Teacher efficacy and pupil behaviour: The structure of teachers’ individual and collective beliefs and their relationship with numbers of pupils excluded from school

Background. Previous work has yielded knowledge of teachers’ attributions for children's behaviour. Other studies have helped to develop understanding of teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Little work has been undertaken to examine teachers’ efficacy beliefs with regard to classroom behaviour. Aims. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between teachers’ individual and collective beliefs about their efficacy with children's behaviour and whether these beliefs were associated with the use of exclusion as a sanction. Sample. A total of 197 teachers from 31 primary and nursery schools in the North East of England participated. Methods. Participants responded to questionnaires to assess their individual and collective efficacy beliefs. Demographic and school level data were also collected. Results. Factor analysis indicated that teachers’ individual efficacy beliefs were best represented by three factors: ‘Classroom Management’, ‘Children's Engagement’, ‘Instructional Strategies’ that corresponded well to previous findings. Analysis of collective efficacy beliefs showed a similar structure that differed from previous findings. Individual efficacy was not associated with numbers of children excluded. One factor ‘Addressing External Influences’ in the collective beliefs was negatively correlated with numbers of children excluded and appeared to mitigate the deleterious effects associated with socio-economic deprivation. Conclusions. This study adds weight to the importance of understanding and supporting teachers’ beliefs in their collective efficacy. In particular, this study underlines the need for strategies that will endorse and develop teachers’ beliefs in their ability to manage children's behaviour successfully.     

Combining Action Observation and Motor Imagery Improves Eye–Hand Coordination during Novel Visuomotor Task Performance

Abstract

In this study, we compared the effectiveness of concurrent action observation and motor imagery (AO?+?MI), observing with the intent to imitate (active observation; AO), and passive observation (PO) training interventions for improving eye–hand coordination. Fifty participants were assigned to five groups [AO?+?MI, AO, PO, physical practice (PP); control] and performed a visuomotor rotation task, whilst eye movements were recorded. Each participant then performed 20 task trials in a training intervention before repeating the visuomotor rotation task in a post-test. As expected, PP produced the greatest improvement in task performance and eye–hand coordination. However, in comparison to the control group, AO?+?MI training produced a statistically significant increase in both task performance and eye–hand coordination, but no such improvements were found following AO or PO.