Berger - Le Van 2018
Berger - Le Van 2018
To cite this article: Jean-Louis Berger & Kim Lê Van (2018): Teacher professional identity
as multidimensional: mapping its components and examining their associations with general
pedagogical beliefs, Educational Studies, DOI: 10.1080/03055698.2018.1446324
Article views: 3
Calderhead 1996; Pajares 1992). The complexity of professional identity offers a wide variety
of components to study. However, there is scant research on these components and their
associations, even though such investigations offer a relevant way to access a deep com-
prehension of teachers’ beliefs and practices and, by extension, a means of improving teach-
ing and learning quality.
The present study focused on a selection of major components that constitute a teacher’s
professional identity (motivation, self-efficacy beliefs, sense of responsibility, affective com-
mitment and perception of expertise), the interrelations among these components and the
relationship between a teacher’s professional identity and general pedagogical beliefs. The
latter constitute beliefs about the nature of education, teaching and learning (Chan and
Elliott 2004). Although prior studies have tended to treat these components independently,
beliefs are grounded in teacher professional identity (Richardson 1996). Furthermore, general
pedagogical beliefs strongly determine teaching practices (Pajares 1992). Accordingly, the
relationship between general pedagogical beliefs and components of identity deserves to
be scrutinised.
teaching (Beijaard, Verloop, and Vermunt, 2000; Roeser, Marachi, and Gehlbach 2002).2 The
motivation to become a teacher, self-efficacy beliefs, sense of responsibility, commitment
to teaching and perception of expertise are the components of teacher professional identity
scrutinised in the present study. These components were selected because they represent
distinct and complementary aspects of identity, notably related to why a teaching career
was chosen (motivation to become a teacher), how one perceive her/his capacity in the
profession (self-efficacy beliefs), which moral values one attributes to the profession (sense
of responsibility), how one is engaged as a professional and how one think about one’s own
areas of expertise in teaching. This selection provides a broad, although not exhaustive, view
of teacher professional identity. While other constructs, such as teachers’ goals (Roeser,
Marachi, and Gehlbach 2002), could have been included as components, theoretical redun-
dancy would have been problematic. Furthermore, other constructs sometimes studied as
part of teacher professional identity, such as job satisfaction, were considered as outcomes
of this identity and therefore not included as components.
The Ecological Model of Teacher’s Knowledge and Beliefs (Woolfolk Hoy, Davis, and Pape
2006) acknowledges that self-referenced beliefs are principally composed of identity and
the perception of self-efficacy (Woolfolk Hoy, Davis, and Pape 2006). Therefore, teachers’
self-efficacy judgments influence the goals that they set for themselves (Woolfolk Hoy, Davis,
and Pape 2006), teaching achievements (Armor et al. 1976), decision to continue in the same
profession (Siwatu and Chesnut 2015), instructional practices (Midgley, Feldlaufer, and Eccles
1989) and, by extension, students’ outcomes, such as motivation to learn, self-regulation,
achievement and persistence (Klassen and Tze 2014; Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, and Davis 2009).
While task value components (intrinsic, utility and attainment values) have been identified
as predictors of choice in one’s teaching career, ability beliefs have stronger explanatory
power (Eccles, Midgley, and Adler 1984).3
How teachers perceive themselves influences their instructional practices, professional
development and attitudes toward educational change (Beijaard, Meijer, and Verloop 2004).
Teacher self-efficacy beliefs include a range of capabilities that “a good teacher” should have
(Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy 2001), such as instructional strategies, student engage-
ment and classroom management skills. Part of the perception of professional identity
derives from the ideal representation of the professional. Although the valued qualities may
vary, they nevertheless revolve around circumscribed aspects of work. For instance, being
a good teacher requires good management of students and time (Woolfolk Hoy, Davis, and
Pape 2006), the ability to adapt to the students and listen to them and, in the case of voca-
tional teachers, the mastery of technical competencies (Deschenaux and Roussel 2011).
Recognising this complexity and aiming to examine profiles of teacher professional identity,
Roeser et al. conceptualised clusters of different “types of professional identities” (2002, 215),
that vary according to personal goal orientation (mastery-oriented and/or performance-ori-
ented) and self-efficacy beliefs. They concluded that teachers with high self-efficacy and
mastery orientation were likely to consider students’ social-emotional needs as part of their
concerns as teachers.
about the self, perception of the world and relation to others; it acts as a learning-from-life
process. Formal education (i.e. schooling and instruction) relates to beliefs about teaching
based on one’s experiences as a student. Finally, formal knowledge influences beliefs in that
it relates to understandings agreed upon as true by a community of scholars.
