The role of teaching experience and year level in shaping pre-service PE teachers’ efficacy

Abstract

As education systems respond to rapid societal and technological change, physical education (PE) teachers are increasingly expected to adapt their practices to diverse student needs, curricular reforms, and inclusive learning environments. These growing demands highlight the critical role of teaching efficacy in preparing pre-service PE teachers to navigate the complex realities of contemporary classrooms and promote meaningful physical activity experiences for all students. The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the teaching efficacy of pre-service teachers (N = 221) in PE teacher education (PETE) during the different stages of their program. Results demonstrated that perceived teaching efficacy was higher among students in Years 3–5 than students in Years 1 and 2. Year level of studies and teaching experience were directly associated with most teaching efficacy dimensions: content knowledge, scientific knowledge, instruction, assessment, using technology and accommodating skill differences, but not with special needs. PETE programs should ensure that adequate opportunities for teaching practice are provided due to the positive association with teaching efficacy.

Keywords

Teaching efficacy physical education pre-service teacher education students

Introduction

Teaching as a profession is mediated by societal expectations as the requirements and expectations of teaching change (Fernandez-Rio and Iglesias, 2022; Heikonen et al., 2016). Rapidly developing technology, globalization, multiculturalization, cultural hybridization, unprecedented climatic events, rising nationalism and racism, increased competition, and individualism represent challenges facing the teaching profession (Conroy, 2020; Malik, 2018; Sahlberg, 2010; Watkins and Noble, 2016). Managing challenges represents an expectation for professionals in the teaching field to respond to the realities and demands of evolving societies (Sahlberg, 2010).

The role of self-efficacy in teaching

Recent commentaries have presented perspectives that teachers should create stronger links between practice, theory, and continuous learning about the world (Brown et al., 2019) and promote their own knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform effectively (Iloanya, 2019). Teachers need the ability to implement changes in both curriculum and teaching methods, while also managing the pressures related to their competence and confidence in delivering updated content and pedagogical approaches (Teo et al., 2021). These situations may lead to negative perceptions of their teaching efficacy (i.e. self-efficacy toward teaching) and create stress, which in turn, may cause teachers to leave the profession (Hong, 2012; Wheatley, 2002). Furthermore, supporting teachers at the preliminary stages of their careers, and within initial teacher education programs, by fostering an awareness of the key characteristics of teaching efficacy will serve as an important mechanism to foster developments in teaching quality within the profession (Zach et al., 2012).

A key aspect of teaching efficacy is self-efficacy, which plays a crucial role in shaping teachers’ confidence and effectiveness in the classroom. Self-efficacy is defined as “people's judgements of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performance” (Bandura, 1986: 391). Bandura (1997) summarized self-efficacy relative to two components: personal efficacy and outcome expectancy. Personal efficacy is related to the belief that an individual can successfully perform an action or behavior, while outcome expectancy is related to an individual's self-evaluation that a given behavior will lead to expected outcomes (Bandura, 1997). According to Bandura (1997), instead of external influences, environment, and actual skills or abilities, an individual's performance is filtered through their beliefs about their own capabilities to perform at appointed levels. Previously, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001: 783) presented an alignment with Bandura's (1977) and Amor et al.'s (1976) descriptions of self-efficacy when defining a teacher's efficacy as a “judgement on his or her capabilities to bring about the desired outcomes of student engagement and learning even among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated.” Further to this, high teacher self-efficacy belief represents the demonstration of characteristics such as: preparedness to support, execute, and foster positive change; proactively address challenges; engage with new ideas; and utilize experimental teaching approaches (Cerit, 2019; Charalambous and Philippou, 2010; Gordon et al., 2023).

Previous literature has highlighted that teaching efficacy can serve as an indicator of teacher effectiveness (Jeon, 2017; Klassen and Tze, 2014; Kliensasser, 2014). Teachers with high teaching efficacy can create positive learning outcomes for students in relation to academic achievement and behavior (Caprara et al., 2006). Caprara et al. also proposed that efficacy for teaching is framed by a teacher's belief in their ability to successfully cope with tasks, obligations, and challenges related to their professional role (e.g. didactic tasks, managing discipline problems in the class, etc.). Jeon (2017: 426) also noted that “teacher efficacy has been empirically identified as a significant indicator in enhancing student achievement through mechanisms such as sustained interaction with students, a positive impact on student motivation, a positive learning-oriented climate, innovative classroom management, and generally supportive attitudes.” Higher teaching efficacy has also been found to be associated with higher job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement, motivation (Demir, 2020), and well-being (Caprara et al., 2003). Research has also detailed that teaching efficacy is dynamic, often fluctuating throughout both pre-service training and in-service teaching (Pendergast et al., 2011).

Teaching efficacy in physical education

Although teaching efficacy has been widely investigated in teaching (e.g. Gordon et al., 2023), only a limited set of studies have specifically examined teaching efficacy in physical education (PE) (Biddle and Goudas, 1998; Choi et al., 2020; Erbaş et al., 2014; Humphries et al., 2012; Martin and Kulinna, 2003; Zach et al., 2012). Biddle and Goudas (1998) completed questionnaire research that considered the role of curriculum goals and teaching efficacy in a sample of primary and secondary school PE teachers and pre-service teachers. Results indicated that variability existed in the relationships between curricular goals and teaching efficacy levels, and that curriculum confidence, according to teaching experience, was related to teaching efficacy level. For example, primary school pre-service teachers demonstrated lower levels of efficacy than in-service PE teachers. Subsequent studies in PE teaching efficacy were specifically focused on investigating the efficacy of PE teachers in relation to their delivery of classes involving high levels of student physical activity (Martin and Kulinna, 2003). Descriptive data revealed that 60% of the PE teacher sample were confident in their ability to manage the barriers associated with students, teaching space, time availability, and institutional constraints. Further investigations have been associated with in-service and pre-service PE teachers’ teaching efficacy in domains such as inclusive PE, perceived physical literacy (Choi et al., 2020), and longitudinal progression of efficacy in PE teachers (Ensign et al., 2020).

