The effective music teacher: A model for predicting music teacher’s self-efficacy

Abstract

Effective music teachers have several skills that influence the learning processes of their students. Music teachers’ effectiveness is a multidimensional construct that includes professional and personal features; it is a complex phenomenon characterized by several hidden variables that contribute in an interrelated way. Variables like professional self-efficacy could be good indicators of teachers’ effectiveness and are used to analyze professional and personal factors. The aim of this study is to examine music teachers’ professional self-efficacy and to define a predictive model based on their psychological and professional attitudes. Participants were 335 music teachers from several European countries who completed a set of questionnaires that included measures for professional self-efficacy, professional motivation, professional satisfaction, resilience, coping strategies, and self-esteem. A regression analysis was used to define a predictive model of professional self-efficacy. The results show that professional self-efficacy was positively predicted by professional satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and regulation attitudes toward teaching activity, perceived resilience, coping strategies based on planning solutions, and self-esteem. Conversely, coping strategies based on passive acceptance of critical situations had a negative impact on music teachers’ professional self-efficacy. The educational implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

music teacher self-efficacy effective music teacher self-efficacy predictors music teacher professional satisfaction music teacher resilience

Effective music teachers have several skills that significantly influence the learning process of music students. Teaching music is a complex endeavor that involves different professional and personal features and abilities. Music teachers’ effectiveness is a complicated phenomenon characterized by a multidimensional framework with several hidden variables (Biasutti & Concina, 2018; Klassen & Tze, 2014) that are difficult to assess. However, several research studies have defined its main features highlighting that professional self-efficacy could be a good indicator of teachers’ effectiveness (Klassen & Tze, 2014) when analyzing professional and personal factors. Teachers’ effectiveness and self-efficacy may depend on several factors related to the professional dimension, such as training experience (Stakelum, 2008), knowledge behaviors and professional experience (Bresler, 1993; Burroughs et al., 2019), experience in institutional service (Lederman & Lederman, 2017), and reflective practice (Loughran, 2002). In addition, personal features such as beliefs about music teaching (Mills, 2005) and emotional identities (Day & Qing, 2009) could play a role. If considered isolated, these aspects have a limited influence in contributing to the development of professional self-efficacy because they need to be constantly re-elaborated and subdued to critical thinking: the results of these cognitive processes lead to the definition of a personal sense of efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

Professional self-efficacy in teaching may regulate several variables related to motivational and emotional dimensions of teaching (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014; Yost, 2006). In addition, teaching-learning processes are affected by collective self-efficacy (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004), which can be defined as the evaluation of the efficacy of the educational context. Considering the music tuition domain, professional self-efficacy can be considered one of the components of the musical self of teachers (Flynn & Johnston, 2016). One key aspect of professional self-efficacy is the interpersonal and communicative dimension, which is relevant especially in the one-to-one lesson (Schiavio, Biasutti, van der Schyff, & Parncutt, 2020; Schiavio, van der Schyff, Biasutti, Moran, & Parncutt, 2019).

Several other variables could affect music teachers’ effectiveness, including professional self-efficacy (Yost, 2006), professional motivation (Jones & Parkes, 2010), professional satisfaction (Klassen & Chiu, 2010), self-esteem (Huang, Liu, & Shiomi, 2007), coping strategies (Gibbs & Miller, 2014), and resilience (Beltman, Mansfield, & Price, 2011) which are covered in the background analysis.

Music teachers’ professional self-efficacy

The concept of self-efficacy is connected to the self-perception that individuals have about their ability to act successfully in reaching goals and when facing difficult situations (Bandura, 1982). The development of self-efficacy can be determined by different factors, most of which are related to previous personal experiences, such as experience outputs, emotions, and beliefs about the causes of a specific result. In addition, self-efficacy depends on vicarious experiences: the results of observing specific behaviors by other people (Bandura, 1982). There are different perceptions of self-efficacy, each connected to a specific dimension (professional or personal) of human activities. In a teacher’s job, professional experience is one of the most important aspects of self-efficacy. More specifically, experiences in the first years of teaching are crucial to developing a self-perception of efficacy (Woolfolk Hoy & Burke Spero, 2005), and these professional outcomes often reconfigure the optimistic beliefs of teachers in the pre-service stage.

The perception of a high sense of professional efficacy is crucial for teachers. Professional efficacy can affect motivational and emotional elements related to educational activity, enhancing job satisfaction and professional involvement and reducing professional emotional fatigue (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). In addition, perceiving themselves as competent teachers helps them to maintain a constant effort for improving their professional activity (Yost, 2006).

In music education, some research has focused on self-efficacy in generalist teachers (Garvis, 2013; Hennessy, 2000; Seddon & Biasutti, 2008; Stunell, 2010). However, few scholars have addressed professional self-efficacy in specialist music teachers. Professional self-efficacy has been cited as a core element of the music teacher’s identity (Wagoner, 2015), and music teachers’ perceptions of professional self-efficacy are influenced by a multidimensional pattern of professional and personal aspects. According to Biasutti and Concina (2018), self-efficacy can be predicted by a teacher’s social skills, beliefs about musical ability, and teaching expertise. For in-service music teachers, professional self-efficacy is related to teaching effectiveness (Klassen & Tze, 2014): teachers who show high levels of confidence in their professional abilities are more likely to adopt effective behaviors in music lessons. Assessing one’s level of professional self-efficacy can provide additional information about teaching effectiveness for the teacher who is already an experienced music educator.

Music teachers’ professional motivation, satisfaction, self-esteem, and personal features

Several psychological factors play key roles in music teachers’ educational activity. Motivation toward teaching (Jones & Parkes, 2010), job satisfaction (Klassen & Chiu, 2010), and self-esteem (Huang et al., 2007) can all influence the work of music educators. Motivation is a psychological construct that explains why people decide to engage in specific tasks (Deci & Ryan, 1985). With reference to music education, research has shown that trainee music teachers have an intrinsic motivational pattern toward music teaching (Jones & Parkes, 2010). Trainee music teachers perceived teaching as one of the most important dimensions of their musical identity and showed an empathy toward students. In the view of self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), intrinsic motivation toward music teaching can be sustained by the empowerment of a self-perception of autonomy in choosing the specific educational activity, professional competence, and a sense of relatedness. Another aspect of teachers’ professional experience is job satisfaction, which is closely related to other professional and personal features, such as level of expertise and self-efficacy (Klassen & Chiu, 2010). Teachers who perceive themselves as able to effectively accomplish professional tasks connected with managing a class and involving students in school activities have reported higher levels of job satisfaction than teachers who lack this perception. Job satisfaction can also be affected by the context in which teachers work and by factors such as institutional policies, teamwork, and social environment. Another variable of job satisfaction is the cultural dimension (Klassen, Usher, & Bong, 2010): in collectivist cultures, teachers’ group self-efficacy may have positive effects on their levels of job satisfaction.