General pedagogical beliefs concern the nature of education, teaching and learning (Chan
and Elliott 2004) – in other words, beliefs about what learning is and how teaching is best
delivered. Following the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS; OECD 2009)
and Chan and Elliott (2004), two broad types of general pedagogical beliefs – constructivist
and direct transmission beliefs – can be distinguished. Constructivist beliefs about teaching
relate to viewing students as active participants in the process of acquiring knowledge and
stressing the development of thinking processes more than the acquisition of specific knowl-
edge. Direct transmission beliefs relate to viewing the student as a passive recipient and the
role of the teacher as communicating knowledge in a clear and simple way, explaining right
solutions and making sure that the classroom is calm and the students are focused. The
general beliefs that teachers hold about the nature of teaching and learning might explain
why they favour certain instructional practices; in other words, beliefs shape teachers’ prac-
tices. Involving the cognitive, motivational and epistemological factors responsible for con-
ceptual changes in regard to teaching (Patrick and Pintrich 2001), the effects of the teacher’s
beliefs on classroom behaviour, instruction and students’ learning are strong (Kagan 1992;
Nespor 1987; Patrick and Pintrich 2001). The results of the OECD’s (2009) TALIS study are
highly relevant here, as they indicated that constructivist beliefs about teaching were sig-
nificantly related to so-called student-oriented practices and enhanced activities, whereas
direct transmission beliefs predicted structuring practices (providing a highly organised
learning environment for students). Furthermore, in most of the participating countries,
constructivist beliefs were positively related to greater self-efficacy among teachers
(Schleicher 2015). Other studies have added to this conclusion by showing that teachers
with higher self-efficacy beliefs employ more instructional practices based on constructivism
than those related to direct transmission, where students have a passive role (Nie et al. 2012).
Thus, both self-efficacy and general pedagogical beliefs impact instructional practices.
Besides the association with self-efficacy beliefs, few studies have investigated how the
components of identity relate to general pedagogical beliefs.
According to some researchers (Hong 2010; Lamote and Engels 2010), general beliefs
about teaching and learning are parts of a teacher’s professional identity. Beliefs and expe-
rience influence the mental state driving a person’s actions and are consequently determi-
nants in the constitution of a self-as-teacher (Richardson 1996). In the present study, instead
of considering general pedagogical beliefs as part of teacher professional identity, we inves-
tigated the relationships between the latter and the components of identity.
first question, the relationships among the components of teacher professional identity
(motivation, self-efficacy beliefs, perception of expertise, sense of responsibility and com-
mitment to teaching) were investigated using multidimensional scaling (MDS). The correla-
tions between the professional identity components and general pedagogical beliefs were
then investigated, in addition to the placement of the components in the MDS map.
3. Method
3.1. Participants and procedure
The participants were 236 teachers (124 pre-service general secondary school teachers and
112 in-service vocational) in their first year of teacher education in the French-speaking part
of Switzerland in two teacher education institutes: one for vocational teachers and the other
for secondary teachers. Their mean age was 36 years and 1 month (SD = 9 years, 1 month;
Mvocational teachers = 40 years, 10 months, Mpre-service secondary teachers = 32 years, 3 months). The sex
distribution was 47.1% women, 51.2% men and 1.7% unknown (33.3% women among voca-
tional teachers; 58.8% women among pre-service secondary school teachers). Their self-re-
ported prior teaching experience was 2 years and 2 months (SD = 3 years, 5 months; Mvocational
teachers
= 4 years, 1 month, Mpre-service secondary teachers = 1 year, 10 months) and ranged from no
experience at all to 18 years at the time of the survey.
The study took place during class time and lasted about one hour. During their first weeks
of teacher education, the participants were asked to share their demographic characteristics
and complete a survey including the scales described below. They were provided with written
information about the nature and purpose of the study and informed that they could with-
draw at any time. Participation was neither mandatory nor remunerated.
3.2. Instruments
The components of the teacher’s professional identity and general pedagogical beliefs were
all assessed by self-reported scales validated in prior studies when mentioned or adapted
from validated instruments.
3.2.7. Demographics
The participants reported their years of teaching experience, age and sex. The stream of
education (vocational or general) was identified after the data collection.
4. Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the scales and the zero-order correlations between
the scales’ scores, which constitute the basis of the MDS analysis.
p = .003, 𝜂p2 = .14), in addition to an interaction effect of stream of education and sex (Pillai’s
Trace F(15,218) = 1.955, p = .02, 𝜂p2 = .12). Univariate analyses of variance indicated that there
were three significant differences between the two streams of education: (a) opportunity
was rated higher by vocational teachers than by secondary teachers (F(1,232) = 43.437,
p < .001, 𝜂p2 = .16); (b) fallback career was rated lower by vocational teachers than by second-
ary teachers (F(1,232) = 5.763, p = .02, 𝜂p2 = .02); (c) constructivist beliefs were rated higher
by vocational teachers than by secondary teachers (F(1,232) = 8.35, p = .004, 𝜂p2 = .04).
Regarding sex, females attributed more importance to personal utility value than males did
(F(1,232) = 4.119, p = .044, 𝜂p2 = .02); moreover, subject interest was more relevant in the
females’ choice to become a teacher than it was for the males (F(1,232) = 8.932, p = .003,
𝜂p2 = .04). Finally, fallback career was higher for males than for females (F(1,232) = 4.005,
p = .047, 𝜂p2 = .02). Two significant interactions of the factors stream of education with sex
were found: (a) social utility value was rated higher by male than female vocational teachers,
while the opposite pattern was observed in secondary teachers (F(1,232) = 6.769, p = .01,
𝜂p2 = .03); (b) in secondary teachers, commitment to teaching was higher for females than
12 J.-L. BERGER AND K. LÊ VAN
for males, while such differences were not observed in vocational teachers (F(1,232) = 4.366,
p = .038, 𝜂p2 = .02).
In sum, the relationships between individual characteristics and components of identity
were found to be mostly non-significant or of a small effect size. The only exception is the
difference in opportunity between streams of education, with the latter explaining 16% of
the variance in the scores. Given these observations, the MDS analysis did not include demo-
graphics; instead, it focused on professional identity and general pedagogical beliefs vari-
ables as described above.
Figure 1. Multidimensional scaling of variables data in Table 3, organised into two dimensions: (1) form
of motivation (extrinsic or intrinsic motivation) and (2) degree of subject specificity (general or specific).
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 13
Thus, these two dimensions are found to discriminate among the variables, which MDS uses
to show the degree of similarity among the constructs.
an isolated factor, indicating that they are largely independent from professional identity
components.
As shown in Figure 1, we identified four groups of variables in the model: (a) atypical
motivations, (b) pedagogical identity, (c) core identity and (d) subject-related identity. Each
group is located in a specific space of the MDS figure. Starting from the left side, the atypical
motivations group includes three types of motivation to teach (fallback career, opportunity
and personal utility value). These motivations are not among the most popular ones, accord-
ing to previous studies on the motivation to become a teacher (Berger and D’Ascoli 2011;
Watt and Richardson 2007). Thus, they are qualified as atypical because they do not corre-
spond to the values one can generally find in the teaching profession (Berger and D’Acoli
2011). Interestingly, their association reveals that these motivations contribute conjointly
in the teacher professional identity. Atypical motivations have their own space in the MDS
map, meaning that they are independent from other identity components. Also remarkable
is the relative distance between fallback career and opportunity (both passive motivations;
Berger et al. 2017) on one hand, and personal utility value on the other hand. The subject-
related identity group, at the bottom of the figure, is constituted of direct transmission
beliefs, perceived subject expertise, perceived didactical expertise and subject interest moti-
vation. Except for direct transmission beliefs, all the components are related to the topic
taught, which tells us that these components represent an identity grounded in the content
one is teaching (Beijaard, Verloop, and Vermunt, 2000; Grier and Johnston 2003). The peda-
gogical identity group, at the top of the figure, comprises only two variables: perceived
pedagogical expertise and sense of responsibility. In contrast to the subject-related identity
group, this group is made of components unrelated to the topic taught. The more one feels
one is an expert in pedagogy, the more one feels responsible for one’s teaching, the students
and their outcomes. This makes sense, as pedagogy consists of educational practices aimed
at the development of a student’s personality, values and morals, for which teachers need
to take responsibility beyond imparting their subject knowledge (Beijaard, Verloop, and
Vermunt, 2000). Finally, the core identity group, on the right, comprises self-efficacy beliefs,
commitment to teaching, aptitude, social utility value and intrinsic value (Woolfolk Hoy,
Davis, and Pape 2006). These three motivations are rated as the most important ones. Note
that social utility value is also close to the pedagogical identity group, and it might make
sense to be a part of this group. However, this motivation was attributed to the core identity
group, as it is closer to self-efficacy beliefs and aptitude than to sense of responsibility. These
components are frequently used for representing teacher professional identity (Hong 2010;
Woolfolk Hoy, Davis, and Pape 2006); the results of the present study provide further evidence
of their strong association. Remarkably, the three motivations are tied to self-efficacy beliefs
and commitment, which corroborates prior research (Bruinsma and Jansen 2010; De Jesus
and Lens 2005; Rots and Aelterman 2008; Watt and Richardson 2007).
