

































Educational Renaissance Vol. 10 (2021)

Special Educat or  Self -Ef f icacy: The Im pact  of  Training 
and Exper ience

Sarah Robbie Johnson, EdD. School of Education, Fresno Pacific University

     email: Sarah.Johnson@fresno.edu

David R. Jones, PhD. School of Education, Fresno Pacific University

     email: David.Jones@fresno.edu

Feature Article

Across the United States, a teacher shortage 
plagues special education.  The shortage dates 
from the end of the previous century (Fideler et 
al., 2000; Müller & Markowitz, 2003) and continues 
to the present (Sutcher et al., 2016).  In 2010, the 
national attrit ion rate for special educators 
reached 13.5%, 9% of whom exited the profession 
within their first year of teaching (Fish & Stephens, 
2010). In California, 13.4% of special educators left 
the profession or state between the 2015-2016 
and 2016-2017 school years (Ondrasek et al., 
2020).

Attempts to stem and reverse the shortage of 
special educators in California have manifested as 
providing extra support, increasing salaries, 
improving job satisfaction, fostering job 
commitment, enhancing educator motivation, 
outlining alternate certification pathways, and 
increasing self-efficacy of teachers (California 
Commission on Teacher Credentialing [CCTC], 
2015; Canrinus et al., 2012; Fall, 2010; Thornton et 
al., 2007).  Special educators? burnout and their 
resulting departure from the profession result 
from many factors, with stress representing a 

Abst ract  

In California, the longstanding insufficiency of special educators has compounded since the 
2013-2014 academic year.  Districts and state legislators have relied on the issuance of substandard 
permits (i.e., Provisional Intern Permits, Short-Term Staff Permits, and Intern Credentials) to 
counteract the shortage.  However, the effectiveness of this approach has limited evaluation.  This 
study evaluated differences between pre-service and in-service special educators? self-efficacy ratings.  
Special educators serving in California?s Central Valley on substandard permits or valid teaching 
credentials (i.e., Preliminary and Clear Credentials) completed the Teachers? Sense of Efficacy Scale.  
Differences were assessed across several variables using independent t-tests and one-way ANOVAs.  
Significant differences emerged in special educators? self-reported levels of self-efficacy as a function 
of credential status, favoring those with valid credentials.  The findings indicate a correlation between 
special educators? credential status (a proxy for training) and self-reported self-efficacy.  The results of 
this study add to the research on special educators? self-efficacy by exploring the phenomenon among 
a newly emerged group of California-based special educators: substandard permit holders.

Keywords: self-efficacy, special education, substandard authorization, pathways to teaching

mailto:Sarah.Johnson@fresno.edu
mailto:david.jones@fresno.edu
mailto:david.jones@fresno.edu
mailto:david.jones@fresno.edu
mailto:david.jones@fresno.edu


JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY

dominant factor.  Stress experienced by special 
educators leads to chronic burnout, which can 
include feelings of powerlessness, 
depersonalization, and exhaustion (Maslach, 
1982).  Additional sources of stress and teacher 
burnout for special educators include lack of 
advancement opportunities, excessive paperwork, 
unsuccessful administrative meetings (Roach, 
2009), high workload and poor teaching 
conditions (Whitaker, 2001), and insufficient 
certification (Miller et al., 1999)? factors which 
contribute to lower self-efficacy.  Teachers with 
lower self-efficacy reported commensurately low 
levels of job satisfaction (Klassen et al., 2009) and 
greater job-related stress (Betoret, 2006).  
Teachers with lower self-efficacy demonstrated a 
greater tendency to exit teaching compared to 
teachers with higher self-efficacy 
(Wasburn-Moses, 2005).

Teacher  Shor t ages and Self -Ef f icacy

Teacher efficacy represents a motivational belief or 
confidence teachers hold about themselves and 
their capabilit ies to influence student learning 
(Klassen et al., 2011).  Klassen and Durksen (2014) 
report that pre-service teachers with higher 
self-efficacy have a higher commitment to 
teaching at the end of their teacher preparation 
programs.  Chestnut and Cullen (2014) found a 
significant and positive correlation with preservice 
teacher self-efficacy and commitment to the 
profession.  Chestnut and Cullen (2014) also found 
that emotional intelligence and satisfaction with 
expectations of future work environment related 
to self-efficacy and that both factors accounted for 
3.53% of the variance in educators? commitment 
to remain in the field.

Teacher self-efficacy relates to positive teacher 
behaviors such as enthusiasm, persistence, 
instructional behavior, and commitment, as well 
as teachers? willingness to try new instructional 
strategies (Berman et al., 1977).  Teachers? 
self-efficacy relates to improvements in student 
motivation (Scherer et al., 2016; Tschannen-Moran 
& Hoy, 2001a), student self-efficacy, and student 
achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001a).  

Additionally, teacher self-efficacy relates 
negatively to the frequency of student referrals for 
special education services (Coladarci, 1992; Meijer 
& Foster, 1988; Podell & Soodak, 1993).