Teachers bring into the classroom certain personal features that can impact their work with students. This is particularly true of self-esteem, which influences teachers’ choices, beliefs, and self-perceptions. Teachers who show a high level of self-esteem are more inclined to develop professional self-efficacy (Huang et al., 2007).

Moreover, personal characteristics such as gender may impact features of the music lessons, such as teaching approaches (Zhukov, 2012), and personal beliefs about educational activity (Biasutti, 2010, 2012) with a possible reflection on the development of professional self-efficacy. These findings highlight the importance of accounting for both the personal and professional dimensions while seeking to enhance teachers’ effectiveness and professional well-being.

Music teachers’ coping strategies and resilience

The notion of coping strategies refers to a set of adaptive psychological mechanisms implemented by an individual to face personal and interpersonal issues and to manage stress and conflict (Biasutti & Concina, 2014). While working, school teachers experience a wide range of stressful situations, not only during class activities but also in their relationships with families and administrators. Previous research has largely focused on the main stress factors encountered by primary and secondary school teachers and the coping strategies they adopted to manage stress. Each stressful condition is handled differently: for example, teachers are more likely to adopt avoidance strategies if they perceive that a stressful event will recur and is beyond their control (Green & Ross, 1996). The coping strategies adopted by teachers depend not only on contextual features but also on personal and relational aspects, such as levels of self-efficacy and perceived social support. Shen (2009) highlights the positive relationship between a high level of self-efficacy and the use of coping strategies based on active coping in teachers in China. Another factor contributing to the adoption of active coping strategies in teachers is emotional intelligence (Chan, 2008), especially when associated with a high level of self-efficacy. When teachers feel able to face a stressful event, they tend to use strategies of active coping. Conversely, they are more likely to adopt avoidance strategies when they perceive a situation as out of their control.

To deal with stress and professional commitments, developing resilience is fundamental for empowering teachers’ professional success. Resilience is the process of adaptation while facing adverse situations; it is a multidimensional construct that is heavily influenced by risk factors and protection aspects (Beltman et al., 2011). Teachers experience many challenges, most of which are associated with their relationships with students and families, difficulties with principals and administrators, bureaucratic requirements, and a lack of expertise in facing complex situations. These events can all be significant sources of stress. However, teachers can count on several protective factors, such as intrinsic motivation toward teaching, a good level of self-efficacy, social support from family and colleagues, and a supportive professional environment (Beltman et al., 2011). Other aspects that influence the development of resilience are related to beliefs about student behaviors and the teacher’s ability to cope with them (Gibbs & Miller, 2014). These aspects offer important guidance when designing professional training for teachers and helping them to empower their professional self-efficacy.

The literature review above highlights the crucial role of several professional and personal features in analyzing effective teaching. Specific relationships between professional and personal may be hypothesized, which can contribute to define complex patterns of professional effectiveness and sense of efficacy among teachers. However, there is no evidence of an overarching model, nor necessarily an explicit set of links across elements such as professional self-efficacy, professional motivation, professional satisfaction, resilience, coping strategies, and self-esteem. Very little scholarship has examined these dimensions in the research field of music education, with many projects focusing on generalist primary school teachers (Hennessy, 2000; Stakelum, 2008; Stunell, 2010). The need to offer more insights into effective music teaching is one of the aims of this study, which focuses squarely on the music teacher.

Method

Research questions

This project is structured around a quantitative research method and a single data set. Its aim is to examine the connections between certain professional and personal features of the music teacher. The project was conducted with the support of several international partners from European academic institutions in the field of music education and involved participants from different countries (Croatia, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom). The research aim was to identify aspects that could be considered typical of effective music teachers. This study focuses on self-reported professional self-efficacy in music teaching. It is perfectly reasonable to wonder whether music teachers’ professional self-efficacy could be influenced by both professional and personal features (Bresler, 1993; Hennessy, 2000; Mills, 2005; Seddon & Biasutti, 2008; Stakelum, 2008; Stunell, 2010) and whether there are differences in professional self-efficacy among music teachers related to gender and level of experience. Thus, the following two research questions are posed:

(a) Are there differences related to gender and level of experience in music teachers’ professional motivation, self-esteem, professional satisfaction, resilience, and coping strategies?

(b) Can music teachers’ professional self-efficacy be predicted by their gender, level of experience, professional motivation, self-esteem, professional satisfaction, resilience, and coping strategies?

Participants

The study involved music teachers from several European countries. In all, 335 participants (256 women [76.42%] and 79 men [23.58%], mean age = 41.24 years, SD = 10.07, range = 23–67 years) completed the questionnaires. While participants were recruited from different socio-cultural contexts, information about gender has been simplified with a dichotomous variable. They had different nationalities (78 from Croatia, 14 from Ireland, 39 from Italy, 69 from Poland, 128 from Slovenia, 3 from the United Kingdom, and 4 from other countries) and levels of experience in music teaching (mean years of experience = 17.30, SD = 10.33). From those, n = 106 were novice music teachers, with 10 or less years of professional activity; n = 112 were medium-level experienced teachers, who have from 11 to 21 years of experience in music teaching; and n = 117 were expert teachers, who had a professional career of 21 or more years. Participants mainly worked as music teachers in general music schools (independent schools for music education, n = 142, 42.39%); many others taught music in primary school (n = 129, 38.51%), a smaller number worked in secondary school (n = 43, 12.83%), and a few worked in music academies and conservatories (n = 21, 6.27%). They all taught musical subjects: more specifically, 157 (46.87%) taught general music education, 120 (35.82%) were vocal or instrumental music teachers, and 58 (17.31%) taught music theory, solfège, or ensemble music classes.

