1 Factors of Self-Efficacy Among Early Childhood Educators by Yingnan Ma A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in INCLUSIVE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, UT January 24, 2026 Approved Wei Qiu (Jan 28, 2026 20:40:54 MST) Wei Qiu, Ph.D. Carrie Ota, Ph.D. Sheila Anderson, Ph.D. 2 Abstract Self-efficacy, an individual’s belief in their ability to succeed in specific situations, plays a crucial role in shaping early childhood educators' teaching effectiveness and overall job satisfaction. The self-efficacy of early childhood educators determines the quality, efficiency, and engagement of their teaching and is inextricably linked to their ability to support the development of young children. The self-efficacy of early childhood educators may vary due to factors such as degree and major, qualifications, experience, workplace and higher education program support (including professional training, peer and administrators collaboration, tutor support), interpersonal interactions, work stress (including salary, social status), classroom characteristics and educator demographics (including race, ethnicity and low socioeconomic status, first-generation college students, and childhood exposure to trauma). This study will examine the factors that influence the self-efficacy of early childhood educators who are enrolled in an early childhood education higher education program in a western state in the United States. Key words: Self-efficacy; Early Childhood Educators 3 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose of Study ......................................................................................................................... 6 Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 7 Definitions, Development, and Roles of Self-Efficacy ............................................................... 7 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................... 9 Self-Efficacy of Preservice vs. In-service Early Childhood Educators..................................... 11 Preservice Educators .............................................................................................................. 11 Inservice Educators ................................................................................................................ 13 Educator Preparation & Factors Associated with Self-Efficacy .............................................. 13 Qualifications & Experience.................................................................................................. 13 Collaborative Support from Peers and Administrators ......................................................... 15 Stress of Early Childhood Educators ..................................................................................... 16 Classroom Characteristics..................................................................................................... 17 Educator Demographics ........................................................................................................ 18 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 20 Research Methods ......................................................................................................................... 21 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 21 Measures .................................................................................................................................... 24 Research Question 1 .............................................................................................................. 24 Research Question 2 .............................................................................................................. 27 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 27 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 28 Quantitative Data ................................................................................................................... 28 Qualitative Data ..................................................................................................................... 29 4 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 31 Research Question 1 .................................................................................................................. 31 Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................................................. 31 Independent Group T-Tests.................................................................................................... 33 One-way analysis of Variance (ANOVA) ............................................................................... 35 Hierarchical regression analysis ........................................................................................... 40 Qualitative data for Research Question #2: ............................................................................... 42 Open-ended Question 1.......................................................................................................... 42 Open-ended Question 2.......................................................................................................... 43 Open-ended Question 3.......................................................................................................... 45 Open-ended Question 4.......................................................................................................... 46 Discussion & Implications ............................................................................................................ 49 Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 64 Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 67 Appendix D ................................................................................................................................... 69 References ..................................................................................................................................... 74 5 Introduction In the field of early childhood education, educator self-efficacy has been defined as an educator’s individual belief in their capability to perform specific teaching tasks at a specified level of quality in a given specified situation” (Dellinger et al., 2008, p.752). Educators' selfefficacy is positively associated with high quality of instruction and child achievement (Guo, Justice, Sawyer & Tompkins, 2011), and self-efficacy beliefs are essential in determining how educators acquire knowledge and skills (Mims, Scott-Little, Lower, Cassidy & Hestenes, 2008). Early childhood educators, whether pre-service or in-service, face a variety of challenges and factors that influence their self-efficacy in accomplishing their teaching tasks and promoting child development (Holzberger, Philipp, & Kunter, 2013). Although some pre-service educators complete their initial higher education program training and are ready to transit from theoretical learning to practical experience, they may face various difficulties that affect their self-efficacy. Some in-service educators, who may have more experience and less stress than pre-service educators, may also face difficulties with self-efficacy. Self-efficacy may be influenced by three different types of factors: Social factors (such as workload, peer collaboration, teaching climate), psychological factors (such as mental health, burnout) and educators' working credentials, including professional education and academic qualifications, educators' own pressures, and external pressures, such as social expectations and institutional demand. These factors may intersect dynamically with self-efficacy perceptions, which may influence self-efficacy levels. The association of race and ethnicity and other special characteristics of students, such as low socioeconomic status, first-generation college students, and childhood exposure to trauma, introduces additional complexities (Williams, Mohammed, Leavell & Collins, 2010). Peer and administrator support emerge as critical determinants, fostering confidence through collaborative 6 environments and mentorship opportunities. This intricate interplay underscores the importance of comprehensive support systems and ongoing professional development in enhancing the confidence and effectiveness of early childhood educators in their roles. Purpose of Study This study will examine the associations between the self-efficacy of early childhood educators and personal and environmental factors such as educator preparation credentials, work experience, stress, educator demographics, and higher education program supports. The findings of the study will be used to provide guidance on how to strengthen higher education programs in ways that may improve the self-efficacy of early childhood educators and improve job satisfaction and work performance. 