Page 1 of 9

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 11, No. 2

Publication Date: February 25, 2024

DOI:10.14738/assrj.112.16490.

Hoogsteen, T. J. (2024). Affective States: A Neglected Construct in the Study of Efficacy. Advances in Social Sciences Research

Journal, 11(2). 182-190.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Affective States: A Neglected Construct in the Study of Efficacy

T.J. Hoogsteen

Royal Roads University

ABSTRACT

The social cognitive theory concept of efficacy has a rich evidence base to support

its importance to educators. Although there is much research in support of the

theory, there is also evidence which contradicts some of its major and long-held

beliefs. One of these beliefs is that out of the four sources of efficacy, affective states

are the weakest in terms of impact. This paper synthesizes evidence to challenge

the accepted notion and presents an argument for affective states being the most

powerful source of efficacy. This idea has important implications for school leaders

because of efficacy’s relationship to resilience and job commitment.

Keywords: Self-efficacy, Sources of Efficacy, Resilience, Affective States

INTRODUCTION

More than 40 years since its inception, the social cognitive theory concept of self-efficacy

originating in Bandura (1977) has become a mainstay in educational theory and research. The

popularity of self-efficacy, and the related notion borne from it, collective efficacy, can likely be

linked to the positive outcomes with which they are associated. According to Bandura (1977,

1997), both types of efficacies are believed to support teacher’s, commitment and resilience,

among other impacts, and these beliefs have persisted, and been supported and cited elsewhere

throughout the efficacy literature base (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Tschannen-Moran &

Woolfolk Hoy, 2007; Donohoo, 2017). The same can be said for school leaders as a recent study

found that school leaders’ self-efficacy was related to their resilience throughout the COVID-19

pandemic (Stomski et al., 2022).

The importance of increased commitment and resilience to school leaders cannot be

overstated. This is especially true considering data from Aguilar (2018) which notes that 40%

percent of first-year teachers have left the profession during the last two decades. Combine this

with the claim from Pollock (2020) that even prior to the pandemic school leaders were facing

work intensification partially due to accountability pressures, and the finding from Stomski et

al. (2022) that four in ten administrators plan to leave education in the next three years, and

there is potential for real crisis in school leadership and education. A possible avenue to address

and alleviate at least some of the pressure is self-efficacy.

However, to be helpful, self-efficacy theory needs to advance. Even though the theory has strong

implications for teacher development and has an established and dedicated scholarship

centred on the area of professional learning/development (Salas-Rodriguez & Lara, 2022;

Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007; de Carvalho et al., 2023; Loughland & Nguyen, 2020;

Loughland & Ryan, 2020), the theory has not evolved since the original publication of Bandura

(1977). Take for example, the four sources of efficacy, mastery experiences, vicarious

Page 2 of 9

183

Hoogsteen, T. J. (2024). Affective States: A Neglected Construct in the Study of Efficacy. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(2). 182-

190.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.112.16490

experiences, social persuasion, and affective states, were thought to contribute to the

development and efficacy, and were believed to have varying degrees of impact. Above, they

are listed in order from most to least powerful, and this hierarchy of the sources of efficacy is

firmly entrenched in the knowledge base and still appears often (Donohoo, 2017; Asih et al.

2022).

Although the hierarchy of sources is commonly accepted in efficacy research, there is evidence

and claims which allows this truth to be disputed. In fact, Asih et al. (2022) state that since the

physiological state is thought to be the least important because it is believed to be strengthened

through the role of mastery experience, it leads to the lack of investigation into physiological

states, which is problematic. They go on to urge for increased attention paid to the role of the

affective state as an important construct in self-efficacy due to its effect on individual resilience

(p. 4). In that case, the purpose of this article is to synthesize evidence and formulate an

argument which not only challenges the popular sentiment that places affective states as having

the least influence, but also contends that the aforementioned source of efficacy may be the

most important factor in governing teacher efficacy.

In an effort to theory-build, this review will construct an argument based on a preponderance

of evidence related to each source from literature based in the education sector, but

corroboration will also be sourced from areas outside of the normal fields associated with

teacher efficacy. The remainder of this article will consist of three parts. First, an overview of

evidence related to the sources of efficacy will be provided. Next, the argument to consider

affective states as the most powerful source of teacher efficacy will be developed. Finally,

implications for school leaders and practice will be considered.