Instruments

Data were collected with a set of self-report questionnaires. Each was focused on a specific psychological feature of the music teacher: professional self-efficacy, professional motivation, professional satisfaction, coping strategies, resilience, and self-esteem. Teachers’ professional self-efficacy was assessed using the short form of the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES–Short Form; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Professional motivation and satisfaction were investigated with The Work Tasks Motivation Scale for Teachers (WTMST; Fernet, Senécal, Guay, Marsh, & Dowson, 2008) and the Teaching Satisfaction Scale (TSS; Ho & Au, 2006), respectively. Coping strategies were assessed with the Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (Brief-COPE; Carver, 1997), whereas the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS; Smith et al., 2008) was used for resilience. Finally, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) was adopted for the self-esteem assessment. In addition, demographic factors (gender, age, nationality, years of professional experience, subject taught, educational institutions) were queried at the beginning of the questionnaires:

TSES is a self-report instrument developed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) to measure teachers’ beliefs about their efficacy in facing several typical teaching situations. Its original (long form) version has 24 items, whereas the short form consists of 12 items. The items cover the most important dimensions of teaching activities: respondents are invited to indicate on a 9-point Likert-type scale (where 1 is none at all and 9 is a great deal) how able they feel to perform the actions reported in the items. The statistical structure of the scale is characterized by three factors, each representing a core area of the teaching activity: efficacy in student engagement (engagement scale), efficacy in instructional strategies (instruction scale), and efficacy in classroom management (management scale). The TSES has good psychometrical properties, and the short form has good reliability, with Cronbach’s α values of .90 (overall questionnaire), .81 (engagement scale), .86 (instruction scale), and .86 (management scale).

The WTMST, based on the theoretical framework of the self-determination theory of Deci and Ryan (1985), was developed by Fernet et al. (2008) to assess teachers’ motivation toward six professional tasks (class preparation, teaching, evaluation of students, class management, administrative tasks, complementary tasks). Fifteen items were repeated for each of the six tasks to assess the motivational pattern that sustains respondents’ professional activities. To focus on the didactic dimension of the full spectrum of teaching work, only items referring to one professional task (teaching) were posed to participants in this study. Respondents rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (where 1 is does not correspond at all and 7 is corresponds completely) their agreement with each of the 15 items involving different explanations for performing professional tasks. Factorial analysis highlighted a 30-factor structure, where five motivational factors (intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation) emerged for each of the six professional tasks examined. Statistical validation showed good reliability for the WTMST, with Cronbach’s α values for motivational factors ranging from .76 to .92, specifically .92 (intrinsic motivation), .82 (identified regulation), .85 (introjected regulation), .76 (external regulation), and .77 (amotivation).

The TSS is a mono-factorial scale developed by Ho and Au (2006) for assessing job satisfaction among teachers. The scale includes five items focusing on teachers’ perceptions about their own professional satisfaction. Participants indicated their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert-type scale (where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree). The TSS had good statistical properties and reliability, with a Cronbach’s α of .77.

The BRS is a mono-factorial questionnaire developed by Smith et al. (2008) to evaluate the ability to recover after stressful events. It includes six items referring to attitudes that are frequently displayed when facing critical situations. Respondents reported their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert-type scale (where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree). The BRS had good reliability, with a Cronbach’s α of .85.

The Brief-COPE (Carver, 1997) is the short version of a more extended instrument, the Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). The Brief-COPE is a 28-item instrument assessing individual strategies for facing stressful events. Respondents indicated on a 4-point Likert-type scale (where 1 is I haven’t been doing this at all and 4 is I’ve been doing this a lot) the frequency with which they employed specific coping strategies in stressful conditions. The Brief-COPE is a well-known instrument that has been translated into and validated in several languages. The structure of the Brief-COPE is composed of 14 factors, each representing a specific strategy for coping with stress (self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioral disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor, acceptance, religion, self-blame). The Brief-COPE had good statistical properties, although the Cronbach’s α coefficients of reliability for a few factors were barely acceptable: .71 (self-distraction), .68 (active coping), .54 (denial), .90 (substance use), .71 (use of emotional support), .64 (use of instrumental support), .65 (behavioral disengagement), .50 (venting), .64 (positive reframing), .73 (planning), .73 (humor), .57 (acceptance), .82 (religion), and .69 (self-blame).

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) is a mono-factorial scale developed to assess self-esteem as a psychological construct. It includes 10 items investigating the attribute of worth to the self. Respondents rated the level of positive and negative feelings they experienced about themselves using a 4-point Likert-type scale (where 1 is strongly disagree and 4 is strongly agree). The scale has good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s α of .77.

Procedure

While all questionnaires were available in English, it was decided to use translated versions for each partner country (Croatia, Italy, Poland, Slovenia). A literature review was carried out to find versions of the questionnaires that had already been translated and validated for the national populations involved in this study. Questionnaires that did not yet have a validated version were translated by the relevant institutional partners from English into their countries’ main language (Croatian, Italian, Polish, Slovenian). The accuracy of the translations was checked with back-translations. English questionnaires were used for participants in Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Participants were contacted through email by each partner institution using the snowball sampling method. Participants were informed of the main aims of the research project and assured that all data collected would be anonymous and used only for research purposes. Through a web link, participants accessed the online surveys; before beginning to complete the questionnaires, each participant provided written consent. The one session questionnaires’ battery lasted approximately 25–30 min and had to be completed without interruptions. This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the British Psychological Society and with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Results

Data collected were analyzed using the IBM SPSS software (v. 23). Analyses consisted of the following four steps: internal consistency (Cronbach’s α), descriptive statistics and mean comparisons (one-way multivariate analyses of variance [MANOVAs]), intercorrelations, and regression analysis. First, Cronbach’s α was calculated for each subscale of the questionnaires to assess the internal consistency of the instruments. Then, descriptive statistics and mean comparisons were computed with multivariate MANOVAs, considering gender (two groups) and level of professional experience in music teaching (three groups). Intercorrelations between gender, level of experience, and all questionnaire subscales were computed with point-biserial correlation coefficients for dichotomous variables like gender and Pearson’s correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r) for continuous variables. Finally, a predictive model of the total level of professional self-efficacy was carried out using regression analysis.