subject expertise, but also higher opportunity motivation. When analysed together using
MDS, a subject-related cluster emerged including direct transmission beliefs with perceived
expertise in the subject and in didactics (subject-specific), but not in pedagogy.
Contrary to Nie et al.’s (2012) results, constructivist beliefs were not found to relate to
self-efficacy; neither are the latter correlated with the other type of general pedagogical
beliefs (i.e. direct transmission beliefs). In fact, constructivist beliefs were found to be inde-
pendent of the components of identity examined in this study. This suggests that these
beliefs are not part of one’s identity, and thus their merging into identity (Hong 2010) is not
warranted. In contrast, direct transmission beliefs were found to be tied to subject-related
identity, signifying that an identity grounded in the topic taught implies a specific perspec-
tive on teaching and learning. A potential explanation is that since the participants were all
secondary school teachers, and therefore all had a disciplinary background, they saw their
task as strongly based on the idea of transmitting their specialised knowledge, with less
emphasis on constructivist principles.
5.4. Implications
This study considered components that are often treated independently in the literature. It
shows the coherence of teacher professional identity components and how the subject
taught matters to teachers’ general pedagogical beliefs. Furthermore, it reveals how teacher
professional identity relates to general pedagogical beliefs, and notably its independence
from constructivist beliefs, which are valued by teacher education programmes. Studying
the contrast in identity between primary and secondary education teachers (specialised in
a topic) is necessary to understand how the association with general pedagogical beliefs
differs between these populations of teachers. Thus, understanding the components of
teacher professional identity contributes to the research on teachers’ professional
development.
Notes
1.
A belief is “a proposition that is accepted as true by the individual holding the belief” (Richardson
1996, 104).
2.
We rely on Beijaard, Verloop, and Vermunt (2000) definition of pedagogy and didactics.
Pedagogy has moral and ethical features; it concerns multiple aspects related to the teacher’s
involvement with the students, but also how the teacher communicates with the students or
16 J.-L. BERGER AND K. LÊ VAN
his/her implication in helping to solve the students’ personal problems. In contrast, didactics
concern models of teaching that “prescribe how the planning, execution, and evaluation
of lessons should be done” (Beijaard, Verloop, and Vermunt, 2000, 752). These models are
grounded in a discipline or a topic. The shift toward more learner-centred teaching illustrates
a recent didactical development adopted in the teaching of many disciplines.
3.
Intrinsic, utility, and attainment values are components of the construct of task value (Eccles and
Wigfield 2002). Intrinsic value is “the enjoyment the individual gets from performing the activity
or the subjective interest the individual has in the subject” (120). Utility value concerns “how
well a task relates to current and future goals, such as career goals” (120). Finally, attainment
value refers to “the personal importance of doing well on the task” (119).
4.
This modification was done to fit with the themes of the larger research project in which this
study is embedded: instructional planning and classroom management.
5.
According to Giguère, “In essence, MDS is a technique used to determine a n‐dimensional
space and corresponding coordinates for a set of objects, strictly using matrices of pairwise
dissimilarities between these objects” (2006, 26). “MDS assists the researcher in determining
the perceived relative position of a set of objects or items (Hair et al. 1995). If two items are
similarly rated by respondents, they will be located in multidimensional space in a way that
the distance between them is smaller than the distance between other pairs of items. The
resulting perceptual map indicates the relative positioning of all items. The researcher then
interprets the underlying dimensions in a way that best explains the positioning of items in
the map” (Martin et al. 2005, 367).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen
Forschung [grant number 100019_146351].