California Special Education Teaching Credentials

In California, the Education Specialist (a.k.a. special 
education) Credential represents a two-tiered 
preparation and licensing process, beginning with 
the Preliminary and culminating in the Clear 
Credential (CCTC, 2016).  However, the shortage of 
credentialed teachers prompted the state 
licensing agency? the CCTC? to create two 
alternate certifications (Short-Term Staff Permits 
and Provisional Intern Permits) to address 
anticipated and acute staffing needs for special 
education classrooms (CCTC, 2015).  An overview 
of California special education credentials and 
authorizations appears in Table 1.

The alternate certifications allow individuals to 
work as teachers in the classroom prior to earning 
a valid teaching credential. The alternate 
credential pathways benefited the state in the 
2015-2016 academic year, increasing the special 
education workforce by more than 4,000 
educators (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 
2017).  However, the issuance of Preliminary 
Credentials has not maintained pace with the 
number of substandard authorizations issued 
annually.  In the 2011-2012 academic year, 
approximately 60% of special educators in 
California held a Preliminary Credential. In the 
2017-2018 academic year, conversely, the number 
of special educators employed on substandard 
authorizations increased to 65% (Ondrasek et al., 
2020). Table 2 illustrates that new, underprepared 
special educators in California vastly outnumber 
those individuals who are fully credentialed (CCTC, 
n.d.).

Darling-Hammond et al. (2016) noted that 
broadening the pathway to a teaching credential 
fills empty classrooms but fails to stabilize the 
supply of credentialed teachers.  Teachers hired 
on substandard permits exit from the profession 
at rates two to three times higher than those who 

2



JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY

have comprehensive preparation prior to entering 
the classroom (Sutcher et al., 2016).  High turnover 
costs not only in fiscal terms and inconvenience 
but in student achievement as well (Sutcher et al., 
2016).  During the 2014?2015 academic year, the 
number of emergency credentials issued in lieu of 
the unavailability of a fully credentialed teacher 
nearly tripled, from approximately 850 to over 

2,300 (Sutcher et al., 2016).  Table 3 illustrates the 
increase of those employed in special education 
classrooms on PIPs and STSPs from 2015-2020 in 
California (CCTC, n.d.).

3

Credent ial Type Descr ipt ion Requirem ent s

Clear Valid credentials issued after two years 
of teaching with   a preliminary 
credential

- Have successfully taught for two years with a   Preliminary Credential;
- Completed advanced professional development.

Prelim inary Valid credential issued after 
completion of a professional   (usually 
post-baccalaureate) teacher 
preparation program

- Holds a baccalaureate or higher degree from a   regionally-accredited 
university or college

- Satisfied the basic skill requirement
- Provided verification of subject matter   competency
- Passed the Reading Instruction Competence   Assessment (RICA)
- Passed an exam or completed a course from a   regionally accredited 

university or college on the principles and provisions   of the U.S. 
Constitution

- Completed a commission-approved teacher   preparation program in 
a specialty area (credential type)

- Passed the California Subjects Examination   Test (CSETs)

Int ern Substandard permit issued after 
sufficient (but not   entire) study and 
preparation in a professional teacher 
preparation program

- Holds a baccalaureate or higher degree from a   regionally-accredited 
university or college

- Passed the California Basic Skills (CBEST) examination
- Passed the subject matter competence (CSET)   examination
- Passed an examination or completed a course in   the principles and 

provisions of the U.S. Constitution (from a   regionally-accredited 
university or college)

Provisional 
Int ern   Perm it  
(PIP) or  
Shor t -Term  St af f  
Perm it  (STSP)

Substandard permit issued by a school 
district or local   education agency, in 
the event of the unavailability of other 
qualified or   eligible applicants

- Holds a baccalaureate degree or higher from a   regionally-accredited 
university or college

- Satisfied the CBEST requirement

Year n Subst andard Perm it s Percent age Prelim inary Credent ials Percent age

2015-2016 6,406 3,535 55.2 2,871 44.8

2016-2017 7,469 4,156 55.6 3,313 44.4

2017-2018 7,849 4,624 58.9 3,225 41.1

2018-2019 8,463 5,238 61.9 3,225 38.1

2019-2020 8,828 5,336 60.4 3,492 39.6

Table 2:  New, Underprepared Special Education Teachers in California

Table 1: Overview of Credential Types



JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY

Table 3: Increase of Special Education PIPs and STSPs 
Each Year from 2015-2020 in California

Self -Ef f icacy

Tschannen-Moran, et al. (1998) defined 
self-efficacy as teachers? beliefs in their ability to 
organize and execute courses of action necessary 
to bring about desired results.  Teacher 
self-efficacy relates to positive characteristics such 
as more innovative adoptions and time spent 
teaching; organization and planning (Allinder, 
1994); improved classroom management 
strategies, student motivation, and teacher 
competence; school climate; commitment to 
teaching; and deferred referrals of students to 
special education (Berman et al., 1977; Chestnut & 
Cullen, 2014; Klassen & Durksen, 2014; Klassen et 
al., 2011; ).  Zee and Koomen (2016), in a 
meta-analysis from 162 articles, found that 
teachers with high self-efficacy cope effectively 
with a range of problem behaviors, use 
student-centered classroom behavior strategies, 
use student-centered classroom practices, act 
proactively, and establish relationships that are 
less conflictual with students. 