Internal consistency

Cronbach’s α internal consistency indices were computed for all subscales of each instrument. The TSES–Short Form subscales showed a good level of reliability, ranging from .75 to .86. Specifically, they were .75 (engagement scale), .76 (instruction scale), and .86 (management scale). For the WTMST, the α values ranged from .62 to .83: intrinsic motivation was .83, identified regulation was .69, introjected regulation was .82, external regulation was .62, and amotivation was .80. The TSS and BRS both show good levels of reliability, with α values of .80 and .84, respectively. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was also confirmed as a reliable instrument, with a Cronbach’s α of .87.

Some issues occurred while examining the internal consistency of the Brief-COPE subscales: although the whole scale had a good level of internal consistency (α = .82), a few factors had α values below .50 and thus had to be removed from the subsequent statistical analysis: self-distraction (α = .44), behavioral disengagement (α = .26), and venting (α = .47). The other scales had acceptable or even good coefficients and were included in the analyses: active coping (α = .50), denial (α = .53), substance use (α = .72), use of emotional support (α = .73), use of instrumental support (α = .81), positive reframing (α = .54), planning (α = .68), humor (α = .80), acceptance (α = .52), religion (α = .90), and self-blame (α = .59).

Descriptive statistics and mean comparisons (one-way MANOVAs)

Descriptive statistics were computed for gender and level of professional experience groups. The group mean scores and SDs are reported in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics (mean scores and SDs) for gender and level of professional experience groups for TSES–Short Form scales, WTMST–Teaching Tasks scales, and the TSS.

	Female (n = 256)	Male (n = 79)	Novice teachers ⩽10 years (n = 106)	Medium-level experienced teachers 11–20 years (n = 112)	Expert teachers ⩾21 years (n = 117)	Total sample (n = 335)
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
TSES–Short Form^a
Engagement scale	7.20 (1.09)	7.06 (1.18)	7.09 (1.21)	7.13 (1.06)	7.26 (1.07)	7.16 (1.11)
Instruction scale	7.72 (0.96)	7.80 (0.95)	7.65 (1.12)	7.74 (0.88)	7.82 (0.86)	7.74 (0.96)
Management scale	7.46 (1.17)	7.41 (1.11)	7.20 (1.32)	7.55 (0.92)	7.56 (1.18)	7.45 (1.16)
WTMST–Teaching Tasks^b
Intrinsic motivation	6.25 (1)	6.14 (0.85)	6.24 (0.93)	6.06 (1.11)	6.36 (0.83)	6.22 (0.97)
Identified regulation	5.98 (1.1)	5.79 (1.1)	5.84 (1.13)	5.87 (1.21)	6.07 (0.97)	5.93 (1.11)
Introjected regulation	4.12 (2)	3.51 (1.77)	3.71 (2.01)	3.95 (1.81)	4.24 (2.03)	3.98 (1.96)
External motivation	3.70 (1.63)	3.60 (1.51)	3.51 (1.62)	3.68 (1.58)	3.83 (1.59)	3.68 (1.60)
Amotivation	2.29 (1.45)	2.06 (1.23)	2.16 (1.46)	2.34 (1.38)	2.21 (1.37)	2.24 (1.40)
TSS^c
Teacher’s satisfaction	4.17 (0.71)	3.97 (0.86)	3.95 (0.87)	4.17 (0.70)	4.24 (0.66)	4.12 (0.75)

SD: standard deviation; TSES: Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale; WTMST: Work Tasks Motivation Scale for Teachers; TSS: Teaching Satisfaction Scale.

Score range 1–9.

Score range 1–7.

Score range 1–5.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics (mean scores and SDs) for gender and level of professional experience groups for the BRS, Brief-COPE scales, and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

	Female (n = 256)	Male (n = 79)	Novice teachers ⩽10 years (n = 106)	Medium-level experienced teachers 11–20 years (n = 112)	Expert teachers ⩾21 years (n = 117)	Total sample (n = 335)
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
BRS^a
Resilience	3.31 (0.83)	3.60 (0.90)	3.40 (0.85)	3.40 (0.81)	3.32 (0.90)	3.38 (0.85)
Brief-COPE^b
Active coping	3.50 (0.57)	3.31 (0.68)	3.44 (0.58)	3.47 (0.65)	3.46 (0.59)	3.46 (0.60)
Denial	1.61 (0.71)	1.66 (0.71)	1.60 (0.73)	1.66 (0.64)	1.61 (0.76)	1.63 (0.71)
Substance use	1.08 (0.30)	1.10 (0.32)	1.07 (0.26)	1.07 (0.23)	1.13 (0.39)	1.09 (0.31)
Use of emotional support	3.09 (0.79)	2.73 (0.90)	3.07 (0.87)	3.09 (0.80)	2.87 (0.81)	3.01 (0.83)
Use of instrumental support	3.16 (0.80)	2.85 (0.88)	3.25 (0.81)	3.16 (0.80)	2.87 (0.84)	3.09 (0.83)
Positive reframing	3.37 (0.63)	3.24 (0.62)	3.32 (0.62)	3.35 (0.64)	3.34 (0.72)	3.34 (0.62)
Planning	3.51 (0.60)	3.27 (0.62)	3.40 (0.61)	3.50 (0.60)	4.46 (0.63)	3.46 (0.61)
Humor	2.34 (1.01)	2.31 (0.94)	2.29 (1.02)	2.35 (1)	2.36 (0.96)	2.34 (0.99)
Acceptance	3.23 (0.66)	3.12 (0.74)	3.21 (0.69)	3.24 (0.66)	3.17 (0.70)	3.20 (0.68)
Religion	2.33 (1.15)	1.97 (1.04)	2.13 (1.1)	2.33 (1.16)	2.26 (1.14)	2.24 (1.13)
Self-blame	2.68 (0.78)	2.57 (0.72)	2.75 (0.77)	2.64 (0.72)	2.59 (0.81)	2.66 (0.77)
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale^b
Self-esteem	3.25 (0.61)	3.21 (0.58)	3.12 (0.60)	3.27 (0.59)	3.32 (0.60)	3.24 (0.60)

SD: standard deviation; BRS: Brief Resilience Scale; COPE: Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced.