One approach to systematically examining teaching efficacy in PE is achieved through the use of validated measurement tools. Humphries et al. (2012) engaged in research specifically focusing on seven different dimensions of teaching PE through the development and implementation of the Physical Education Teaching Efficacy Scale (PETES). These dimensions included PE content knowledge, scientific knowledge, accommodating skill level differences, teaching students with special needs, instruction, using assessment, and using technology. Results of Humphries et al.'s (2012) initial research revealed that the PETES was factorially representative of key dimensions of teaching PE and demonstrated acceptable levels of validity and reliability. The PETES was used in subsequent investigations to examine self-efficacy toward activities representative of teaching PE. Ensign et al. (2020) utilized the PETES and interviews to explore influences on self-efficacy of 10 physical educators across seven occasions over 3 years. They reported that although teaching efficacy tended to be dynamic and specific to the context, it also tended to improve over time. Positive changes were reported across the participants' years of study for content knowledge, accommodating skill level differences, teaching students with special needs, and instruction.

Research in PE teacher education (PETE) has also shown that specific teaching efficacy characteristics demonstrate variability within international cohorts. A course-based PETE investigation undertaken by Zach et al. (2012) highlighted positive teaching efficacy progression across a 3-year period for a sample of 203 undergraduate students in the important areas of pedagogical knowledge, lesson development, assessment, and student engagement. Choi et al. (2020) used the PETES with two international groups, involving 218 students from across Years 2–5 of a PETE degree. Results showed a distinct pattern of differences among the four year-level groups across the seven factors of the measure.

Development of teaching efficacy in pre-service teacher education

Development of teaching efficacy is operationalized in constant interaction with personal and professional experiences, which may increase or decrease teaching efficacy (Hoy and Spero, 2005; Yüksel, 2014). Swan et al. (2011) reported that early career teachers demonstrated a positive change in teaching self-efficacy from their first to third year in the teaching profession. It was also noted that development of teaching self-efficacy was ideally supported by contributions from the professional stakeholders (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk, 2007).

Strong teaching self-efficacy begins to develop even before teachers enter the profession and is typically strengthened during pre-service training, with practical experience in schools offering valuable opportunities to further enhance it. The development of teaching efficacy within pre-service teachers, typically in teacher preparation programs, requires pre-service teachers to work in schools alongside in-service mentor teachers (i.e. teaching practice) (Mäkelä and Huhtiniemi, 2011). Teacher preparation programs offer early hands-on teaching experience (Ma and Cavanaugh, 2018), field- and school-based placements (Flores, 2015), supervision, support, and mentorship (Berg and Smith, 2018; Nikoçeviq-Kurti, 2021), individual support (Bjerke and Eriksen, 2016), and opportunities to apply theory in practice (Mahasneh and Alwan, 2018). Earlier studies have highlighted the importance of teaching practice for the development of confidence (Goh et al., 2009) and teaching efficacy (Martins et al., 2015; Menon and Azam, 2021).

The importance of teaching practice has also been found in PETE. For example, Choi et al. (2020) found that students’ higher level of engagement in teaching practice was associated with higher scores for the PE efficacy variables of content knowledge, accommodating skill level differences, and instruction. A subsequent qualitative investigation reported by Choi et al. (2022: 52) reinforced that “the authentic teaching experiences of supervised teaching practice and professional courses of the PE curriculum design and class management could positively affect their PE teaching efficacy.”

Assessment and teacher growth

Previous research has highlighted the importance of assessing various teaching efficacy competencies in teacher education programs. A range of skills, knowledge, and practice-related characteristics assessed in the PETES are critical to the development of teaching efficacy, as evidenced by several recent investigations within initial teacher education and education (e.g. Arslan-Cansever et al., 2021; Song and Cheong, 2024; Spittle et al., 2023). A Finnish study (Atjonen et al., 2022) recruited 168 pre-service teachers and utilized data drawn from the thematic analysis of their course diaries prepared during a professional practice unit focused on assessment. The findings indicated that the “students’ assessment knowledge base and assessment conceptions were promisingly versatile and indicated a rich awareness of the broad nature of assessment” (p. 1). Research involving 58 Greek in-service teachers conducted by Poulou et al. (2019) sourced questionnaire responses regarding teaching efficacy and a set of classroom practice variables. Key findings indicated that for a sample of 58 teachers, a difference in their self-reported efficacy scores for the use of classroom instructional strategies did not correlate with the patterns of instructional strategy use assessed using direct observation methods.

From knowledge to confidence

Previous teacher education research has examined the association between pedagogical content knowledge, content knowledge, and teachers’ self-efficacy (Suharta and Parwati, 2020). A study involving 689 pre-service PE teachers used the PETES and reported that the sample had their lowest efficacy scores for scientific content knowledge and the highest level of efficacy for instructional knowledge, a reflection of pedagogical content knowledge (Erbas et al., 2014). This highlights the role of specific content areas in shaping teaching efficacy. Importantly, teaching efficacy has also been shown to be associated with school teaching experience during PETE. For instance, Iaochite and da Costa Fihlo (2016) examined the reflective portfolios of 18 pre-service teachers in relation to their teaching efficacy progression across their teaching practicum period. The qualitative analysis reinforced that for 15 of the students, their practicum experience played an important role in the progression of their self-efficacy beliefs for teaching.

Preparing pre-service teachers for inclusive and digital teaching

One critical aspect of teaching efficacy within PETE is the ability to support diverse learners. Inclusive education as a representation of accommodating the breadth of student skill development and providing appropriate curriculum for students with a disability has emerged as a critical area of focus in PETE. Barber (2018) reported the outcomes of focus group interviews with a case study sample of 150 undergraduate PE students regarding their experience of a program focusing on developing their inclusion skills. The author (p. 531) concluded that through offering inclusion-oriented course opportunities, pre-service teachers can “acknowledge, appreciate and fully accept the great responsibility that PE teachers have to provide accessible sport and joyful movement experiences for all students.”

The final attribute of teacher self-efficacy considered in the PETES is the use of technology. Previous studies have also reported a lack of competence and confidence in the use of technology as a teaching resource among pre-service teacher samples (Batane and Ngwako, 2016; Kim et al., 2020). Lemon and Garvis (2016) specifically evaluated the technology self-efficacy of a sample of 350 Australian pre-service teachers. The overall results indicated substantial variation across the cohort in their perceived competence to use and implement digital technologies in classroom contexts.