High teacher efficacy is directly related to 
numerous positive educational outcomes for both 
the student and teacher.  Teachers? self-efficacy 
has been heavily researched.  Teacher self-efficacy 
shapes the teacher, subject matter, and student 
attitudes (Zee & Koomen, 2016).  Woolfolk and 
Hoy (1990) found that students reported greater 
interest in school and rated content as more 
important when the teacher had higher general 
teacher efficacy. 

Self-Efficacy and Commitment to the Field

Teachers? self-efficacy relates positively to teachers? 
psychological well-being (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2016; 
Zee & Koomen, 2016), job satisfaction and 
commitment to the field (Zee & Koomen, 
2016)? factors which contribute to or contend 
against teacher burnout.  Additionally, teachers 
with high self-efficacy are less likely to experience 
emotional exhaustion and burnout.  Conversely, 
teachers with high self-efficacy demonstrate 
greater commitment to the profession (Coladarci, 
1992; Zee & Koomen, 2016).  High self-efficacy 
similarly associates with greater commitment 
among pre-service teachers (Bruinsma & Jansen, 
2010).

However, self-efficacy itself demonstrates 
malleability in response to the conditions of 
teaching.  For example, Skaalvik and Skaalvik 
(2016) found that a lack of shared values between 
the teacher and school negatively associated with 
teacher self-efficacy.  On the other hand, 
engagement and teacher self-efficacy related 
negatively to leaving the teaching profession.  To 
this list of influences, Coladarci (1992) added that 
school climate and teacher-to-student ratios 
associated inversely with self-efficacy and 
teaching commitments.

Canrinus et al. (2012) found that high levels of 
relationship satisfaction, teacher motivation, and 
occupational commitment associated with high 
levels of teacher self-efficacy.  A more complex 
relationship emerged among self-efficacy, benefits 
and salary, and positive relationships, indicating 
that the higher a teachers? self-efficacy, the less 
satisfied they are with fringe benefits and salary 
than with positive relationships that reduce 
pressures to remain in the field (Canrinus et al., 
2012).

Pre-Service Teachers  

Pre-services teachers? self-efficacy points to several 
indications about their commitment to their 
future careers.  Klassen et al. (2014) reported that 
pre-service teachers with higher self-efficacy have 
a greater commitment to teaching at the end of 

4

Year n STSP PIP

2015-2016 1,690 1,139 551

2016-2017 2,316 1,354 962

2017-2018 2,521 1,538 983

2018-2019 2,873 1,623 1,250

2019-2020 3,016 1,752 1,264



JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY

their teacher preparation programs.  Other 
researchers have found a positive association 
between pre-service teachers? efficacy and their 
commitment to the teaching profession (Chestnut 
& Cullen, 2014; Wasburn-Moses, 2005).  Hoy and 
Spero (2005) found more optimism and less stress 
mediated the relationship between self-efficacy 
and the commitment to the first year of teaching.  
Thus, self-efficacy provides indications about 
future teacher supply.

Comparing Pre- and In-Service Teachers

Putman (2012) compared pre- and in-service 
teachers to explore how self-efficacy differed as a 
function of expertise by analyzing responses from 
484 participants drawn from a convenience 
sample of graduate and undergraduate 
candidates enrolled in teacher preparation 
programs in the Midwest of the United States. The 
sample consisted of four groups: preservice 
teachers prior, post and in-service teachers, 
novice teachers, and experienced teachers.  
Self-reports from pre-service and novice teachers 
demonstrated significantly lower efficacy than the 
group of experienced teachers, suggesting that 
teachers with more experience and time in the 
field have higher self-efficacy ratings (Putman, 
2012).  Bet and Erg (2015) found similar results in 
the differences of teacher self-efficacy beliefs 
between pre- and in-service preschool teachers.  
Pre-service preschool teachers scored lower on 
self-reports of self-efficacy than in-service 
preschool teachers. 

Purpose

The CCTC?s effort to stem the teacher shortage 
included broadening the pathway to teacher 
credentialing.  However, the benefit of that 
decision has not yet been fully realized as many of 
the candidates following the new pathway leave 
the field at higher rates than seen among 
credentialed special educators.  The researchers 
suggest that identifying and bolstering key traits of 
substandard authorization holders might expedite 
the effort to reverse the teacher shortage by 
optimizing the efficiency of the alternative 

credential pathway.

Teacher self-efficacy represents an industry 
standard for gauging the potential of educators 
and represents an unexplored facet of those who 
hold substandard credentials.  This inquiry 
collected and analyzed self-reported ratings to 
determine variance in teacher self-efficacy as a 
function of certification status.  The researchers 
hypothesized the following:

- Intern special educators will describe 
higher self-efficacy ratings than those 
teaching on other substandard permits (i.e. 
PIPs, STSPs).

- Credentialed (Preliminary or Clear) special 
educators will describe higher self-efficacy 
ratings than those teaching on substandard 
permits, including Intern Credentials.

Met hods

In order to explore the self-efficacy ratings of those 
following alternate pathways to special educator 
credentialing, researchers collected and analyzed 
self-reported self-efficacy ratings, attending to 
variations that resulted from different credential 
statuses.