Score range 1–5.

Score range 1–4.

Mean comparisons were performed to answer the first research question (“Are there differences related to gender and level of experience in music teachers’ professional motivation, self-esteem, professional satisfaction, resilience, and coping strategies?”). As to gender, mean differences were examined with one-way MANOVA, and partial eta squared ( $η_{p}^{2}$ ) was computed as an effect size index. Significant differences between groups were found for the introjected regulation scale, F(1, 334) = 6.07, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2} = . 02$ ; for the TSS, F(1, 334) = 4.12, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2} = . 01$ ; and for the BRS, F(1, 334) = 7.38, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2} = . 02$ : for all three scales, females scored higher than males. However, for all comparisons, the partial eta squared indices were low (~.02), indicating a small effect size (Cohen, 1988). Other significant mean differences emerged for some Brief-COPE subscales: active coping, F(1, 334) = 6.28, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2} = . 02$ ; use of emotional support, F(1, 334) 12.21, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2} = . 03$ ; use of instrumental support, F(1, 334) = 8.68, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2} = . 02$ ; planning, F(1, 334) = 9.68, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2} = . 03$ ; and religion, F(1, 334) = 6.16, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2} = . 02$ . For all these scales, women’s mean scores were higher than men’s, and the partial eta squared indices indicated low effect sizes (~ 0.02).

Three groups were considered for teachers’ level of professional experience: novice (“up to 10 years of experience,” n = 106), medium- level (“from 11 to 20 years of experience,” n = 112), and expert (“21 years of experience and over,” n = 117). A one-way MANOVA was computed to examine possible significant differences, and $η_{p}^{2}$ was computed for the effect size index. When mean differences were significant, post hoc comparisons were carried out with the Bonferroni test. Significant differences were found for the TSS scale, F(2, 332) = 4.49, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2} = . 03$ ; for the use of instrumental support scale in the Brief-COPE questionnaire, F(2, 332) = 6.54, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2} = . 04$ ; and for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, F(2, 332) = 3.31, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2} = . 02$ . Post hoc Bonferroni tests revealed that expert teachers had a higher level of professional satisfaction than novice teachers for the TSS scale, that expert teachers scored lower than both novice and medium-level teachers on the use of instrumental support scale, and that expert teachers showed a higher level of self-esteem than novice teachers on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. For all significant comparisons, partial eta squared coefficients were ~.02; the effect sizes can be considered low.

Intercorrelations

To verify whether music teachers’ gender and level of experience are correlated with professional motivation, self-esteem, professional satisfaction, resilience, and coping strategies, Pearson’s r and point-biserial correlation coefficients were computed. As gender is a dichotomous variable (0 = men, 1 = women), point-biserial correlation was used for assessing correlations. For all other variables, which are ordinal and continuous, Pearson’s r coefficients were computed. The results of all intercorrelation analyses are reported in Table 3. Below, the correlations for gender, level of professional experience, total score of self-efficacy (TSES–Short Form), teacher’s satisfaction (TSS score), resilience (BRS score), and self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale) are presented in more detail.

Table 3.

Intercorrelation analysis for gender, level of experience, TSES–Short Form scales, WTMST–Teaching Tasks scales, TSS, BRS, Brief-COPE scales, and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

Measures	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24
1. Gender	–
2. Professional experience	.12*	–
3. TSES–ShForm_total score	.01	.10	–
4. TSES–ShForm_Eng Scale	.05	.06	.88**	–
5. TSES–ShForm_Instr Scale	–.04	.07	.87**	.68**	–
6. TSES–ShForm_Man Scale	.02	.12*	.87**	.61**	.63**	–
7. WTMST Teach_Intrin Mot	.05	.05	.46**	.40**	.42**	.38**	–
8. WTMST Teach_Ident Reg	.07	.08	.43**	.39**	.38**	.35**	.54**	–
9. WTMST Teach_Introj Reg	.13*	.11*	.09	.04	.08	.12*	.06	.35**	–
10. WTMST Teach_Ext Reg	.03	.08	–.01	–.08	.01	.05	–.05	.22**	.52**	–
11. WTMST Teach_Amot	.07	.01	–.20**	–.18**	–.20**	–.15**	–.37**	–.15**	.29**	.27**	–
12. TSS (satisfaction)	.11*	.15**	.53**	.49**	.45**	.44**	.39**	.38**	.08	–.07	–.25**	–
13. BRS (resilience)	–.15*	–.04	.36**	.32**	.32**	.30**	.16**	.17**	–.09	–.09	–.25**	.30**	–
14. Br COPE_Act cop	.14*	.02	.33**	.25**	.28**	.33**	.27*	.25**	.13*	.08	–.17**	.39**	.19**	–
15. Br COPE_Den	–.03	.00	.09	.05	.06	.12*	.06	.08	.19**	.15**	.11*	.13*	–.16**	.13*	–
16. Br COPE_Sub Use	–.02	.08	–.01	–.02	.01	–.02	.05	.05	.00	–.01	.04	–.01	–.07	–.07	.13*	–
17. Br COPE_Emot Sup	.19**	–.10	.08	.05	.08	.09	.10	.18**	.14*	.11*	–.03	.23**	–.10	.26**	.13*	–.01	–
18. Br COPE_Instr Sup	.16**	–.19**	.04	.01	.04	.05	.13*	.13**	.11*	.06	–.03	.17**	–.12*	.28**	.15**	–.01	.60**	–
19. Br COPE_Pos Ref	.09	.01	.11*	.08	.08	.12*	.09	.14**	.09	–.02	–.10	.17**	.10	.34**	.09	.02	.29**	.24**	–
20. Br COPE_Plan	.17**	.04	.27**	.19**	.25**	.27**	.11*	.18**	.08	.01	–.11*	.25**	.08	.50**	.05	–.01	.41**	.33**	.45**	–
21. Br COPE_Hum	.01	.03	.15**	.17**	.14*	.08	.05	.11*	.17**	.09	.05	.12*	.15**	.14**	.11*	–.01	.17**	.08	.29**	.20**	–
22. Br COPE_Accep	.07	–.03	.06	.01	.04	.10	–.01	.04	.04	–.01	–.08	.19**	.13*	.42**	.05	–.09	.20**	.23**	.31**	.43**	.15**	–
23. Br COPE_Rel	.13*	.04	–.04	.03	–.04	–.08	–.03	.02	.08	.07	.10	.06	–.10	.10	.07	.00	.23**	.14*	.23**	.19**	.13**	.07	–
24. Br COPE_Self-Bl	.06	–.09	–.09	–.13**	–.04	–.07	.02	.03	.08	.01	.01	–.02	–.26**	.04	.24**	.15**	.13*	.32**	.10	.23**	–.11*	.16**	–.01	–
25. Rosenberg SE scale	.03	.13*	.36**	.33**	.28**	.32**	.26**	.22**	.09	.04	–.20**	.29**	.38**	.35**	–.04	–.05	.14*	.04	.20**	.23**	.17**	.20**	.09	–.25**