Notes on contributors
Jean-Louis (PhD in Education, 2008), is a professor at the Swiss Federal Institute for Vocational Education
SFIVET and head of research field. His research interests include vocational teachers’ professional devel-
opment, teaching practices (instructional planning, classroom management) in vocational schools
and their impact on students’ engagement and competence development. Besides, he investigates
vocational students motivation and self-regulated learning and the perceived quality of training.
Kim Lê Van (PhD in sociology, 2015) is a senior researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute for Vocational
Education SFIVET. Her research interests include teacher professional identity, evolution of teaching
practices (instructional planning, classroom management), collaboration and communication at work.
References
Armor, D., P. Conry-Oseguera, M. Cox, N. King, L. McDonnell, A. Pascal, E. Pauly, and G. Zellman. 1976.
Analysis of the School Preferred Reading Program in Selected Los Angeles Minority Schools. Santa Monica,
CA: Rand.
Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Beijaard, D., P. C. Meijer, and N. Verloop. 2004. “Reconsidering Research on Teachers’ Professional
Identity.” Teaching and Teacher Education 20: 107–128. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001.
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 17
Beijaard, D., N. Verloop, and J. D. Vermunt. 2000. “Teachers’ Perceptions of Professional Identity: An
Exploratory Study from a Personal Knowledge Perspective.” Teaching and Teacher Education 16:
749–764. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00023-8.
Berger, J.-L., and Y. D’Ascoli. 2011. “Les motivations à devenir enseignant. Revue de la question chez les
enseignants de première et deuxième carrière.” Revue française de pédagogie 175: 113–146.
Berger, J.-L., and Y. D’Ascoli. 2012. “Motivations to Become Vocational Education and Training Educator:
A Person-Oriented Approach.” Vocations & Learning 5: 225–249.
Berger, J.-L., C. Girardet, C. Vaudroz, and C. Aprea. 2017. “How Does Motivation to Become a Teacher
Shape Teaching Behaviors and Beliefs?” In Global Perspectives on Teacher Motivation, edited by H. M.
G. Watt, P. W. Richardson and K. Smith, 125–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruinsma, M., and E. P. W. A. Jansen. 2010. “Is the Motivation to Become a Teacher Related to Pre-Service
Teachers’ Intentions to Remain in the Profession?” European Journal of Teacher Education 33 (2):
185–200. doi:10.1080/02619760903512927.
Buehl, M. M., and J. S. Beck. 2015. “The Relationship between Teachers’ Beliefs and Teachers’ Practices.”
In International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ Beliefs, edited by H. Fives and M. G. Gill, 66–84.
New-York: Routledge.
Bullough, R. V. 1997. “Practicing Theory and Theorizing Practice in Teacher Education.” In Teaching about
Teaching: Purpose, Passion and Pedagogy in Teacher Education, edited by J. Loughran and T. Russell,
13–31. London: Falmer Press.
Calderhead, J. 1996. “Teachers: Beliefs and Knowledge.” In Handbook of Educational Psychology, edited
by D. C. Berliner and R. C. Calfee, 709–725. New York: MacMillan.
Canrinus, E. T., M. Helms-Lorenz, D. Beijaard, J. Buitink, and A. Hofman. 2011. “Profiling Teachers’ Sense
of Professional Identity.” Educational Studies 37 (5): 593–609. doi:10.1080/03055698.2010.539857.
Chan, K.-W., and R. G. Elliott. 2004. “Relational Analysis of Personal Epistemology and Conceptions about
Teaching and Learning.” Teaching and Teacher Education 20: 817–831. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.09.002.
Coladarci, T. 1992. “Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and Commitment to Teaching.” Journal of Experimental
Education 60 (4): 323–337. doi:10.1080/00220973.1992.9943869.
Davidson, M. L. 1983. Multidimensional Scaling. New York: Wiley.
Day, C. W., G. Stobart, P. Sammons, A. Kington, Q. Gu, R. Smees, and T. Mujtaba. 2006. Variations in
Teachers’ Work, Lives and Effectiveness. London: DFES.
De Jesus, S. N., and W. Lens. 2005. “An Integrated Model for the Study of Teacher Motivation.” Applied
Psychology: An International Review 54 (1): 119–134. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00199.x.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New
York: Plenum Press.
Deschenaux, F., and C. Roussel. 2011. “L’expérience du métier: le catalyseur des conceptions de
l’enseignement en formation professionnelle au Québéc.” Recherches En Education 11: 15–26.