Design and Methodology

This study used a quantitative non-experimental 
correlational survey design.  An institutional 
review board and the administration of two school 
districts reviewed and approved the parameters of 
the study before the collection of data.  
Individuals? rights were diligently protected during 
and after the study.

Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES)

The TSES, ?the predominant measure of teacher 
efficacy throughout the world? (Duffin, French, & 
Patrick, 2012, p. 827), has strong validity and 
reliability (Duffin et al., 2012; Klassen et al., 2011; 
Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001b).  
Participants report their ability to effect outcomes 
on a Likert scale, with scores ranging from 1 
(nothing) to 9 (a great deal) (Fives & Buehl, 2009).  
Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001b) found 
evidence of the internal consistency of the TSES as 

5



JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY

both a three-factor and a one-factor measure, 
ranging from 0.91 for the Instructional Strategies 
subscale, 0.87 for the Student Engagement 
subscale, and 0.90 for the Classroom 
Management subscale.  On the 24-item TSES 
version (the long form), Cronbach?s alpha 
measured 0.94 (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001b).  
The TSES measures a larger range of self-efficacy 
of teaching tasks compared to other measures of 
the same construct.  The TSES also provides 
specificity of tasks for comparison of teachers 
across contexts, subjects, and levels (Hoy & Spero, 
2005).  The TSES collects self-reported efficacy and 
has been used among in-service and pre-service 
teachers.  The long form version of the TSES is 
recommended for use with pre-service teachers 
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001b).

Sample

The researchers used convenience sampling by 
capitalizing on existing partnerships within the 
Central Valley of California in order to recruit 
participants employed as special educators on 
substandard authorizations or Preliminary and 
Clear Credentials.  Participants were employed in 
one of two large school districts, Central Valley A 
or Central Valley B.  These two districts were 
selected because they serve a large geographical 
area of the Central Valley.

Procedure

An invitation to complete the TSES was emailed to 
all special educators employed in the two 
participating school districts.  The survey was 
emailed to 103 special education teachers in 
Central Valley A and 108 special education 
teachers in Central Valley B.  Additional questions 
were added to the end of the TSES to capture 
demographic information such as credential 
status, gender, age, prior experience, and years 
taught.  The survey also gauged if respondents 
had previous experience as a special education 
para-educator or substitute teacher.

The survey was administered electronically 
through SurveyMonkey.  The electronic 
administration of the TSES was in alignment with 

current research that supports the reliability and 
validity of the TSES (Duffin et al., 2012; Klassen et 
al., 2011; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001b).  Data 
were analyzed using the Statistical Packages for 
Social Sciences (SPSS).  The analysis included 
procedures for descriptive and inferential 
statistics.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed with independent t-tests and 
one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to 
determine if a difference of mean manifested in 
the dependent variable (i.e. self-efficacy) as a 
function of varying credential statuses.  An initial 
data review included an analysis for homogeneity 
of variances (Leard Statistics, 2015).  After 
confirmation that the data did not meet the 
assumptions for running a standard multiple 
regression, one-way ANOVAs were conducted.  
Researchers investigated differences across the 
three subscales of the TSES? Student 
Engagement, Instructional Strategies, and 
Classroom Management. 

Result s

The researchers received 107 responses (51% 
response rate), of which seven were significantly 
incomplete and, therefore, excluded from the 
subsequent analysis.  Among the 100 remaining 
responses, one set represented an outlier.  This 
constituted a threat to the integrity of the data 
analysis as it was an outlier on all scale scores; its 
inclusion would unnecessarily skew the data.  
Therefore, it was also excluded.  Of the 99 
responses, three respondents scored slightly 
lower but were kept for analytical purposes.  
Overall, the study analyzed data from 99 
respondents.

Participant Demographics

Table 4 provides an overview of participants? 
self-reported credential statuses.  Most 
respondents held a Clear Credential (59.6%).

6



JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY

Table 4: Credential Statuses (N = 99)

Self-Efficacy Ratings as a Function of Credential 
Status

Results from the one-way ANOVA appear in Table 
5.  The homogeneity of the Levene results 
indicated that the distribution in the groupings? 
variances are comparable to the distribution in 
the general population.

Table 5: Test of Homogeneity of Variances for TSES 
Scales x Certification Status 

Subscale Comparisons by Credential Status.  
Special educators? self-efficacy ratings by 
certification status are illustrated in Table 6.  
Those employed on substandard permits? PIP or 
STSP and Intern Credentials? scored lowest across 
the three subscales of the TSES, although those 
with Intern Credentials had a higher mean score 
on the three subscales.  Highest mean scores 
belonged to those with Clear Credentials on the 
Instructional Strategies (M = 59.72) and Classroom 
Management (M = 58.69) subscales, and to those 
with Preliminary Credentials on the Student 
Engagement subscale (M = 56.64).

Table 7 illustrates the results of the one-way 

ANOVA analysis of special educators? self-efficacy 
ratings by credential status.  Among those on 
substandard authorizations, including those on 
PIP/STSP authorizations, Intern Credentials, as 
well as those with Intern and Preliminary 
Credentials no significant differences emerged 
distinguishing special educators? self-efficacy 
ratings on the subscale of Student Engagement 
(p=0.0001).  Differences emerged among special 
educators? self-efficacy ratings as a function of 
certification status on the Student Engagement 
subscale between those with PIP/STSP 
authorizations and those with Preliminary 
Credentials. Differences also emerged between 
the groups of PIP/STSP authorization and Clear 
Credential holders.  