TSES: Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale; WTMST: Work Tasks Motivation Scale for Teachers; TSS: Teaching Satisfaction Scale; BRS: Brief Resilience Scale; COPE: Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced; SE: self-esteem.

As gender is a dichotomous variable (0 = men, 1 = women), intercorrelations between this and the other variables have been computed using the point-biserial correlation. For the other variables, Pearson’s r correlation has been used.

p < .05; **p < .01.

The measures highlighted in bold had significant values.

The results indicate that gender was positively correlated with the introjected regulation scale of the WTMST (r = .13, p < .05), the TSS score (r = .11, p < .05), and the active coping (r = .14, p < .05), use of emotional support (r = .19, p < .01), use of instrumental support (r = .16, p < .01), planning (r = .17, p < .01), and religion scales (r = .13, p < .05) of the Brief-COPE. A significant negative correlation was found for gender and BRS score (r = −.15, p < .05). As to level of professional experience, positive intercorrelations appeared for this variable and the management scale of the TSES–Short Form (r = .12, p < .05), the introjected regulation scale of the WTMST (r = .11, p < .05), the TSS score (r = .15, p < .01), and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (r = .13, p < .05). Professional experience was negatively correlated with the use of instrumental support scale of the Brief-COPE (r = −.19, p < .01). The total score of the TSES–Short Form was positively correlated with the intrinsic motivation and identified regulation scales of the WTMST (r = .46, p < .01 and r = .43, p < .01, respectively) and with the TSS score (r = .53, p < .01). It was also positively correlated with the BRS score (r = .36, p < .01) and the active coping (r = .33, p < .01), positive reframing (r = .11, p < .05), planning (r = .27, p < .01), and humor (r = .15, p < .01) scales of the Brief-COPE, along with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (r = .36, p < .01). TSES-Short Form scores were negatively correlated with WTMST Amotivation scale (r = .-20, p < .01). TSS scores showed significant positive correlations with the intrinsic motivation (r = .39, p < .01) and identified regulation (r = .38, p < .01) scales of the WTMST; with the BRS scores (r = .30, p < .01); with the active coping (r = .39, p < .01), denial (r = .13, p < .05), use of emotional support (r = .23, p < .01), use of instrumental support (r = .17, p < .01), positive reframing (r = .17, p < .01), planning (r = .25, p < .01), humor (r = .12, p < .05), and acceptance (r = .19, p < .01) scales of the Brief-COPE; and with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (r = .29, p < .01). Teacher satisfaction was significantly negatively correlated with the amotivation scale (r = −.25, p < .01) of the WTMST. BRS scores were positively correlated with the intrinsic motivation (r = .16, p < .01) and identified regulation scales (r = .17, p < .01) of the WTMST, with the active coping (r = .19, p < .01) and humor (r = .15, p < .01) scales of the Brief-COPE, and with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (r = .38, p < .01). Significant negative correlations emerged between BRS scores and the amotivation scale (r =−25, p < .01) of the WTMST and the denial (r = −.16, p < .01), use of instrumental support (r = −.12, p < .01), and self-blame (r = −.26, p < .01) scales of the Brief-COPE. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale scores showed significant positive correlations with the intrinsic motivation (r = .26, p < .01) and identified regulation (r = .22, p < .01) scales of the WTMST and with the active coping (r = .35, p < .01), use of emotional support (r = .14, p < .05), positive reframing (r = .20, p < .01), planning (r = .23, p < .01), humor (r = .17, p < .01), and acceptance (r = .20, p < .01) scales of the Brief-COPE. Self-esteem scores were negatively correlated with the amotivation scale (r = −.20, p < .01) of the WTMST and the self-blame scale (r = −.25, p < .01) of the Brief-COPE.

Regression analysis

A step-wise regression analysis was performed to answer the second research question (“Can music teachers’ professional self-efficacy be predicted by their gender, level of experience, professional motivation, self-esteem, professional satisfaction, resilience, and coping strategies?”). Teachers’ professional self-efficacy as indicated by the TSES–Short Form total score was considered the dependent variable, whereas gender, level of professional experience, all WTMST scales, the TSS score, the BRS score, all Brief-COPE scales, and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale scores were considered possible predictors. A final 7-factor prediction model emerged from the regression analysis with a significant $R_{a d j}^{2} = . 43$ , F(1, 334) = 37.24, p < .01, explaining 43% of the variability in the TSES Short Form total score. The final model and its predictors are reported in Table 4.

Table 4.

Predictive regression model of the TSE–Short Form total score.

Predictors	$R_{a d j}^{2}$	β	t	F
TSS	.28	0.30	6.18**	128.71**
WTMST_Intrinsic motivation scale	.35	0.20	3.87**	91.06**
BRS	.39	0.18	3.85**	71.88**
Brief COPE_Planning scale	.41	0.16	3.33**	58.11**
WTMST_Indentified regulation scale	.42	0.13	2.50*	48.73**
BCOPE_Acceptance scale	.42	−0.11	−2.41*	41.87**
Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale	.43	0.11	2.40*	37.24**

TSES: Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale; TSS: Teaching Satisfaction Scale; WTMST: Work Tasks Motivation Scale for Teachers; BRS: Brief Resilience Scale; COPE: Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced.

p < .05; **p < .01.