Purpose of the study

It is necessary to continue research in teaching efficacy, as there are newer methods of teaching being developed that can maximize student learning. Additionally, pre-service teachers will continue to demonstrate versatility in their knowledge and skills when they enter the programs based on their own life experience. At the same time, due to COVID-19, there have been multiple changes in the practices adopted within the education field, which may have an influence on pre-service teachers’ knowledge and skill development (Hill, 2021). The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the teaching efficacy of pre-service teachers in one PETE program during the different stages of their initial teacher education. The study examines how different aspects of teaching efficacy relate to practical teaching experiences and progression through the teacher education program. It is hypothesized that a higher year level of study is associated with increased teaching efficacy among pre-service teachers, as previous research has indicated that teaching experience enhances teaching efficacy (Swan et al., 2011). Additionally, greater amounts of teaching experience are expected to correlate with higher teaching efficacy, a relationship previously demonstrated in general education contexts (Erawan, 2011).

Methods

As research continues to explore various dimensions of teaching efficacy, ongoing investigations of teaching efficacy in PETE will generate new evidence to provide support for program development and program implementation. The adoption of an observational cross-sectional approach (Chidambaram, 2019) incorporating a complete 5-year PETE program cohort across year levels will contribute to the current PETE literature base and provide valuable data regarding student progression in teaching efficacy during their studies. This is the first study to include pre-service teachers from one country. Therefore, this sample gives an excellent possibility to investigate if and how the PETE program is associated with a positive progression in teaching efficacy across the duration of their studies. The cross-sectional cohort data provide an opportunity to consider patterns of teaching efficacy within a single program across the key stages of course progression.

Setting and participants

A cohort of 274 Finnish pre-service PE teachers were invited to participate in the cross-sectional study. Students were recruited while participating in a course titled “professional development and expertise,” which starts in the first year and continues throughout the program. The aim of the course is to support students in their studies. The course is not graded. All students participating in the course were invited to the study. Overall, four students did not give written consent and declined to participate, and 47 students did not reply to the invitation. Written consent was received from 223 participants (female = 118, male = 104, non-binary = 1) (response rate = 81.3%). Willing participants completed an online questionnaire using their smartphones or laptops within the course at the beginning of the semester. No responses were omitted from the sample, and hence, the final sample consisted of 221 pre-service PE teachers (M_age = 23.7, SD = 3.2) from the first (n = 52), second (n = 39), third (n = 40), fourth (n = 44), and fifth year or more (n = 46) students (not responded = 2) (Table 1). The study procedures were approved by the ethics committee of the University of Jyväskylä. It should be pointed out that University of Jyväskylä is the only university in Finland with a possibility to study PE as a major, and therefore the sample can be considered as nationally representative.

Table 1.

Descriptives of study participants in different year levels.

Year level	First year	Second year	Third year	Fourth year	Fifth year	Total
N	52	39	40	44	46	221
Age, M (SD)	21.8 (3.6)	22.1 (1.8)	23.1 (2.3)	24.6 (1.8)	26.8 (3.2)	23.7 (3.2)
% Women	67.3	51.3	50.0	47.7	45.7	53.2
% Finnish	96.2	100.0	92.5	100.00	97.8	97.3
Teaching experience (%)
None	32.7	7.7	5.0	0.0	6.5	11.3
1–10 hours	17.3	23.1	7.5	9.3	4.3	12.2
11–50 hours	13.5	33.3	45.0	18.6	21.7	25.3
51–100 hours	11.5	15.4	17.5	20.9	19.6	16.7
101–250 hours	7.7	10.3	10.0	30.2	23.9	16.3
251–500 hours	9.6	5.1	10.0	11.6	8.7	9.5
501–1000 hours	5.8	2.6	2.5	7.0	8.7	5.4

Measures

Previous experience in teaching was measured by a self-reported question. A single question of “How many hours of teaching experience do you have? (e.g. as a substitute teacher/teaching practice)” was used, and the options were: not at all, 1–10 hours, 11–50 hours, 51–100 hours, 101–250 hours, 251–500 hours, 501–1000 hours, and more than 1000 hours.

Teaching efficacy of the PETE student sample was assessed with PETES (Humphries et al., 2012). Small edits were made to align with the national context. For example, National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) standards were changed to local curriculum learning outcomes, and examples of sport settings were changed to reflect local sports culture and PE content. The original PETES includes seven factors. After modifications, the Finnish version of the scale included the following domains (with number of items): (1) efficacy about PE content knowledge (five items), (2) efficacy for applying scientific knowledge in teaching PE (four items), (3) efficacy about accommodating skill level differences (five items), (4) efficacy for teaching students with special needs (five items), (5) efficacy about instruction (six items), (6) efficacy for using assessment (five items), and (7) efficacy for using technology (five items). The instrument used a 10-point scale, which was anchored by 1—disagree/cannot do and 10—agree/highly certain I can do. The midpoint (5) was labeled as neutral/moderately I can do. The revised Finnish version was back-translated by PE academics (K.S., T.J., M.H.) with Finnish and English language competencies to ensure item meaning efficacy with the English version for the PETES. The only change in the Finnish version involved modifying an original item, “I know what the NASPE standards are and can plan and teach toward them,” to fit better to Finnish contexts as follows: “I know the objectives of the curriculum (e.g. early childhood education, basic education or upper secondary education) and I can plan and implement lessons according to them.” The PETES subscales’ internal consistency in this study ranged from .86 to .94 and reflects well the original PETES internal consistency (.77−.94) (Humphries et al., 2012).

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations or percentages, were calculated for demographic variables (age, gender, spoken language, experience in teaching) and each of the subscales of the PETES. To evaluate the normality and internal reliability, skewness and kurtosis values and Cronbach's alpha were computed for PETES subscales. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni post-hoc tests was used to determine if there were differences in teaching efficacy between different year-level students. Preliminary statistical analyses were completed using IBM Statistics for Mac (version 28.0.0.0, IBM Corp).

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was implemented to confirm the seven-factor structure of the PETES. Following this, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the direct and indirect associations between teaching efficacy, experience in teaching, and year level. We applied a robust full-information maximum likelihood (MLR) procedure to estimate model parameters and to account for the possible non-normality of observations. Mediation analyses were conducted using the MODEL INDIRECT command in Mplus (Muthén and Muthén, 2017). Additionally, bootstrapping was performed to create confidence intervals for the effects and to test the statistical significance of the mediation analyses (Hayes, 2017). Multiple model fit indices were reviewed, including the chi-square goodness-of-fit statistics (χ²), the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). We followed the guidelines recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999) to interpret the fit indices. The fit was deemed good if the values for CFI and TLI were close to .95, RMSEA < .06, and an SRMR < .08. All SEM analyses were performed using Mplus version 8.2.

