Teacher Self-efficacy in Music Teaching: Systematic Literature Review 2011-2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International literature has reported that teachers present deficiencies and insecurities in teaching music; consequently, music is not taught competently and appropriately. Self-efficacy is the belief in one's ability to cope with different situations and tasks to produce achievements according to the individual's conviction. This systematic literature review aims to examine the self-efficacy of teachers who teach music within classrooms in studies conducted between the years 2011 and 2021. Articles were reviewed from the Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCO databases, using the thematic analysis methodology and inclusion criteria, and fifteen articles were finally selected. The results indicate a clear difference in self-efficacy between specialist and non-specialist (generalist) teachers. In both cases, teachers look for different ways to teach music despite the adversities they face in their educational institutions, the low priority of the discipline within the school curriculum, and the scarce musical education they had in their teacher training. As a consequence, their level of self-efficacy is affected according to their professional and life experiences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".