The first variable that appeared as a predictor is the TSS score (β = 0.30, p < .01), indicating that a high level of professional satisfaction impacts music teachers’ professional self-efficacy. The second predictor of the model is the intrinsic motivation scale of the WTMST (β = 0.20, p < .01). This shows that the more teachers are intrinsically motivated toward their teaching tasks, the more they perceive themselves as able to accomplish their educational work. The third factor is the BRS score (β = 0.18, p < .01), which indicates that teachers who consider themselves resilient are more likely to develop a high level of professional self-efficacy in their teaching activity. The planning scale of the Brief-COPE is the fourth predictive factor (β = 0.18, p < .01): the use of coping strategies based on reflecting upon and planning possible solutions can positively affect the perception of professional self-efficacy. The fifth predictor is the identified regulation scale of the WTMST (β = 0.16, p < .01), highlighting that intrinsic motivational attitude toward teaching promotes a strong sense of professional self-efficacy. The sixth predictor is the acceptance scale of the Brief-COPE (β = −0.11, p < .05): adopting coping behaviors that passively accepted a stressful situation and its consequences without making an effort to solve it has a negative impact on the professional self-efficacy of music teachers. The last predictor is the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (β = 0.11, p < .05), which indicates that a high level of self-esteem positively affects teachers’ perceptions of their professional self-efficacy. Level of experience did not emerge as a predictor in this regression model.

Discussion

This study has examined the professional and personal factors that influence the development of professional self-efficacy among music teachers. The findings have highlighted the complexity of this construct, which depends on several psychological features of the music teacher.

As to the first research question (“Are there differences related to gender and level of experience in music teachers’ professional motivation, self-esteem, professional satisfaction, resilience, and coping strategies?”), the findings show the following significant differences: females are more likely to have high satisfaction about their jobs and to use coping strategies based on active coping, emotional and instrumental support, religious comfort, and planning possible solutions. This finding confirms the results of previous studies of teachers’ characteristics, where female participants were reported to more frequently adopt strategies of active coping than their male colleagues (Beltman et al., 2011). Conversely, male music teachers showed a higher level of resilience than their female counterparts. Gender differences may reflect the different teaching approaches and beliefs that have been highlighted for female and male music educators (Biasutti, 2010, 2012; Zhukov, 2012), encouraging new questions regarding the impact of gender on teaching practice. As to participants’ level of experience, more experienced teachers perceived themselves as more effective in managing the class, were more satisfied with their jobs, and showed higher levels of self-esteem than less experienced teachers. All these aspects are consistent with the profile of the effective teacher found in the previous literature: effective teachers are expert educators with high levels of self-esteem who perceive themselves as successful at their jobs (Huang et al., 2007). In addition, they are skillful at managing the classroom and show substantial satisfaction in their jobs (Klassen & Chiu, 2010), confirming the role of professional experience in shaping teacher’s competence (Bresler, 1993; Burroughs et al., 2019). As to the second research question (“Can music teachers’ professional self-efficacy be predicted by their gender, level of experience, professional motivation, self-esteem, professional satisfaction, resilience, and coping strategies?”), the regression analysis showed a model of professional self-efficacy including intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction, resilience, coping strategies based on planning and acceptance, and level of self-esteem. In this model, gender and experience did not emerge as predictors of professional self-efficacy, contrasting with previous findings about music teachers and teachers in general (Biasutti & Concina, 2018; Klassen & Chiu, 2010), where experience did predict the level of professional self-efficacy. The model confirmed the key role of intrinsic motivation (Jones & Parkes, 2010) and self-esteem (Huang et al., 2007) in helping develop a positive perception of professional effectiveness. All these findings highlight the multidimensional nature of the concept of professional self-efficacy for music teachers, a construct which is affected by several cognitive, motivational, and emotional factors.

This study has certain limitations, arising mainly from the self-report instruments used to collect the data: responses to such questionnaires usually present a risk of social desirability bias, and this issue should be carefully considered while discussing the results. In addition, the questionnaire’s structure in the battery may have led to possible ordering effects in participants’ responses. Another research issue is related to the exploratory nature of the study, which includes a wide range of demographic data to maximize the collected information. Data such as nationality and gender can sketch a social profile of the participants, which can be useful in an exploratory research, but their pertinence should be questioned more in detail in future research projects about teachers’ effectiveness and self-efficacy. Another critical point is connected with the use of the Brief-COPE with this specific group of participants: for some scales, the low level of reliability coefficients made it impossible to include them in the statistical analysis, which limited the information about coping strategies used by the participants. Although included in the analysis, other scales had a reliability coefficient that was not fully satisfactory, implying a careful generalization of some of the current findings. Finally, a limitation is due to the bias that characterized the groups of participants, which were not balanced for gender and nationality.

Further research avenues and educational implications

Further studies are needed to confirm the current framework of professional self-efficacy in music teachers. More specifically, an exhaustive examination would consider all emerging variables—whether professional or personal—as possibly related to the development of music teachers’ professional self-efficacy (motivation, beliefs about learning and teaching, professional experience, job satisfaction, coping strategies). A model of professional self-efficacy could be useful in teachers’ professional development, especially in educational programs for trainee teachers. Helping music education trainee teachers develop a positive but realistic perception of professional self-efficacy could sustain them in successfully facing the challenges of the first years of their professional lives.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the European Association for Music in Schools (EAS) for the support.

Author contributions

M.B. was the idea originator of the paper and contributed with research method, literature review, and results interpretation. E.C. contributed with the literature review, data analysis, and results interpretation. C.D. contributed with data collection (Ireland and UK teachers), S.F. contributed with data collection (Italian teachers), G.K. contributed with data collection (Polish teachers), A.M. contributed in setting the online platform and critically revised the paper, B.R.P. contributed with data collection (Slovenian teachers), and S.V. contributed with data collection (Croatian teachers).

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Michele Biasutti

Ciaran Deloughry

Anthony Mangiacotti

References

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

Beltman

Mansfield

Price

(2011). Thriving not just surviving: A review of research on teacher resilience. Educational Research Review, 6, 185–207.

