M. E. Cusick, and N. N. Truong. 2018. " Sources of Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectations in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Domains: A Meta-Analysis." Journal of Vocational Behavior 109 : 118 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skaalvik, E. M., and S. Skaalvik. 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Svenja, V., M. Kunter, and F. J. Van de Vijver. 2013. " Teacher Self-Efficacy in Cross-National Perspective." Teaching & Teacher Education 35 : 92 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.05.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taffe, Richard, and K. Sally 2005. " Professional Experience and Undergraduate's Self-Efficacy for Teaching." In Teacher education: Local and global. Proceedings of the 33rd annual Australian teacher education association conference, edited by M. Cooper, 423 – 429. Crown Plaza Surfers Paradise, Australia : Australian Teacher Education Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toropova, A., E. Myrberg, and S. Johansson. 2021. " Teacher Job Satisfaction: The Importance of School Working Conditions and Teacher Characteristics." Educational Review 73 (1): 71 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1705247.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen-Moran, M., and A. Woolfolk Hoy. 2001. " Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct." Teaching & Teacher Education 17 (7): 783 – 805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen-Moran, M., and A. Woolfolk Hoy. 2007. " The Differential Antecedents of Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Novice and Experienced Teachers." Teaching & Teacher Education 23 (6): 944 – 956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen-Moran, M., A. Woolfolk Hoy, and W. K. Hoy. 1998. " Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and Measure." Review of Educational Research 68 (2): 202 – 248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Usher, E. L., and F. Pajares. 2006. " Sources of Academic and Self-Regulatory Efficacy Beliefs of Entering Middle School Students." Contemporary Educational Psychology 31 (2): 125 – 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.03.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Usher, E. L., and F. Pajares. 2008. " Sources of Self-Efficacy in School: Critical Review of the Literature and Future Directions." Review of Educational Research 78 (4): 751 – 796. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jason Richard Power; Raymond Lynch and Kinnari Atit</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Jason Power is a lecturer in STEM education at the University of Limerick. He currently leads an EU funded study that aims to enhance evidence-based practice within third level STEM learning environments. Within this, and related nationally funded projects, he is leading an international team in the creation of professional development programs, synthesised evidence bases and associated supporting resources. His previous research has focused on non-cognitive factors and their relationship to performance within STEM learning environments.</p> <p>Raymond Lynch is a senior lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Limerick. He is a qualified Technology teacher and lecturers mainly in areas of understanding classroom practices and research methods. His research interests focus on student motivation and task design in the pursuit of enhanced student learning.</p> <p>Kinnari Atit is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at the University of California, Riverside. She received her Ph.D. in Psychology from Temple University. After receiving her doctorate, she was a postdoctoral researcher at Johns Hopkins University and also at Northwestern University. Her areas of research include the intersection of spatial thinking and science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education. More specifically, her work focuses on leveraging students' spatial skills to improve their mathematics achievement, 2) supporting students' understanding of spatial STEM concepts, and 3) examining K-12 teachers' use of pedagogical practices that support spatial learning in the classroom.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref107"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1503194
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Self-Efficacy Development in Student Teachers: The Critical Role of School Placement
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jason+Richard+Power%22">Jason Richard Power</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9082-7380">0000-0002-9082-7380</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Raymond+Lynch%22">Raymond Lynch</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6617-8133">0000-0001-6617-8133</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kinnari+Atit%22">Kinnari Atit</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3287-6336">0000-0002-3287-6336</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Teacher+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Teacher Education</i></searchLink>. 2026 49(1):129-151.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Teachers%22">Student Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Placement%22">Student Placement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Experience%22">Student Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stress+Management%22">Stress Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Job+Satisfaction%22">Job Satisfaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Teaching%22">Student Teaching</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ireland%22">Ireland</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02619768.2023.2288555
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0261-9768<br />1469-5928
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examines student teachers' self-efficacy development as they complete their first professional placements in a school environment. Teacher Self-efficacy has previously been linked to teacher adaptability, retention within the profession and effectiveness. The current study samples a population of undergraduate and postgraduate student teachers (n = 643) both pre and post two school placements which are contained within their degree program. A repeated cross-sectional design was employed using the Teacher Self-efficacy Scale. The research findings suggest that initial school placement experiences play a key role in the self-efficacy development of student teachers. Self-efficacy reports consistently increased in line with professional experience, as did reports of job satisfaction. Conversely, reports of stress related to classroom management and workload consistently dropped. The complete open data set is linked for potential review and/or future independent use. Implications for the optimisation of teacher education structures are outlined and future research areas are identified.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1503194
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503194
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02619768.2023.2288555
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 129
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Student Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Placement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stress Management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Job Satisfaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ireland
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Self-Efficacy Development in Student Teachers: The Critical Role of School Placement
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jason Richard Power
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Raymond Lynch
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kinnari Atit
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0261-9768
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-5928
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 49
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Teacher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1