Results

As shown in Table 2, the respondents evaluated their perceived PE teaching efficacy, resulting in an overall mean score of 7.1 (SD = 1.0) (on a 10-point scale), with the variation of 6.7 (SD = 1.0) in the first year and 7.5 (0.9) in the fourth year. Pre-service teachers reported the weakest efficacy for teaching students with special needs (M = 5.7, SD = 1.5) and the strongest efficacy for technology use in PE (M = 7.8, SD = 1.3).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and results of the analysis of variance.

Dimension	TotalM (SD)	First year	Second year	Third year	Fourth year	Fifth year	F (df)	p-Value	η²	Bonferroni post-hoc test
Content knowledge	7.6 (1.1)	7.1 (1.2)	7.2 (1.1)	8.1 (0.9)	8.1 (0.9)	7.9 (1.1)	10.98 (4, 220)	<0.001	0.145	3–5 > 1; 3–4 > 2
Scientific knowledge	6.8 (1.2)	6.3 (1.1)	6.2 (1.2)	7.2 (0.9)	7.1 (1.3)	7.1 (1.1)	7.24 (4, 220)	<0.001	0.118	3–5 > 1–2
Accommodating skill level	7.7 (1.1)	7.6 (1.1)	7.4 (1.2)	7.9 (1.0)	7.9 (0.9)	7.8 (1.1)	2.00 (4, 220)	0.095	0.036
Special needs	5.7 (1.5)	5.4 (1.6)	5.5 (1.4)	5.9 (1.5)	6.0 (1.5)	5.9 (1.6)	1.54 (4, 220)	0.192	0.028
Instruction	7.4 (1.0)	7.2 (1.0)	7.0 (1.2)	7.6 (0.9)	7.8 (0.9)	7.5 (1.2)	3.84 (4, 220)	0.005	0.66	4 > 2;
Assessment	6.5 (1.5)	6.1 (1.5)	5.8 (1.9)	6.4 (1.3)	7.3 (1.3)	7.0 (1.6)	7.80 (4, 220)	<0.001	0.127	4–5 > 1–2; 4 > 3
Technology	7.8 (1.3)	7.5 (1.2)	7.4 (1.4)	8.1 (1.2)	8.2 (1.1)	8.0 (1.4)	3.54 (4, 220)	0.08	0.062
Total teaching efficacy	7.1 (1.0)	6.7 (1.0)	6.7 (1.2)	7.3 (0.9)	7.5 (0.9)	7.3 (1.2)	6.27 (4, 220)	<0.001	0.106	1–2 < 3–5

ANOVA revealed several differences among year-level groups in the seven teaching efficacy dimensions. Specific results of the ANOVAs and the subsequent post-hoc analysis are presented in Table 2. In general, students attending the third, fourth, and fifth years of study had higher total teaching efficacy than first- and second-year students. More specifically, the scores in content knowledge, scientific knowledge, instruction, and assessment were higher among students in third, fourth, or fifth year compared to those in the first or second year. There were no differences among the year levels in accommodating skill level, special needs, or technology.

Visual inspection of the histogram showed that the data were approximately normally distributed. There were no significant outliers based on the standardized values (+3.0). The missing completely at random (MCAR) test (χ² = 16.47, df = 73, p = 1.000) showed that the data with and without missing values were similar, and thus, the missing data were considered to be MCAR (Little and Rubin, 2002). Descriptive statistics and correlations among latent study variables are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Examination of the bilateral correlations between the study variables showed that teaching experience was statistically significantly correlated with all seven dimensions of the PETES, and with years of study. Correlation coefficients ranged from .12 to .26, with the lowest correlation between teaching experience and special needs and the highest between teaching experience and content knowledge. Additionally, study year was correlated with all other dimensions of the PETES, except for the skill dimension and special needs. All seven dimensions of the PETES correlated; the range of coefficients was from .26 to .61, demonstrating low to high associations.

Table 3.

Correlations among the study variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Content knowledge
2. Scientific knowledge	.63**
3. Accommodating skill level	.55**	.67**
4. Special needs	.53**	.56**	.61**
5. Instruction	.55**	.64**	.83**	.59**
6. Assessment	.58**	.61**	.65**	.56**	.66**
7. Technology	.50**	.53**	.61**	.46**	.59**	.59**
8. Year level	.30**	.29**	.13	.15*	.19**	.32**	.19**
9. Teaching experience	.34**	.26**	.24**	.16*	.27**	.34**	.27**	.31**

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

CFA for PETES

To confirm the seven-factor structure of the PETES, a CFA was implemented. The model fit for the seven-factor model with no modifications was unacceptable [χ²(539) = 1028.18, p = .000, CFI = .88, TLI = .87, RMSEA = .064, SRMR = .069]. To increase the construct validity of the scale, a total of 10 residual correlations with similarly worded items were allowed (e.g. content knowledge 1 with content knowledge 2). Correlated residuals among items using similar wording are possible and acceptable, although they should be used cautiously (Smolkowski, 2020). We considered that all modifications were reasonable. The final model had an acceptable fit [χ²(529) = 824.67, p = .000, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .050, SRMR = .055]. All indicator-specific factor loadings were statistically significant (p < .001), and the standardized estimates ranged from .39 to .90, as shown in Figure 1. For each construct, we also calculated the average variance extracted (AVE) values, which ranged from .38 to .57, and the construct reliability (CR) values, which ranged between .55 and .84, indicating a lower level of convergent validity (Cheung et al., 2023). In addition, we calculated Cronbach's alpha values for the seven scale dimensions that ranged from .76 to .94 and were therefore considered high (Table 2). Hence, we concluded that the scale would provide reliable results for further analysis (Table 4).

Figure 1.

Standardized parameter estimates of the structural equation model. All paths are significant at the p < .05 level.

Table 4.

CFA parameters along with the validity and reliability of the latent variables and items.

