Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES)
The purpose of the Teacher Efficacy Scale is to measure teachers’ attitude towards working with students. There are two versions of the scale – the long form (Gibson and Dembo, 1984) and the short form (Hoy, W.K. & Woolfolk, 1993). These are designed to take a sample from four broad areas that are said to play important roles in teacher effectiveness: alignment, inclusivity, organization, and efficacy.
Gibson & Dembo, 1984
Hoy & Woolfork, 1993
Validity and Reliability
In order to analyze the instrument, a study was conducted on the TES whereby 20 respondents (20% of original participants) were drawn randomly from the original participants and were given a duplicate survey approximately two to four weeks after the initial survey was completed. Upon completion of the duplicate survey, a response rate of 80% was calculated.
For information on the validity of the Teachers’ Sense of Teacher Efficacy scale, see the study conducted to assess for construct validity (Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A., 2001).
Administration, Analysis and Reporting
Statistics Solutions consists of a team of professional methodologists and statisticians that can assist the student or professional researcher in administering the survey instrument, collecting the data, conducting the analyses and explaining the results.
For additional information on these services, click here.
Dissertations Using the Teacher Efficacy Scale
Below is a list of dissertations that use the TES. The full version of these dissertations can be found using ProQuest.
Clark, G. E. (1997). The nurse as health educator: A study of reasoned action and self-efficacy. University of Southern California).
Alper, S., Schloss, P. J., Etscheidt, S. K., and Macfarlane, C. A. (1995). Inclusion: are we abandoning or helping students? Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. View
American Educational Research Association. (2003). Standards and tests: Keeping them aligned. Research Points, 1, 1-4.
Buttram, J. L. & Waters, T. (1997) Improving America’s schools through standards-based education. NASSP Bulletin 81(590). 1-6.
Carnine, D. (2002). Big ideas (plus a little effort) produce big results. Teaching Exceptional Children 34(4), 70-73.
Corbett, J. (2001). Teaching approaches which support inclusive education: a connective pedagogy. British Journal of Special Education 28(2) 55-60.
Diegmueller, K. (1995). Buy the book. Education Week, 15(8), 3-11.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582. With Permission.
In Hoy, W.K. & Woolfolk, A.E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficiency and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal 93, 356-372.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (Ed.). (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. An open letter to the American people. A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education. Washington, DC: US GPO.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-110, § 1001, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Rudy, D. W. & Conrad, W. H. (2004). Breaking down the data. American School Board Journal 191(2), 39-41.
Stainback, S., Stainback, W., & Jackson, J. (1992). Toward inclusive classrooms. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms: Facilitating learning for all students (3-17). Baltimore: Brookes.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades (Report No. EDO-PS-00-7). Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED443572)
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.