The development and validation of the Teachers' Self‐Efficacy Beliefs for Literacy Instruction in the 21st Century (TBLI21c) scale: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study presents the findings of the first administration of a revised Teachers' Sense of Efficacy for Literacy Instruction ( TSELI ) scale that reflects the changing landscape of 21st‐century literacy instruction. Items include such aspects as reading, writing, viewing, listening, communicating using visual, audible and digital materials, vocabulary, comprehension strategies, motivation, differentiated instruction, assessment, diversity culturally responsive teaching and professional literacy learning and leadership. Methods The survey was reviewed by a panel of seven experts in the field of reading and literacy instruction for content, construct and face validity and then field tested with 12 graduate students to assess the clarity of item wording and instructions, appropriateness of the response scale and ease of administration. The survey was then administered to 476 teacher candidates in two countries. Results The survey demonstrated moderate inter‐rater reliability (0.62) and very high internal reliability (0.95). The 42 items were factor analysed, which demonstrated construct validity and provided an eight‐factor scale. Teacher candidates reported having higher self‐efficacy regarding 21st‐century competencies and lower self‐efficacy in early literacy skills. Conclusions The findings revealed in this paper underscore the importance of measuring pre‐service and in‐service teacher efficacy for literacy instruction as it relates to contemporary 21st‐century literacies, given that the methods and tools addressed in the Teachers' Self‐Efficacy Beliefs for Literacy Instruction in the 21st Century ( TBLI21c ) scale are not reflected in previous literacy self‐efficacy instruments, such as reading, writing, viewing, listening, communicating using visual, audible and digital materials, comprehension strategies, motivation, differentiated instruction, diversity, assessment and professional literacy learning and leadership. Results suggest that the TBLI21c scale could be a reliable and useful tool to measure in‐service and pre‐service teacher efficacy for literacy instruction in the 21st century.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".