Factor	Item	Parameters			Item reliability	Composite reliability	Convergence validity	Discriminant validity	Cronbach's alpha
		Est.	S.E.	p	R ²	CR	AVE	√AVE	α
Content knowledge	CK1	0.451	0.063	0.000	0.203	0.56	0.39	0.63	0.76
	CK2	0.540	0.061	0.000	0.291
	CK3	0.667	0.048	0.000	0.444
	CK4	0.671	0.049	0.000	0.451
	CK5	0.756	0.042	0.000	0.572
Scientific knowledge	SK1	0.692	0.041	0.000	0.478	0.55	0.42	0.65	0.84
	SK2	0.590	0.049	0.000	0.348
	SK3	0.636	0.055	0.000	0.404
	SK4	0.679	0.048	0.000	0.460
Accommodating skill level	S1	0.745	0.045	0.000	0.555	0.78	0.51	0.72	0.88
	S2	0.702	0.048	0.000	0.493
	S3	0.859	0.020	0.000	0.738
	S4	0.821	0.058	0.000	0.673
	S5	0.815	0.029	0.000	0.665
Special needs	SN1	0.819	0.033	0.000	0.671	0.84	0.57	0.75	0.94
	SN2	0.842	0.064	0.000	0.708
	SN3	0.888	0.028	0.000	0.789
	SN4	0.851	0.034	0.000	0.724
	SN5	0.783	0.056	0.000	0.613
Instruction	TP1	0.689	0.042	0.000	0.475	0.67	0.39	0.63	0.86
	TP2	0.691	0.078	0.000	0.478
	TP3	0.780	0.035	0.000	0.608
	TP4	0.830	0.026	0.000	0.688
	TP5	0.708	0.070	0.000	0.502
	TP6	0.747	0.034	0.000	0.558
Assessment	A1	0.784	0.046	0.000	0.615	0.59	0.38	0.61	0.85
	A2	0.721	0.043	0.000	0.520
	A3	0.386	0.079	0.000	0.149
	A4	0.725	0.043	0.000	0.526
	A5	0.828	0.041	0.000	0.686
Technology	IT1	0.847	0.025	0.000	0.718	0.81	0.53	0.73	0.91
	IT2	0.864	0.024	0.000	0.747
	IT3	0.894	0.020	0.000	0.799
	IT4	0.768	0.035	0.000	0.589
	IT5	0.729	0.051	0.000	0.532

Note. Est.: estimate; S.E.: standard error; CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted; √AVE: square root of AVE; α: Cronbach's alpha.

Associations between the teaching efficacy, teaching experience, and year of study

We started the examination of the associations between study years, teaching experience, and teaching efficacy by establishing a baseline model (measurement model). The model demonstrated a poor fit to the data [χ²(600) = 1156.92, p = .000, CFI = .90, TLI = .89, RMSEA = .064, 90% CI [.059, .070], SRMR = .083]. However, the model was accepted as all logical attempts to improve the fit were considered. After confirming the appropriateness of the measurement model, we proceeded to investigate the structural part by adding the direct and indirect regression paths between the study variables. Examination of the fit indices revealed that the final model had a reasonable fit to the data [χ²(585) = 1057.49, p = .000, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .060, 90% CI [.054, .066], SRMR = .057]. Squared multiple correlations showed that the model explained 23% of the variance in content knowledge, 23% in assessment, 17% in scientific knowledge, 9% in efficacy about instruction, 9% in technology, 7% in skill acknowledgment, and 4% in teaching students with special needs.

The model revealed statistically significant direct and indirect paths between study variables, as shown in Figure 1. Results showed that year of study was directly associated with content knowledge (β = .29, SE = .07, p = .000), scientific knowledge (β = .24, SE = .08, p = .002), and assessment (β = .29, SE = .06, p = .000). Year of study was also directly associated with teaching experience (β = .31, SE = .06, p = .000). Moreover, teaching experience was directly linked with all other PETES dimensions, except special needs. In detail, teaching experience was associated with content knowledge (β = .30, SE = .07, p = .000), scientific knowledge (β = .27, SE = .08, p = .000), skill accommodation (β = .27, SE = .07, p = .001), instruction (β = .25, SE = .07, p = .000), assessment (β = .31, SE = .06, p = .000), and technology (β = .26, SE = .07, p = .000).

Mediation analyses revealed several indirect associations between the study variables. Indirect paths were found from year of study via teaching experience to content knowledge (β = .09, SE = .03, p = .001), scientific knowledge (β = .08, SE = .03, p = .004), skill accommodation (β = .07, SE = .03, p = .006), instruction (β = .08, SE = .03, p = .004), assessment (β = .10, SE = .03, p = .000), and technology (β = .08, SE = .03, p = .003).

Discussion

The current study provides a cross-sectional examination of a national cohort of pre-service PE teachers’ teaching efficacy. Results revealed that teaching efficacy was higher among students in Years 3-5 than among students in Years 1 and 2. SEM revealed both direct and indirect associations between the study variables.

Data showed that both content studies and teaching experience are important for the full development of teaching efficacy across the period of a 5-year PETE program. Bandura (1986) emphasized the role of enactive mastery experiences as one of the strongest contributors to self-efficacy. The current results also indicate that the year level of study was directly related to the development of content knowledge, scientific knowledge, and assessment skills. It is logical that engagement in the PETE program influences these particular aspects of teaching efficacy because they represent the core content of the PETE program in Finland (Lahti, 2016). In the Finnish context, the students’ program includes substantial scientific content knowledge in the first years, and content planning for teaching and assessment is introduced in the third year of the program. The course incorporates greater time spent engaged in teaching practice within the later phases of the program, which may also contribute to strengthening capabilities for assessing students. This pattern of efficacy progression is also reported in similar teacher education programs (e.g. Hand, 2014; Ünlü and Erbaş, 2019). This was partially in line with the hypothesis that higher year-level students would have higher teaching efficacy.

The role of teaching experience in efficacy development

Results of this study also demonstrated that overall teaching experience accumulated at a certain point of study was directly related to all teaching efficacy areas of the PETES except teaching students with special needs. This finding was consistent with the hypothesis that teaching experience would be associated with higher teaching efficacy. The findings further reinforce that teaching experience collected either outside the PETE program or within it is crucial for the development of teaching efficacy. The importance of teaching experience for developing professional efficacy has also been reported in other studies (Choi et al., 2022; Ensign et al., 2020; Hand, 2014). Ensign et al. (2020) also used the PETES and reported similar differences among teachers to those reported in this study in the factors of teaching efficacy for students with special needs, content knowledge, and accommodating skill level differences, but did not find significant differences in assessment and scientific knowledge between students at different phases of their studies. Variation in findings may be cultural and contextual and influenced by the program design and duration (e.g. country of origin, scientific or pedagogical focus, length of course).