Dumay, X., and B. Galand. 2012. “The Multilevel Impact of Transformational Leadership on Teacher
Commitment: Cognitive and Motivational Pathways.” British Educational Research Journal 38 (5):
703–729. doi:10.1080/01411926.2011.577889.
Eccles, J. S. 2009. “Who Am I and What Am I Going to Do with My Life? Personal and Collective Identities
Motivators of Action.” Educational Psychologist 44 (2): 78–79. doi:10.1080/00461520902832368.
Eccles, J. S., C. Midgley, and T. Adler. 1984. “Grade-Related Changes in the School Environment: Effects
on Achievement Motivation.” In The Development of Achievement Motivation, edited by J. G. Nicholls,
283–347. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Eccles, J. S., and A. Wigfield. 2002. “Motivational Beliefs, Values, and Goals.” Annual Review of Psychology
53: 109–132.
Getzels, J. W., and P. W. Jackson. 1963. “The Teacher’s Personality and Characteristics.” In Handbook of
Research on Teaching, edited by N. L. Gage, 506–582. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Giguère, G. 2006. “Collecting and Analyzing Data in Multidimensional Scaling Experiments: A Guide for
Psychologists Using SPSS.” Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 2 (1): 26–37.
Girardet, C., and J. L. Berger. 2016. “Motivation, Sentiment de Responsabilité et Styles de Gestion de
Classe.” Formation et pratiques d’enseignement en question 21: 287–309.
Grier, J. M., and C. C. Johnston. 2003. “An Inquiry into the Development of Teacher Identities in STEM
Career Changers.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 20: 57–75. doi:10.1007/s10972-008-9119-2.
18 J.-L. BERGER AND K. LÊ VAN
Hair, J. F., B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1995. Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hong, J. Y. 2010. “Pre-Service and Beginning Teachers Professional Identity and Its Relation to Dropping
out of the Profession.” Teaching & Teacher Education 26: 1530–1543. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.003.
Hoyle, E., and P. John. 1995. Professional Knowledge and Professional Practice. London: Cassell.
James, W. 1890/2010. The Principles of Psychology. Vol. 1. Digireads.com.
Jensen, B., A. Sandoval-Hernández, S. Knoll, and E. J. Gonzalez. 2012. The Experience of New Teacher:
Results from TALIS 2008. Paris: OECD.
Kagan, D. M. 1992. “Professional Growth among Preservice and Beginning Teachers.” Review of
Educational Research 62 (2): 129–169. doi:10.3102/00346543062002129.
Karabenick, S. A., and M. L. Maehr. 2007. MSP-Motivation Assessment Program. Final Report to the National
Science Foundation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Klassen, R. M., and V. M. C. Tze. 2014. “Teachers’ Self-Efficacy, Personality, and Teaching Effectiveness: A
Meta-Analysis.” Educational Research Review 12: 59–76.
Lamote, C., and N. Engels. 2010. “The Development of Student Teachers’ Professional Identity.” European
Journal of Teacher Education 33 (1): 3–18. doi:10.1080/02619760903457735.
Lauermann, F., and S. A. Karabenick. 2011. “Taking Teacher Responsibility into Account(Ability):
Explicating Its Multiple Dimensions and Theoretical Status.” Educational Psychologist 46 (2): 122–140.
doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.558818.
Lauermann, F., and S. A. Karabenick. 2013. “The Meaning and Measure of Teachers’ Sense of
Responsibility for Educational Outcomes.” Teaching and Teacher Education 30 (1): 13–26. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2012.10.001.
Linn, R. L. 2006. Educational Accountability Systems. Boulder: University of Colorado.
Martin, A. J., H. Marsh, A. Williamson, and R. Debus. 2005. "Fear of Failure in Students’ Academic
Lives: Exploring the Roles of Self-handicapping and Defensive Pessimism from Longitudinal,
Multidimensional, and Qualitative Perspectives." Vol. 2 of International Advances in Self Research,
edited by H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, and D. M. McInerney, 357–386. Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Martineau, S., and A. Presseau. 2004. “Analyse exploratoire du discours sur la pratique chez les
enseignants d’un CFER.” Revue des Sciences de l’Education 30 (3): 631–646. doi:10.7202/012085ar.
Meyer, J. P., N. J. Allen, and C. A. Smith. 1993. “Commitment to Organizations and Occupations: Extension
and Test of a Three-Component Conceptualization.” Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (4): 538–551.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538.