Biasutti

(2010). Investigating trainee music teachers’ beliefs on musical abilities and learning: A quantitative study. Music Education Research, 12, 47–69. doi:10.1080/14613800903568262

Biasutti

(2012). Teaching beliefs: A comparison between Italian primary and secondary school trainee teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 38, 231–244. doi:10.1080/02607476.2012.668777

Biasutti

Concina

(2014). The role of coping strategy and experience in predicting music performance anxiety. Musicae Scientiae, 18, 189–202. doi:10.1177/1029864914523282

Biasutti

Concina

(2018). The effective music teacher: The influence of personal, social, and cognitive dimensions on music teacher self-efficacy. Musicae Scientiae, 22, 264–279. doi:10.1177/1029864916685929

Bresler

(1993). Teacher knowledge in music education research. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 118, 1–20.

Burroughs

Gardner

Lee

Guo

Touitou

Jansen

Schmidt

(2019). A review on the literature on teacher effectiveness and student outcomes. In Burroughs

Gardner

Lee

Guo

Touitou

Jansen

Schmidt

(Eds.), Teaching for excellence and equity. Analyzing teacher characteristics, behaviors and student outcomes with TIMSS (pp. 6–16). Hamburg, Germany: Springer.

10.

Carver

C. S.

(1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the Brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 92–100.

11.

Carver

C. S.

Scheier

M. F.

Weintraub

J. K.

(1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretical based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283.

12.

Chan

D. W.

(2008). Emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and coping among Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong-Kong. Educational Psychology, 28, 397–408. doi:10.1080/01443410701668372

13.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

14.

Day

Qing

(2009). Teacher emotions: Well being and effectiveness. In Schutz

P. A.

Zembylas

(Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research (pp. 15–31). Boston, MA: Springer.

15.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Platinum Press.

16.

Fernet

Senécal

Guay

Marsh

Dowson

(2008). The Work Task Motivation Scale for Teachers (WTMST). Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 256–279.

17.

Flynn

Johnston

(2016). Possible selves in music: The transformative potential for children and young people of performance music education based on principles of diversity. Dublin, Ireland: Music Generation.

18.

Garvis

(2013). Beginning generalist teacher self-efficacy for music compared with Maths and English. British Journal of Music Education, 30, 85–101. doi:10.1017/S0265051712000411

19.

Gibbs

Miller

(2014). Teachers’ resilience and wellbeing: A role for educational psychology. Teachers and Teaching, 20, 609–621. doi:10.1080/13540602.2013.844408

20.

Goddard

R. D.

Hoy

W. K.

Hoy

A. W.

(2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33, 3–13.

21.

Green

S. B.

Ross

M. E.

(1996). A theory-based measure of coping strategies used by teachers: The problems in teaching scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 315–325.

22.

Hennessy

(2000). Overcoming the red-feeling: The development of confidence to teach music in primary school amongst student teachers. British Journal of Music Education, 17, 183–196.

23.

C. L.

W. T.

(2006). Teaching Satisfaction Scale: Measuring job satisfaction of teachers. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 172–185.

24.

Huang

Liu

Shiomi

(2007). An analysis of the relationships between teacher efficacy, teacher self-esteem and orientations to seeking help. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35, 707–716. doi:10.2224/sbp.2007.35.5.707

25.

Jones

B. D.

Parkes

C. A.

(2010). The motivation of undergraduate music students: The impact of identification and talent beliefs in choosing a career in music education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 19, 41–56. doi:10.1177/1057083709351816

26.

Klassen

R. M.

Chiu

M. M.

(2010). Effects on teacher’s self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 741–756. doi:10.1037/a0019237

27.

Klassen

R. M.

Tze

V. M. C.

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

28.

Klassen

R. M.

Usher

E. L.

Bong

(2010). Teachers’ collective efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in cross-cultural context. Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 464–486.

29.

Lederman

N. G.

Lederman

J. S.

(2017). The future of peer review. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28, 219–221. doi:10.1080/1046560X.2017.1319163

30.

Loughran

J. J.

(2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 33–43.

31.

Mills

(2005). Addressing the concerns of conservatoire students about school music teaching. British Journal of Music Education, 22, 63–75. doi:10.1017/S0265051704005996

32.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

33.

Schiavio

Biasutti

van der Schyff

Parncutt

(2020). A matter of presence. A qualitative study on teaching individual and collective music classes. Musicae Scientiae, 24, 356–376. doi:10.1177/1029864918808833

34.

Schiavio

van der Schyff

Biasutti

Moran

Parncutt

(2019). Instrumental technique, expressivity, and communication. A qualitative study on learning music in individual and collective settings. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 737. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00737

35.

Seddon

Biasutti

(2008). Non-music specialist trainee primary school teachers’ confidence in teaching music in the classroom. Music Education Research, 10, 403–421. doi:10.1080/14613800802280159

36.

Shen

Y. A.

(2009). Relationships between self-efficacy, social support and stress coping strategies in Chinese primary and secondary school teachers. Stress and Health, 25, 129–138. doi:10.1002/smi.1229

37.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114, 68–77.

38.

Smith

B. W.

Dalen

Wiggins

Tooley

Christopher

Bernard

(2008). The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15, 194–200.

39.

Stakelum

(2008). Creating a musical world in the classroom: Application of a Bourdieuan approach towards understanding teacher practice. British Journal of Music Education, 25, 91–102. doi:10.1017/S0265051707007747

40.

Stunell

(2010). Not musical? Identity perceptions of generalist primary school teachers in relation to classroom music teaching in England. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 9, 79–107.

41.

Tschannen-Moran

Woolfolk Hoy

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

42.

Wagoner

C. L.

(2015). Measuring music teacher identity: Self-efficacy and commitment among music teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 205, 27–49.

43.

Woolfolk Hoy

Burke Spero

. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343–356. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007

44.

Yost

D. S.

(2006). Reflection and self-efficacy: Enhancing the retention of qualified teachers from a teacher education perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33, 59–76.

45.

Zhukov

(2012). Teaching strategies and gender in higher education instrumental studios. International Journal of Music Education, 30, 32–45.