Similar to previous PETES studies (Choi et al., 2020), our results showed that the special needs factor had the lowest mean score for efficacy, weak correlations with the other PETES subscales, and in regard to the SEM measurement model, no significant paths from either study year or teaching experience. Woodcock et al. (2012), in a study from Australia, reported that studying an inclusion subject at university did not change teaching efficacy related to inclusive education.

The influence of teaching practice on efficacy development

The SEM revealed that there were direct connections from the study year (ranging from 1 to 5) to content knowledge, scientific knowledge, and assessment. Additionally, indirect links were found from the study year through teaching experience to all other teaching efficacy dimensions, except special needs. This means that pre-service teachers' self-efficacy increases as they progress in their studies, but specifically as they gain more experience from actual teaching sessions with students. Previous research has shown that teaching efficacy can be influenced by students’ course and practicum experiences (Hoy and Spero, 2005; Yüksel, 2014). Teaching practice courses, therefore, have a critical role in mediating the pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy toward teaching. The findings of this study—revealing increasing scores in several dimensions of PETES across the period of studies—are in line with previous research (Ensign et al., 2020); however, program and country-specific differences were also discovered.

For example, Ensign et al. (2020) reported an increase in teaching efficacy related to teaching students with special needs, which was not evident in the current program. This contrast may highlight program- or country-specific differences in how inclusion-related content is delivered and experienced by PETE students. Nevertheless, the broader findings are consistent with earlier studies that emphasize the importance of teaching practice in the development of teaching efficacy (Menon and Azam, 2021). In fact, previous research has shown that extending field experience during initial teacher education is vital for increasing PE teachers’ teaching efficacy (Ivanova and Skara-MincĿne, 2016; Zach et al., 2012). This finding aligns with Choi et al. (2020), who found that both formal coursework and practical teaching experiences are critical to fully developing students’ teaching efficacy in PETE programs. However, in the current study, some associations were only indirect, which may indicate that teaching efficacy is also influenced by sources outside of the PETE program (Whitehead, 2010). For example, students may have prior experience working with children with special needs or may feel confident in using technology due to personal exposure or informal learning outside of formal studies. A key result of this study was that teaching experience was directly linked with all but one of the PETES dimensions (i.e. special needs), reinforcing the critical role of school-based teaching opportunities in supporting efficacy across the PETE program. Currently, the course follows an integrated model, where students engage with pedagogical studies, practical teaching, and PE subject content from the beginning of their program. In the first year, students participate weekly in PE lessons at schools alongside experienced in-service PE teachers. In the second year, students begin their first practicum, which continues and expands throughout Years 3 and 4. In the final year, Finnish PETE students complete three distinct teaching practice periods, each involving 30 hours of 75-minute teaching sessions. In addition to teaching their own lessons, they also observe peers and provide feedback as part of a reflective learning cycle.

Research has also supported the proposition that improvements in PETE students’ connection to the pedagogical domain of special needs teaching may be fostered through a renewed approach within PETE, where a broader construct of inclusion is emphasized (Barber, 2018). Engaging PETE students in developing perspectives on the importance of ensuring that all students can succeed—extending inclusive practices beyond the concept of special needs—can further support the development of their teaching efficacy (Penney et al., 2018).

These practicum opportunities clearly support the development of teaching efficacy. Increasing the volume and quality of teaching practice is likely to strengthen self-efficacy (Martins et al., 2015) and enhance professional confidence (Goh et al., 2015). This aligns with Bandura's (1997) view that self-efficacy is dynamic and develops over time through experience and feedback.

Technology-related teaching efficacy

Pre-service teachers in the current study reported a high level of efficacy in their skills related to technology use. Descriptive data indicated the highest subscale mean was from this variable. However, standard deviation values show a high degree of variability in technology-related self-efficacy within the sample. These findings are representative of a high level of overall efficacy among a particular group of pre-service teachers but not across the entire sample. Similar studies have also reported levels of variation in perceived competence in the use of technology (Lemon and Garvis, 2016) and in actual competence to use technology as assessed against government standards (Kimm et al., 2020). Technology use should remain a key pedagogical skill developed by all students at all year levels within PETE to support global changes in the increased integration of the use of technologies across the school education system. The current study did not reveal any progression in the self-efficacy for the use of technology across year levels of the program. Overall, these findings reinforce an ongoing opportunity to utilize the benefits of pre-service teachers’ technology skills to support their future work as teachers in using technology to advance student learning (Baek et al., 2016).

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this study included using a representative sample of pre-service teachers from one single country. In addition, all participants followed the same curriculum and program because in the country where the study was conducted, there is only one university where a PETE program is available. However, this study has several limitations. One limitation was the cross-sectional cohort design of the study, which does not provide a complete overview of the development of students’ teaching efficacy during the course. Another limitation of the study was the measure of teaching experience. The current study did not identify where or how the teaching experience was gained, or if it was based on course-related teaching practice or experience as a substitute or assistant teacher.

Future research will be implemented in a longitudinal study of PE teaching efficacy. Specifically, the participants in Year 1 in this study will be followed during their studies and, if also possible, surveyed after one or several years of service as a PE teacher. This kind of study can increase the understanding of the importance of teaching efficacy for career longevity, as well as whether early levels of teaching efficacy—either low or high—can predict teaching efficacy after years of service and the likelihood of remaining in or leaving the profession. Since a previous study reported that teaching efficacy may decline in the first years of teaching (Hoy and Spero, 2005), it would also be important to study whether this is related to the level or development of teaching efficacy during the studies. An additional study could also focus on efficacy comparisons between specialist PE teachers and generalist teachers who are teaching PE.

Conclusion

The findings of the current study reinforce the importance of a focus on PE teaching efficacy levels within the design and delivery of PETE in Finland. Specifically, the results highlight the criticality of strong pedagogical and content knowledge elements within courses. Program frameworks should scaffold knowledge and practice opportunities to align with both the course year level and, consequently, the level of teaching experience. Students will acquire applied practice knowledge primarily from their teaching practicums and placements; however, individuals may also access other classroom and non-classroom teaching engagement opportunities across the progression of their PETE.

Footnotes

Data availability statement

The data are not available for distribution outside the country, as permission was granted only for national use.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

The study procedures were approved by the ethics committee of the University of Jyväskylä.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Informed consent

Written consent was received from 223 participants (female = 118, male = 104, non-binary = 1).