On the Instructional Strategies subscale, 
differences emerged between those with PIP/STSP 
authorizations and Preliminary Credential holders 
(as well as between those with PIP/STSP 
authorizations and Clear Credential holders. 
Additionally, a significant difference emerged 
between the groups of Clear Credential holders 
and Interns. No differences characterized special 
educators? self-efficacy ratings as a function of 
certification status on the Classroom Management 
subscale (p=0.0006).

Table 8 demonstrates the post-hoc results from 
the Games-Howell analysis, including significant 
differences for special educators? self-efficacy 
ratings as a function of credential status.  
Significant differences emerged in comparisons of 
the PIP/STSP authorization and Preliminary 
Credential groups (p = 0.014), PIP/STSP 
authorization and Clear Credential groups (p = 
0.036), and Intern and Preliminary Credential 
groups (p = 0.027). 

Discussion

The research reported herein addresses a lack of 
research regarding efficacy among a new subset 
of teachers: those with PIPs and STSPs.  The 
results supported the hypotheses that Intern 
Credential holders would demonstrate greater 
self-efficacy than those employed on substandard 

7

Demographics Frequency Percent

PIP or STSP 11 11.1

Intern Credential 12 12.1

Preliminary 
Credential

17 17.2

Clear Credential 59 59.6

TSES Factors Levene 
Statistic

df1 df2 p

Student 
Engagement

1.77 3 95 0.157

Instructional 
Strategies

1.04 3 95 0.375

Classroom 
Management

1.30 3 95 0.276



JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY8

N M SD SE 95% Confidence

Lower Upper

Student Engagement

PIP/STSP 11 44.81 9.99 3.01 38.10 51.53

Intern 12 48.33 7.93 2.29 43.29 53.37

Preliminary 17 56.64 5.62 1.36 53.75 59.53

Clear 59 54.89 9.17 1.19 52.50 57.28

Instructional Strategies

PIP/STSP 11 47.45 11.12 3.35 39.97 54.93

Intern 12 49.91 7.19 2.07 45.34 54.48

Preliminary 17 57.58 5.95 1.44 54.52 60.65

Clear 59 59.72 8.96 1.16 57.39 62.06

Classroom Management

PIP/STSP 11 50.09 12.34 3.72 41.80 58.38

Intern 12 51.16 9.41 2.71 45.18 57.15

Preliminary 17 58.35 6.20 1.50 55.16 61.54

Clear 59 58.69 9.28 1.20 56.27 61.11

Table 6:  Descriptive Statistics for TSES Scales x PIP/STSP, Intern, Preliminary or Clear

SS df MS F p*

Student Engagement

Between Groups 1428.50 3 476.16 6.39 0.0001

Within Groups 7075.57 95 74.48

Total 8504.08 98

Instructional Strategies

Between Groups 2045.93 3 681.97 9.20 0.000

Within Groups 6039.42 95 74.09

Total 9085.35 98

Classroom Management

Between Groups 1128.69 3 376.23 4.40 0.0006

Within Groups 8116.96 95 85.44

Total 9425.65 98

Table 7:  ANOVA Results for TSES Scales x Credential Status

  Notes.*  Significance p= 0.5



JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY

authorizations, but that those with valid 
credentials (Preliminary or Clear) would report the 
highest self-efficacy ratings.

The differences in self-efficacy as a function of 
credential status was not surprising as 
comparable differences emerged in studies 
comparing pre- and in-service teachers (Bet & Erg, 
2015; Sak, 2015), a pattern which suggests that 
training and experience inform improvements in 
self-efficacy.  However, the disparity uncovered in 
this analysis proved troubling because those 
reporting lower self-efficacy were already serve as 
teachers, pointing to poor outcomes (Chestnut & 
Cullen, 2014; Coladarci, 1992; Hoy & Spero, 2005; 
Klassen & Durksen, 2014; Meijer & Foster, 1988; 
Podell & Soodak, 1993) involving those employed 
with substandard authorizations. 

Limitations

This research study had notable limitations 
including the low representation of those working 
under substandard authorizations.  A smaller 

group of substandard authorization holders may 
fail to demonstrate the range and degree of 
characteristics of the larger group.  The recent 
emergence and overwhelming reliance of 
substandard authorization holders accentuates 
the need to include more of those teachers and to 
remain attentive to longitudinal changes in 
characteristics.  The small sample size limits 
generalization to teachers across the region or 
state but may still inform future and larger 
research. 