SOURCES OF EFFICACY

As mentioned earlier, there are four sources which shape efficacy. According to Bandura

(1997), the sources that develop self-efficacy and collective efficacy are the same, serve similar

functions, and operate through similar processes. Thus, the evidence presented in this review

is drawn from research of both self-efficacy and collective efficacy. Beforehand, it would be

useful to define what is meant by each source of efficacy. Mastery refers to past perceptions of

teaching, vicarious experiences are based on the success or failures of models with similar

characteristics, verbal persuasion in encouragement from colleagues such as other teachers or

administrators, and affective states are the amount of emotional and physiological arousal

experienced as they anticipate and practice teaching (Tschannen-Moran and McMaster, 2009).

Mentioned as well was the agreed upon order of influence of the sources, which is mastery

experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and affective states (Donohoo, 2017).

Not only are mastery experiences thought to be the strongest influence on efficacy, it is also the

source that has had the most data collected on its impact, so much of this review will include

evidence connected to mastery experiences while detailing the lack of certainty surrounding

the dominant discourse of the sources of efficacy.

An early study to measure its influence, Goddard (2001) noted that mastery experiences, which

was defined by previous school achievement, explained nearly two-thirds of the variance of

CTE between schools (p.474). A subsequent study by Goddard and Skrla (2006) again

confirmed the relationship between prior academic achievement and reports of collective

Page 3 of 9

184

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 2, February-2024

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

efficacy. In this case, they studied the rate of student placement into gifted programs, faculty

ethnic composition, and past academic achievement and found that achievement and context

variables accounted for 46% of the variation in collective efficacy beliefs between schools.

The latter study introduced context as a variable in the development of efficacy, and

researchers began to ask the question of whether or not efficacy beliefs are simply a product of

prior experience and context (Goddard & Salloum, 2011). A study by Ross et al. (2004) provided

answers to that very question. Although they confirmed that prior student achievement was

predictive of collective teacher efficacy, they tested two models which both showed that the

effects of school processes were greater than prior achievement in predicting CTE. The school

processes which had the strongest effects were shared school goals, school-wide collaboration,

fit of plans with school needs, and empowering school leadership. The authors explained their

results by referencing teachers' skepticism of the mandated assessment scores included in their

models and conceding that prior school achievement is likely to be a stronger predictor of CTE

where teachers believe the assessment scores have greater credibility. By interpreting their

results, they may have actually minimized the impact and perpetuated the belief that prior

achievement influenced mastery experiences and efficacy more than other factors. Later,

Adams and Forsyth (2006) showed that contextual variables accounted for a significant

proportion of the variance in school level CTE. In particular, socioeconomic status, enabling

school structure, and school level influenced a school’s level of collective efficacy over and

above that of prior achievement.

Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2007) uncovered several important contextual variables

including the availability of teaching resources and teaching level which impacted efficacy

beliefs. In addition, they found significant differences between novice and experienced teachers

when it comes to the sources of efficacy. For both, mastery experiences were important. As for

the other three sources, they were more powerful for novice teachers who have less mastery

experiences to draw upon.

Not only did Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy contribute to the understanding of variables

that impact how the sources of efficacy influence beliefs, they also diverged in how they

measured mastery beliefs. As mentioned, early studies considered prior achievement as the

source of mastery experience, however, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2007) examined

it as satisfaction with past professional performance. Thus far, the evidence presented on the

impact of mastery experiences in the formation of efficacy shows varying results, but it also

shows that what actually constitutes this source of efficacy hasn’t been completely settled upon.

Another example, Tschannen-Moran and McMaster (2009) found that an important aspect and

significant predictor of developing mastery-related efficacy beliefs involved task-specific

implementation experience and was measured through teacher collaboration toward

instructional improvement. This alternative way of framing mastery experience was later

termed enactive experiences in Goddard et al. (2015).

Studies related to teacher collaboration and professional learning, just like those mentioned

above, have also yielded differing conclusions as it pertains to mastery experiences and the

other sources of efficacy. Studies conducted by Aliazas et al. (2023) and Loughland and Nguyen

(2020) have confirmed the conventional understanding and order of the sources’ influence,

while Gilbert et al. (2018) highlighted the importance of mastery experiences and vicarious