Teacher Self-Efficacy Cultivation: Promoting Theory-Informed Practices

Teacher self-efficacy (TSE), namely an individual's perception of their capability to conduct tasks required to teach effectively (Kleinsasser, 2014; see Täschner & Dicke, 2024), has been a central motivational construct situated in the framework of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997). Research on this construct has been fueled by the growing empirical evidence on the positive associations between TSE and teaching effectiveness (Burić & Balaž, 2024), teacher well-being (Chiang et al., 2025),student academic achievement (Authors, 2025; Zee & Koomen, 2016) and engagement (Emiru & Gedefaw, 2024). Such increased evidence has motivated policymakers and teacher educators to cultivate robust TSE and called for more research on its sources and the mechanisms that contribute to its changes (Täschner & Dicke, 2024).

First, the existing research has mainly relied on pre-post and longitudinal designs (Authors, 2022) or qualitative interviews (Marschall, 2022) to examine effects of both in-service interventions and initial teacher education, especially professional experience placement across various contexts, often neglecting the underlying rationales of teacher education program designs (Menon et al., 2024). Despite much research on teacher education interventions and their effect on TSE, it is still “an open question as to which factors are decisive for a successful development of teacher self-efficacy” (Täschner & Dicke, 2024, p.34).

Second, a very limited number of quantitative studies on TSE sources (Morris et al., 2017; Yada et al., 2019), especially among pre-service teachers (PSTs) (Hoi et al., 2017), may be due to a lack of well-validated TSE sources scale and how these sources may manifest in different cultural or contextual situations.

Third, the early-career experience has been addressed as essential for TSE formation (Bandura, 1997); however, studies solely focused on TSE changes might not provide teacher educators with sufficient strategies for its cultivation without considering the contributing sources and associated change mechanisms (Symesa, Lazaridesa, and Hußnera, 2022).

Fourth, research is needed to elucidate the potential interactions among these sources, especially the often-reported independence of emotional states as a separate source (Authors, 2022) and the conceptual and psychometric validity of proposed ‘additional’ sources such as cognitive mastery experience (Morris et al., 2017).

Fifth, TSE vary across different cultures as the interpretations of being a teacher are embedded in teachers' own cultures (Hoy and Spero 2005), and variations in how teachers interpret and value information on individual capabilities are apparent across cultures (Bonneville-roussy et al., 2019).

We welcome submissions focusing on topics, but not limited to the following.

First, to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, including professional experience placements, using an overarching framework that informs holistic practising improvements and systematic policy making, rather than conducting isolated examinations of intervention effectiveness. Research must elucidate the nature of the intervention purported to lead to teacher practice and self-efficacy developments, and thus support universal policy application beyond the immediate local context description.

Second, longitudinal designs of TSE and sources changes that increase understanding of pre-service and early career years and are situated in various cultural contexts would be welcome. In particular, those who could provide cross-cultural comparisons or experimental designs comparing interventions informed by self-efficacy theory would be welcome.

Third, validation research that addresses limitations in our understanding of TSE sources, including the validity of measurement of each source and theoretical alignment of the scale items to factor structures (see Morris et al., 2017).