Future Research

Besides devising future research endeavors to 
address the limitations listed above, a number of 
additional questions present themselves, two of 
which follow.  Previous research suggests a 
malleability in teacher self-efficacy in the context 
of professional preparation programs, but a 
dearth of evidence limits understanding of the 
prospects of those who may not be engaged in a 
professional preparation program.  While it stands 

9

Comparison Md SE p 95% Confidence

Lower Upper

Student Engagement

PIP/STSP Intern -3.51 3.78 0.790 -14.15 7.12

PIP/STSP Preliminary -11.82 3.30 0.014 -21.43 -2.22

PIP/STSP Clear -10.08 3.24 0.036 -19.56 -0.59

Intern Preliminary -8.31 2.66 0.027 -15.82 -0.80

Intern Clear -6.56 2.58 0.088 -13.88 0.75

Preliminary Clear 1.74 1.81 0.770 -3.09 6.59

Instructional Strategies

PIP/STSP Intern -2.46 3.94 0.0923 -13.68 8.76

PIP/STSP Preliminary -10.13 3.65 0.064 -20.77 0.50

PIP/STSP Clear -12.27 3.55 0.020 -22.77 -1.79

Intern Preliminary -7.67 2.52 0.030 -14.72 -0.61

Intern Clear -9.81 2.38 0.003 -16.51 -3.10

Preliminary Clear -2.14 1.85 0.660 -7.12 2.84

Table 8:  Games-Howell for TSES Scales x Credential Status



JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY

to reason that substandard authorization holders 
may demonstrate improved self-efficacy 
comparable to pre-service teachers and 
subsequent to training, the need to appraise the 
extent and conditions of that improvement 
remains.

Another research need related to this topic 
includes demonstrating the impact of training on 
the self-efficacy of substandard authorization 
holders.  The pursuit of this inquiry reflects the 
understanding that desirable outcomes such as 
improved student learning and teacher retention 
also result from efficacy enhancements.  Future 
research that explores short- and long-term 
outcomes of self-efficacy improvements will serve 
to validate the attention to efficacy among 
substandard authorization holders and advance 
research on that topic. 

Conclusion

An intention of pursuing this inquiry included the 
aspiration to identify a means of improving the 
efficacy of the broadened pathway to a teaching 
credential, namely enhancing the abilit ies of those 
participating in the pathway to persist to success.  
The results of this study suggested that, as a 
group, those employed on substandard 
authorizations reported lower self-efficacy.  
Fortunately, teacher self-efficacy can improve, 
especially among those nascent to the field 
(Bandura, 1997; Swan, 2015; Winters, 2012).  The 
use of the TSES in approaching this inquiry proved 
helpful by identifying three particular domains in 
which interventions might initiate: student 
learning, classroom environment, and 
instructional strategies.  It follows that improving 
self-efficacy of those on substandard 
authorizations might improve their retention in 
teaching careers (Swan, 2015).  

Broadening the pathway to a teaching career 
potentially serves schools, aspiring teachers, and 
students.  However, a pathway that only collects 
more individuals to staff classrooms will 
exacerbate rather than remediate issues in 
education.  This inquiry intended to demonstrate 

ways in which the broader pathway to a teaching 
credential can be optimized.  While teacher 
preparation programs face no onus to provide 
support to individuals employed on PIPs or STSPs 
and districts face relatively litt le external pressure 
to do so (Sandy, 2016), all stakeholders? teacher 
preparation program administrators, school 
administrators, district administrators, and the 
teacher who holds a substandard 
authorization? benefit form collaboratively 
addressing the low efficacy reported among 
teachers employed on substandard 
authorizations. 

10



JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY

References

Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between 
efficacy and the instructional practices of 
special education teachers and consultant. 
Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 
86?95. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649401
700203 

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of 
control. New York, New York: Freeman and 
Company.

Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass-Golod, G., Pauly, 
E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs 
supporting educational change, Vol. VII: Factors 
affecting implementation and continuation.  
https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED140432.pdf 

Bet, F., & Erg, M. (2015). The comparison of teacher 
self-efficacy beliefs between pre-service 
preschool teachers and preschool teachers. 
Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 8(3), 
297?315.

Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping 
resources, and burnout among secondary 
school teachers in Spain. Educational 
Psychology, 26(4), 519?539. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500342492 

Bruinsma, M., & Jansen, E. P. W. A. (2010). Is the 
motivation to become a teacher related to 
pre-service teachers? intentions to remain in 
the profession? European Journal of Teacher 
Education, 33(2), 185?200. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02619760903512927 

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. 
(2015). Teacher supply in California: A report to 
the legislature annual report 2013-2014. 
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/co
mmission/reports/ts-2013-2014-annualrpt.pdf?
sfvrsn=2bdb8188_0 

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. 
(2016). Teacher supply in California: A report to 
the legislature annual report 2015-2016. 
https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED579161.pdf 

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. 

(n.d.). California educator supply. 
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/commission/
reports/data/edu-supl-landing

Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., 
Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2012). Self-efficacy, 
job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: 
Exploring the relationships between indicators 
of teachers? professional identity. European 
Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(1), 
115?132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-
0069-2 

Carver-Thomas, D. & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). 
California special education teacher shortages 
title grow more severe. Learning Policy Institute.  
https:// learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/
california-special-education-teacher-shortages-
brief 

Chestnut, S. R. & Cullen, T. (2014). Effects of 
self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, and 
perceptions of future work environment on 
preservice teacher commitment. The Teacher 
Educator, 49(2), 116-132. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2014.887168 

Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers? sense of efficacy and 
commitment to teaching. The Journal of 
Experimental Education, 60(4), 323?337. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992.
9943869 