ORCID iDs

Kasper Salin

Mikko Huhtiniemi

Timo Jaakkola

Author biographies

Kasper Salin, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the University of Jyväskylä, specializing in physical education, teacher competencies, curriculum research, and physical literacy. His work emphasizes physical activity, particularly sport club participation and active commuting.

Mikko Huhtiniemi, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Sport Pedagogy at the University of Jyväskylä, specializing in adapted physical activity and holistic well-being. He coordinates the national Move! Physical Functioning Monitoring and Feedback System to promote physical activity and well-being across different age groups.

Anthony Watt, PhD, is an Associate Dean of Research and Research Training at Victoria University, specializing in sport psychology and physical education. His research focuses on the design and development of assessment instruments, student engagement, and childhood physical activity.

Arja Sääkslahti, PhD, is a Professor of Sport Pedagogy at the University of Jyväskylä, specializing in early childhood physical activity and motor development. She leads research on promoting physical activity and well-being among young children.

Timo Jaakkola, PhD, is a Professor of Sport Pedagogy at the University of Jyväskylä, focusing on physical activity and well-being among school-aged children and adolescents. He leads research projects on students’ physical activity, health-related fitness, and learning.

References

Amor

Conroy-Oseguera

Cox

, et al. (1976) Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools. Report No. R-2007-LAUSD. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Arslan-Cansever

Ceylan

Çavaş

, et al. (2021) Self-efficacy and teaching skills perceptions of primary school teachers: A predictive study. Shanlax International Journal of Education 9(4): 236–246.

Atjonen

Pöntinen

Kontkanen

, et al. (2022) In enhancing preservice teachers’ assessment literacy: Focus on knowledge base, conceptions of assessment, and teacher learning. Frontiers in Education 7: 891391.

Baek

Keath

Elliott

(2016) Instructional technology in PE: Who, what, when, where, and why? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 87(S2): A111.

Bandura

(1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2): 191.

Bandura

(1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Barber

(2018) Inclusive and accessible physical education: Rethinking ability and disability in pre-service teacher education. Sport, Education and Society 23(6): 520–532.

Batane

Ngwako

(2016) Technology use by pre-service teachers during teaching practice: Are new teachers embracing technology right away in their first teaching experience? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 33(1): 48–61.

10.

Berg

Smith

(2018) Classroom ready? Pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy for their first professional experience placement. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 43(7): 134–151.

11.

Biddle

Goudas

(1998) Physical education teacher efficacy: Scale development and relationship with curricular goals. Exercise & Society Journal of Sport Science 19: 23–32.

12.

Bjerke

Eriksen

(2016) Measuring pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy in tutoring children in primary mathematics: An instrument. Research in Mathematics Education 18(1): 61–79.

13.

Brown

Boda

Lemmi

, et al. (2019) Moving culturally relevant pedagogy from theory to practice: Exploring teachers’ application of culturally relevant education in science and mathematics. Urban Education 54(6): 775–803.

14.

Caprara

Barbaranelli

Borgogni

, et al. (2003) Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology 95(4): 821–832.

15.

Caprara

Barbaranelli

Steca

, et al. (2006) Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology 44(6): 473–490.

16.

Cerit

(2019) Relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their willingness to implement curriculum reform. International Journal of Educational Reform 22(3): 252–270.

17.

Charalambous

Philippou

(2010) Teachers’ concerns and efficacy beliefs about implementing a mathematics curriculum reform: Integrating two lines of inquiry. Educational Studies in Mathematics 75(1): 1–21.

18.

Cheung

Cooper-Thomas

Lau

, et al. (2023) Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 1(2): 745–783. https://doi:10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y

19.

Chidambaram

Josephson

(2019) Clinical research study designs: The essentials. Pediatric Investigation 3(4): 245–252.

20.

Choi

Sum

RK-W

Shy

, et al. (2022) A qualitative exploration of physical literacy and teaching efficacy of pre-service physical education teachers. Education Journal 50(2): 51–77.

21.

Choi

Sum

RK-W

Wallhead

, et al. (2020) Preservice physical education teachers’ perceived physical literacy and teaching efficacy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 40(1): 146–156.

22.

Conroy

(2020) Caught in the middle: Arendt, childhood and responsibility. Journal of Philosophy of Education 54(1): 23–42.

23.

Demir

(2020) The role of self-efficacy in job satisfaction, organizational commitment, motivation and job involvement. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 20(85): 205–224.

24.

Ensign

Woods

Kulinna

(2020) My turn to make a difference: Efficacy trends among induction physical educators. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 91(1): 115–126.

25.

Erawan

(2011) A path analysis for factors affecting pre-service teachers’ teaching efficacy. American Journal of Scientific Research 13: 47–58.

26.

Erbaş

Varol

Erdoğdu

, et al. (2014) Teaching efficacy of physical education teacher candidates. Journal of Education and Practice 5(19): 34–43.

27.

Fernandez-Rio

Iglesias

(2022) What do we know about pedagogical models in physical education so far? An umbrella review. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 29(2): 190–205.

28.

Flores

(2015) Developing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy through field-based science teaching practice with elementary students. Research in Higher Education Journal 27: 1–19.

29.

Goh

Wong Choy

Tan

JPI

(2009) Confidence levels after practicum experiences of student teachers in Singapore: An exploratory study. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy 6(2):121–140.

30.

Goh

PSC

Wong

(2015) Exploring the challenges for teacher educators. Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers and Teacher Education 5(1): 37–45.

31.

Gordon

Blundell

Mills

, et al. (2023) Teacher self-efficacy and reform: A systematic literature review. Australian Educational Researcher 50: 801–821.

32.

Hand

(2014) Building confident teachers: Preservice physical education teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Journal of Case Studies in Education 6: 1–9.

33.

Hayes

(2017) Introduction To Mediation, Moderation, And Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Publications.

34.

Heikonen

Pietarinen

Pyhältö

et al. (2016). Education early career teachers’ sense of professional agency in the classroom: Associations with turnover intentions and perceived inadequacy in teacher-student interaction. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 45(3): 250–266.

35.

Hill

(2021) Pre-service teacher experiences during COVID 19: Exploring the uncertainties between clinical practice and distance learning. Journal of Practical Studies in Education 2(2): 1–13.

36.

Hong

(2012) Why do some beginning teachers leave the school, and others stay? Understanding teacher resilience through psychological lenses. Teachers and Teaching 18(4): 417–440.

37.