Midgley, C., H. Feldlaufer, and J. S. Eccles. 1989. “Change in Teacher Efficacy and Student Self- and Task-
Related Beliefs in Mathematics during the Transition to Junior High School.” Journal of Educational
Psychology 81 (2): 247–258. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.247.
Nespor, J. 1987. “The Role of Beliefs in the Practice of Teaching.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 19 (4):
317–328. doi:10.1080/0022027870190403.
Nie, Y., G. H. Tan, A. K. Liau, S. Lau, and B. L. Chua. 2012. “The Roles of Teacher Efficacy in Instructional
Innovation: Its Predictive Relations to Constructivist and Didactic Instruction.” Educational Research
for Policy and Practice 12 (1): 67–77. doi:10.1007/s10671-012-9128-y.
OECD. 2009. Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS. Paris: OECD.
Olsen, B. 2014. “Learning from Experience: A Teacher-Identity Perspective.” In Learning Teaching from
Experience. Multiple Perspectives and International Contexts, edited by V. Ellis and J. Orchard, 79–94.
London: Bloomsbury.
Pajares, F. 1992. “Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a Messy Construct.” Review
of Educational Research 62 (3): 307–332. doi:10.2307/1170741.
Patrick, H., and P. R. Pintrich. 2001. “Conceptual Change in Teachers’ Intuitive Conceptions of Learning,
Motivation, and Instruction: The Role of Motivational and Epistemological Beliefs.” In Understanding
and Teaching the Intuitive Mind, edited by B. Torff and R. J. Sternberg, 117–143. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Périer, P. 2013. “Crise et/ou recomposition identitaire des professeurs débutants du secondaire”
Recherche & Formation 74: 17–28. doi:10.4000/rechercheformation.2117.
EDUCATIONAL STUDIES 19
Prawat, R. 1992. “Teachers’ Beliefs about Teaching and Learning: A Constructivist Perspective.” American
Journal of Education 100 (3): 354–395. doi:10.1086/444021.
Richardson, V. 1996. “The Role of Attitudes and Beliefs in Learning to Teach.” In Handbook of Research
in Teacher Education. 2nd ed, edited by J. Sikula, 102–119. New York, NY: MacMillan.
Roeser, R. W., R. Marachi, and H. Gehlbach. 2002. “A Goal Theory Perspective on Teachers’ Professional
Identities and the Contexts of Teaching.” In Goals, Goals Structures, and Patterns of Adaptive Learning,
edited by C. Midgley, 205–241. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rots, I., and A. Aelterman. 2008. “Two Profiles of Teacher Education Graduates: A Discriminant Analysis
of Teaching Commitments.” European Educational Research Journal 7 (4): 523–534.
Schleicher, A. 2015. Schools for 21st-Century Learners: Strong Leaders, Confident Teachers, Innovative
Approaches. Paris: OECD.
Shulman, L. S. 1986. “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching.” Educational Researcher
15 (2): 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004.
Siwatu, K. O., and S. R. Chesnut. 2015. “The Career Development of Preservice and Inservice Teachers:
Why Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs Matter.” In International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ Beliefs,
edited by H. Fives and M. Gill, 212–229. New-York: Routledge.
Tschannen-Moran, M., and A. Woolfolk Hoy. 2001. “Teacher Efficacy: Capturing an Elusive Construct.”
Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (7): 783–805. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1.
Tschannen-Moran, M., A. Woolfolk Hoy, and W. K., Hoy. 1998. “Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and Measure.”
Review of Educational Research 68 (2): 202–248. doi:10.3102/00346543068002202.
VandenBos, G. R., ed. 2007. APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Vaudroz, C., and J.-L. Berger. Forthcoming. “Validation de la version francophone de l’échelle du
sentiment de responsabilité des enseignants.” [Teacher Responsibility Scale]. Mesure et évaluation
en éducation.
Watt, H. M. G., and P. W. Richardson. 2007. “Motivational Factors Influencing Teaching as a Career Choice:
Development and Validation of the FIT-Choice Scale.” The Journal of Experimental Education 75 (3):
167–202. doi:10.3200/JEXE.75.3.167-202.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., H. Davis, and S. J. Pape. 2006. “Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs.” In Handbook of
Educational Psychology, edited by P. A. Alexander and P. H. Winne, 715–737. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., W. K. Hoy, and H. A. Davis. 2009. “Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs.” In Handbook of
Motivation at School, edited by K. R. Wentzel and A. Wigfield, 625–655. New York: Routledge.