A Comparative Examination of Canadian and American Pre-Service Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs for Literacy Instruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comparative study explored pre-service elementary teachers' self-efficacy beliefs for literacy instruction in Canada and the USA, as well as the contextual factors (e.g., policy; sources) that contribute to these self-efficacy beliefs. Survey data were collected over a two-year period at the beginning and end of a required elementary literacy methods courses that assessed pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy for literacy instruction. Paired t-test results showed a significant difference in the pre-service teachers’ literacy efficacy beliefs related to oral reading from the beginning to the end of the course. Independent samples t-tests indicated that there were significant differences in literacy self-efficacy beliefs between the Canadian and US samples, with the former group scoring higher than the latter group on literacy efficacy beliefs related to instructional strategies and balanced literacy instruction. There was a strong negative correlation between Canadian pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy for literacy instruction and university coursework related to literacy instruction. There was also a very strong negative correlation between the Canadian students’ work experience and efficacy beliefs related to oral reading and assessment. There was a positive correlation between US self-efficacy beliefs related to engagement and differentiation and university coursework related to literacy instruction.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".