The impact of support on growth in teacher-efficacy: a cross-cultural study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Perceived support from co-workers and managers is important for many organizational outcomes. However, the benefit of competence support from colleagues and school management on personal teacher efficacy has not been investigated. The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to investigate the impact of competence support from colleagues and the school management on growth in teacher efficacy and second, to investigate cultural differences (Canada and Sweden). Design/methodology/approach The authors administered an inventory measuring support for competence and personal teacher efficacy to over 400 teachers in Canada and Sweden at 27 schools, at two times. Time 1 took place at the first week of a fall semester and Time 2 at the end of the same semester. Findings Structural equation modeling revealed that competence support from colleagues predicted growth in teacher efficacy, whereas competence support from school management did not. No differences in these relations emerged between Canadian and Swedish teachers. Practical implications The findings have implications for how schools organize teachers in teacher teams so that competence support from co-workers is promoted. Originality/value This study is the first cross-cultural study to empirically show that teachers’ self-efficacy is significantly benefitted by competence support from their teacher peers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it