Hoy

Spero

(2005) Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education 21(4): 343–356.

38.

Humphries

Hebert

Daigle

Martin

(2012) Development of a physical education teaching efficacy scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 16(4): 284–299.

39.

Iaochite

Costa Filho

(2016) Teacher efficacy beliefs during the practicum experiences in physical education classes. Motriz Revista de Educação Física 22: 183–189. https://doi:10.1590/S1980-6574201600030009 .

40.

Iloanya

(2019) Preparing the 21st century teacher for the implementation of outcomes-based education: The practical reality. American Journal of Educational Research 7(7): 439–444.

41.

Ivanova

Skara-MincĿne

(2016) Development of professional identity during teacher’s practice. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 232: 529–536.

42.

Jeon

(2017) Teacher efficacy research in global context. In: Akiba

LeTendre

(eds) International Handbook of Teacher Quality and Policy. New York: Routledge, 414–429.

43.

Kim

Kimm

Baek

, et al. (2020) Pre-service teachers’ confidence in their ISTE technology-competency. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education 36(2): 96–110. https://doi:10.1080/21532974.2020.1716896

44.

Klassen

Tze

VMC

(2014) Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 12: 59–76.

45.

Kleinsasser

(2014) Teacher efficacy in teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 44: 168–179. https://doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.007

46.

Lahti

(2016) Jumpan jalanjäljiltä akateemiseen maisteritutkintoon. Jyväskylän yliopiston liikunnanopettajakoulutus 1963–2013 [From the Footsteps of Helsinki Gymnastics Institute to Academic Master’s Degree—Physical Education Teacher Education in Jyväskylä University in 1963–2013]. Academic Dissertation, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä.

47.

Lemon

Garvis

(2016) Pre-service teacher self-efficacy in digital technology. Teachers and Teaching 22(3): 387–408.

48.

Little

RJA

Rubin

(2002) Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2nd edn. Wiley.

49.

Cavanaugh

(2018). The effect of school-based experience on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Issues in Educational Research 28(3): 530–544.

50.

Mahasneh

Alwan

(2018) The effect of project-based learning on student teacher self-efficacy and achievement. International Journal of Instruction 11(3): 511–524.

51.

Mäkelä

Huhtiniemi

(2011) Teaching practice in physical education at the teacher training school. In Kontoniemi

Salo

O-P

(Ed.), Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä Training school, 123–129. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216109608

52.

Malik

(2018) Educational challenges in 21st century and sustainable development. Journal of Sustainable Development Education and Research 2(1): 9–20.

53.

Martin

Kulinna

(2003) The development of a physical education teachers’ physical activity self-efficacy instrument. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 22(2): 219–232.

54.

Martins

Costa

Onofre

(2015) Practicum experiences as sources of pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy. European Journal of Teacher Education 38(2): 263–279. https://doi:10.1080/02619768.2014.968705

55.

Menon

Azam

(2021) Investigating preservice teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy: An analysis of reflective practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 19: 1587–1607.

56.

Muthén

(2017) Mplus User's Guide (1998-2017), 8th edn. Los Angeles, CA, USA: Muthén & Muthén.

57.

Nikoçeviq-Kurti

(2021) Fostering student teachers’ self-efficacy and professional identity through vicarious experiences. International Journal of Education and Psychology in the Community 11(1/2): 140163.

58.

Pendergast

Garvis

Keogh

(2011) Pre-service student-teacher self-efficacy beliefs: An insight into the making of teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 46(12): 46–57. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/aeipt.190618

59.

Penney

Jeanes

O'Connor

, et al. (2018) Re-theorising inclusion and reframing inclusive practice in physical education. International Journal of Inclusive Education 22(10): 1062–1077. https://doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1414888

60.

Poulou

Reddy

Dudek

(2019) Relation of teacher self-efficacy and classroom practices: A preliminary investigation. School Psychology International 40(1): 25–48.

61.

Sahlberg

(2010) Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change 11(1): 45–61.

62.

Smolkowski

(2020) Correlated errors in CFA and SEM models. Oregon Research Institute, 2020. Available at: https://homes.ori.org//keiths/Tips/Stats_SEMErrorCorrs.html.

63.

Song

X-L

Cheong

JPG

(2024) An examination of Chinese physical education teachers’ teaching efficacy and technology self-efficacy at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sage Open 14(2): 21582440241241933.

64.

Spittle

Itoh

, et al. (2023) Teaching efficacy of undergraduate physical education students toward concepts in physical education. Frontiers in Education 8: 1124452. https://doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1124452

65.

Suharta

IGP

Parwati

(2020) Relationship between teacher's content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and self–efficacy and its impact on student's mathematics learning achievement. In: 4th Asian Education Symposium (AES 2019), pp. 293–296. Atlantis Press.

66.

Swan

Wolf

Cano

(2011) Changes in teacher self-efficacy from the student teaching experience through the third year of teaching. Journal of Agricultural Education 52(2): 128–139.

67.

Teo

Unwin

Scherer

, et al. (2021) Initial teacher training for twenty-first century skills in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (IR 4.0): A scoping review. Computers and Education 170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104223.

68.

Tschannen-Moran

Woolfolk Hoy

(2001) Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education 17: 783–805.

69.

Tschannen-Moran

Woolfolk Hoy

(2007) The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 23: 944–956. https://doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003

70.

Ünlü

Erbaş

(2019) Effect of a physical education training program on the physical education teaching efficacy of classroom teacher candidates. The Physical Educator 76(4): 964–989.

71.

Watkins

Noble

(2016) Review of education, pedagogy, and cultural studies thinking beyond recognition: Multiculturalism, cultural intelligence, and the professional capacities of teachers. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 38(1): 42–57.

72.

Wheatley

(2002) The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education 18(1): 5–22.

73.

Whitehead

(2010) Physical Literacy: Throughout the Lifecourse. Oxon, UK: Routledge.

74.

Woodcock

Hemmings

Kay

, et al. (2012) Does study of an inclusive education subject influence pre-service teachers’ concerns and self-efficacy about inclusion? Australian Journal of Teacher Education 37(6): 1–11.

75.

Yüksel

(2014) Becoming a teacher: tracing changes in pre-service English as a foreign language teachers’ sense of efficacy. South African Journal of Education 34(3): 1–8.

76.

Zach

Harari

(2012) Changes in teaching efficacy of pre-service teachers in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 17(5): 447–462.