Teachers’ Self-Efficacy with English Learners: Pre and Post a U. S. Statewide Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare teachers’ self-reported efficacy in working with English Learners (ELs) before and after participating in state-wide professional development (PD) funded by the Arkansas Department of Education. A modified Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale-short form (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001) which has shown reliability and validity was utilized. This survey measured self-efficacy in three subscales of teaching (a) Instructional Strategies for ELs, (b) Classroom Management for ELs, and (c) Student Engagement for ELs. Participants in this study included 214 inservice PK-12 teachers, coordinators, and school leaders who did not have an English as a Second Language (ESL) endorsement on their teaching license and were currently employed by a public school or district in Arkansas at that time. Statistically significant differences between presurveys and post surveys on the paired-samples t-tests for the three subscales had effect sizes ranging from small to large, with the largest in instructional strategies. Additionally, two analyses of variance were performed to find out whether there was a statistically significant difference in self-efficacy between educators in terms of their years of experience. Overall, the findings of the study suggest the job-embedded PD provided by ADE had a positive influence on educators’ self-efficacy in working with ELs at all levels of work experience.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".