Darling-Hammond, L., Furger, R., Shields, P. M., & 
Sutcher, L. (2016). Addressing California?s 
emerging teacher shortage: An analysis of sources 
and solutions. Learning Policy Institute. 
http://sedn.senate.gov/sites/sedn.senate.ca.gov
/files/ learning_policy_institute_ca_teacher_
shortage.pdf 

Duffin, L. C., French, B. F., & Patrick, H. (2012). The 
teachers? sense of efficacy scale: Confirming 
the factor structure with beginning pre-service 
teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 
827?834. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.004 

Fall, A. M. (2010). Recruiting and retaining highly 
qualified special education teachers for 

11

https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649401 700203 
https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649401 700203 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED140432.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500342492 
https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02619760903512927 
https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02619760903512927 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED579161.pdf 
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/commission/ reports/data/edu-supl-landing
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/commission/ reports/data/edu-supl-landing
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011- 0069-2 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011- 0069-2 
 https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/ product/california-special-education-teacher- shortages-brief
 https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/ product/california-special-education-teacher- shortages-brief
 https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/ product/california-special-education-teacher- shortages-brief
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2014.887168
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992. 9943869
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992. 9943869
http://sedn.senate.gov/sites/sedn.senate.ca.gov /files/learning_policy_institute_ca_teacher_ shortage.pdf 
http://sedn.senate.gov/sites/sedn.senate.ca.gov /files/learning_policy_institute_ca_teacher_ shortage.pdf 
http://sedn.senate.gov/sites/sedn.senate.ca.gov /files/learning_policy_institute_ca_teacher_ shortage.pdf 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.004


JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY

high-poverty districts and schools: 
Recommendations for educational leaders. 
Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23(2), 
76?83. 

Fideler, E., Foster, E., & Schwartz, S. (2000). The 
Urban teacher challenge: Teacher demand and 
supply in the Great City Schools (ED438340).  
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED438340 

Fish, W. W., & Stephens, T. L. (2010). Special 
education: A career of choice. Remedial and 
Special Education, 31(5), 400-407.

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2009). Examining the 
factor structure of the Teachers? Sense of 
Efficacy Scale. The Journal of Experimental 
Education, 78(1), 118?134. https://doi.org
/10.1080/00220970903224461 

Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in 
teacher efficacy during the early years of 
teaching: A comparison of four measures. 
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343?356. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007 

Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., 
Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y., & Georgiou, T. (2009). 
Exploring the validity of a Teachers? Self-Efficacy 
Scale in five countries. Contemporary 
Educational Psychology, 34(1), 67?76.

Klassen, R., Tze, V., Betts, S., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). 
Teacher efficacy research 1998-2009: Signs of 
progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational 
Psychology Review, 23(1), 21?43.

Klassen, R., & Durksen, T. (2014). Weekly 
self-efficacy and work stress during the 
teaching practicum: A mixed methods study. 
Learning and Instruction, 33(10), 158-169. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05.
003

Leard Statistics. (2015). Independent-samples t-test 
using SPSS Statistics. Statistical tutorials and 
software guides. https://statistics.laerd.com 

Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. New 
York, New York: Prentice Hall.

Meijer, C. J. W., & Foster, S. F. (1988). The effect of 

teacher self-efficacy on referral chance. Journal 
of Special Education, 22(3), 378-385. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698802200309 

Müller, E., & Markowitz, J. (2003, April). Supply and 
demand of special education professionals, (Issue 
Brief No. 38). http://nasdse.org/Desktop
Modules/DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles
/208_727a79d9-e3f5-4f09-a3e9-497c314d17e4
.pdf  

Miller, D. M., Brownell, M. T., & Smith, S. W. (1999). 
Factors that predict teachers staying in, leaving, 
or transferring from the special education 
classroom. Exceptional Children, 65(2), 201?218. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299906500206

Ondrasek, N., Carver-Thomas, D., Scott, C., & 
Darling-Hammond, L. (2020). California?s special 
education teacher shortage. Learning Policy 
Institute. https:// learningpolicyinstitute.org
/sites/default/ files/product-files/PACE_Special_
Education_Teacher_Shortage_REPORT.pdf 

Podell, D. M., & Soodak, L. C. (1993). Teacher 
efficacy and bias in special education referrals. 
The Journal of Educational Research, 86(4), 
247-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.
1993.9941836

Putman, S. M. (2012). Investigating teacher 
efficacy: Comparing preservice and inservice 
teachers with different levels of experience. 
Action in Teacher Education, 34(1), 26?40. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.642285

Roach, A. (2009). Teacher burnout: Special 
education versus regular education. 
https://mds.marshall.edu/etd/810/ 

Sak, R. (2015). Comparison of self-efficacy between 
male and female pre-service early childhood 
teachers. Early Child Development and Care, 
185(10), 1?12. 
doi:10.1080/03004430.2015.1014353

Sandy, M. (2016, January 8). Re: Employer 
responsibilities for teachers serving on provisional 
Intern Permits, and Short-Term Staff Permits, and 
Intern Credentials [Memorandum to school 
districts].https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-

12

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED438340
https://doi.org /10.1080/00220970903224461 
https://doi.org /10.1080/00220970903224461 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05. 003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05. 003
https://statistics.laerd.com
https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698802200309 
 http://nasdse.org/Desktop Modules/DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles /208_727a79d9-e3f5-4f09-a3e9-497c314d17e4 .pdf 
 http://nasdse.org/Desktop Modules/DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles /208_727a79d9-e3f5-4f09-a3e9-497c314d17e4 .pdf 
 http://nasdse.org/Desktop Modules/DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles /208_727a79d9-e3f5-4f09-a3e9-497c314d17e4 .pdf 
 http://nasdse.org/Desktop Modules/DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles /208_727a79d9-e3f5-4f09-a3e9-497c314d17e4 .pdf 
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299906500206
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org /sites/default/files/product-files/PACE_Special_ Education_Teacher_Shortage_REPORT.pdf 
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org /sites/default/files/product-files/PACE_Special_ Education_Teacher_Shortage_REPORT.pdf 
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org /sites/default/files/product-files/PACE_Special_ Education_Teacher_Shortage_REPORT.pdf 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671. 1993.9941836
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671. 1993.9941836
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.642285
https://mds.marshall.edu/etd/810/
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default- source/educator-prep/intern/files/2016-01- employer-responsibilities.pdf?sfvrsn=f0eb3cfe _0 


JOHNSON & JONES| SPECIAL EDUCATOR SELF-EFFICACY

source/educator-prep/intern/files/2016-01-
employer-responsibilit ies.pdf?sfvrsn=f0eb3cfe
_0 

Scherer, R., Jansen, M., Areepattamannil, S., & 
Marsh, H. (2016). The quest for comparability: 
Studying the invariance of the teachers? sense 
of self-efficacy (TSES) measure across 
countries. PLoS ONE, 11(3).  http:// journals.plos
.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.
0150829 

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2016). Teacher stress 
and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of 
engagement, emotional, exhaustion, and 
motivation to leave the teaching profession. 
Creative Education, 7(13), 1785?1799. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.713182 

Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher 
efficacy and student problem as factors in 
special education referral. The Journal of Special 
Education, 27(1), 66?81. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699302700105

Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & 
Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in 
teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages 
in the U.S. Learning Policy Institute.  
https:// learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/
coming-crisis-teaching 

Swan, B. G. (2015). Changes in teacher self-efficacy 
from the student teaching experience through 
the third year of teaching. Journal of Agriculture 
Education, 52(2), 128?139. 

Thornton, B., Peltier, G., & Medina, R. (2007). 
Reducing the special education teacher 
shortage. The Clearing House: A Journal of 
Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(5), 
233?238. 
https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.5.233-238 

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001a). 
Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive 
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 
783?805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-
051X(01)00036-1 

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001b). 

Teachers? sense of efficacy scale 1 (long form). 
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 783?805.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. 
(1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and 
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 
202?248. https://doi.org/10.3102
/00346543068002202

Wasburn-Moses, L. (2005). How to keep your 
special education teachers. Principal 
Leadership, 5(5), 35?38. 

Whitaker, S. D. (2001). Supporting beginning 
special education teachers. Focus on 
Exceptional Children, 34(4), 1?18.

Winters, B. (2012). An investigation of pre-service 
teachers? perceptions of personal and general 
teaching efficacy prior to and following student 
teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).  
https://digitalcommons.uncfsu.
edu/dissertations/AAI3464552/ 

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective 
teachers? sense of efficacy and beliefs about 
control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 
81?91.https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-
0663.82.1.81 

Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher 
self-efficacy and its effects on classroom 
processes, student academic adjustment, and 
teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of 
research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 
981?1015. https://doi.org/10.3102
/0034654315626801

13

https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default- source/educator-prep/intern/files/2016-01- employer-responsibilities.pdf?sfvrsn=f0eb3cfe _0 
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default- source/educator-prep/intern/files/2016-01- employer-responsibilities.pdf?sfvrsn=f0eb3cfe _0 
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default- source/educator-prep/intern/files/2016-01- employer-responsibilities.pdf?sfvrsn=f0eb3cfe _0 
 http://journals.plos .org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone. 0150829 
 http://journals.plos .org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone. 0150829 
 http://journals.plos .org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone. 0150829 
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.713182
https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699302700105
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ coming-crisis-teaching 
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ coming-crisis-teaching 
https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.5.233-238 
 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742- 051X(01)00036-1 
 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742- 051X(01)00036-1 
https://doi.org/10.3102 /00346543068002202
https://doi.org/10.3102 /00346543068002202
https://digitalcommons.uncfsu. edu/dissertations/AAI3464552/
https://digitalcommons.uncfsu. edu/dissertations/AAI3464552/
https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1 .81 
https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1 .81 
https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1 .81 
https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1 .81 
http://Review of Educational Research, 86
http://Review of Educational Research, 86
http://Review of Educational Research, 86
http://Review of Educational Research, 86
http://Review of Educational Research, 86
https://doi.org/10.3102 /0034654315626801
https://doi.org/10.3102 /0034654315626801

	Johnson & Jones (2021)
	Page 1
	Page 2
	Page 3
	Page 4
	Page 5
	Page 6
	Page 7
	Page 8
	Page 9
	Page 10
	Page 11
	Page 12
	Page 13