7 Literature Review This chapter describes the development of the definition of self-efficacy and how it plays out in traditional educational contexts and provides insight into the factors that influence the enhancement or diminution of educators’ self-efficacy. Self-efficacy theories are used to understand how self-efficacy may affect educators’ quality of instruction, help them cope with challenges and support their work ethics, maturity, and enhancement of self-worth. Definitions, Development, and Roles of Self-Efficacy The term “self-efficacy” was initially derived from Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory. Social Cognitive Theory distinguishes three modes of agency: direct personal agency, proxy agency that relies on others to act on one’s behest to secure desired outcomes, and collective agency exercised through socially coordinated and interdependent effort (Bandura, 2001). Selfefficacy emphasizes direct personal agency. Bandura defines self-efficacy as “the degree of confidence that people have in their ability to use the skills they possess to accomplish a given work behavior” (Bandura, 1997). How people behave is mediated by their beliefs about their capabilities? (Bandura & Wessels, 1994). A crucial point to understand is that the concept relates to beliefs about one’s perceived abilities or inabilities to complete a specific task and not to one’s actual capabilities or performance (Mills, Pajares & Herron, 2007). In the field of education, educator self-efficacy is defined as “an educator’s belief in his or her own capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Educators’ self-efficacy is their perceived capacity to effectively educate children (Bandura, 1997, 2001), which means they believe that they can promote 8 children’s development. Another concept worth mentioning is Self-concept (Self-identity), which is often confused with self-efficacy. Self-concept (self-identity) is a cognitive or descriptive component of oneself (“Self-concept”, 2025). According to Rogers (1959), everyone strives to reach an “ideal self”. Self-concept is a reflection of a person's confidence and identifies how an individual perceives themself based on personality traits, values, and abilities (Stets & Burke, 2014). Self-efficacy is an individual's belief in their capacity to act in the ways necessary to reach specific goals (Bandura, 1997). Self-concept emphasizes one’s personal cognitive and affective judgements about oneself. Self-efficacy emphasizes one’s confidence in handling tasks and situations. Educators’ self-concept positively reinforces self-efficacy. Educators with a stronger selfconcept belief often have a higher evaluation of their self-perception, thus are more confident in adopting effective teaching strategies in a specific classroom situation and coping with the difficulties and challenges of teaching. Educators with a high level of self-efficacy believed that they could control, or at least strongly influence, student achievement and motivation (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). Educators with high self-efficacy for teaching have more positive expectations for student achievement and better student outcomes (Tournaki & Podell, 2005). Educators with low levels of self-efficacy experience more difficulties with student misbehavior, are pessimistic about student learning, and experience higher levels of job-related stress and lower levels of job satisfaction (Bandura, 1997; Caprara et al., 2003; Caprara et al., 2006; Lee et al., 1991). Educator self-efficacy can significantly influence student achievement levels, educator attitudes toward innovations, and beliefs in their ability to cope with changes (Thompson & Woodman, 2019). Self-efficacy beliefs are linked to different domains of educator functioning (Zimmerman, 1995). 9 So, investigating educator self-efficacy is important because an educator’s sense of self-efficacy is related to success in children’s learning (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Saklofske, Michayluk, & Randhawa, 1988; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Theoretical Framework From the social cognitive theory perspective, human agency is mediated by our efficaciousness, self-efficacy beliefs that influence choices, effort, persistence when facing adversity, and emotions (Pajares, 1997). Thus, self-efficacy is the mechanism through which humans create and operate on agency. Self-efficacy is not a global disposition, but rather a context-specific one. An individual’s level of self-efficacy varies across different contexts (Bandura, 1986). Economic conditions, socioeconomic status, and educational and family structures affect behavior largely through their impact on people’s aspirations, self-efficacy, personal standards, affective states, and other self-regulatory influences, rather than directly (Baldwin et al., 1989; Bandura, 1993; Bandura et al., 1996a, 2000a; Elder & Ardelt, 1992). Biopsychosocial models (Engel, 1977; Biopsychosocial model, 2025) are a class of transdisciplinary models that look at the interconnection between biology, psychology, and socio-environmental factors (See Figure 1). These factors interact with and influence others in complex ways to produce a person's overall sense of self and worldview. This influences behavior in turn, the way people think and ultimately the way a person lives life and relates to others. Physical health, brain function (decision-making ability and memory storage), stress tolerance among biological factors, mental health, self-identity and beliefs among psychological factors, and peer support, work environment, and industry trends for educators in society, social factors, are all factors that may affect educators' self-efficacy. 10 Figure 1. Biopsychosocial models (Engel, 1981) Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development provides opportunities for healing and personal development for adults through reflection and guided therapy. Self-awareness, as achieved through Erikson’s framework, can help liberate adults from emotional entanglements and conditioned ways of perceiving children, society and their own roles (Batra, 2013). For example, Edwards and Loveridge's (2011) qualitative case study of seven educators in New Zealand childcare settings found that their negative feelings toward implementing science curriculum stemmed from their own early schooling experiences. When an educator grows up in an environment where diverse concepts and ideas are instilled in them by their teachers and families, it creates a framework for the educator to navigate social systems in the future. This 11 provides an explanation for why each educator may respond to situations in a unique manner. Some educators who did not have a lot of encouragement in their families as children may grow up with a desire to offer more encouragement to the children. Self-Efficacy of Preservice vs. In-service Early Childhood Educators It is essential to understand the difference and know how to work between preservice and in-service educators. Preservice educators are individuals in training who are preparing to enter the teaching profession. They typically complete academic programs or internships that prepare them to assume responsibilities in the field. In-service educators have already taken the teaching work in the early childhood field and have practical experience with the challenges and responsibilities of the class. Preservice Educators The profession of teaching is stressful and often results in educator burnout (Prilleltensky, Neff, & Bessell, 2016). Preservice educators may experience stress in navigating unfamiliar school environments. In a classic study of preservice educators, Bandura (1997) found that feelings of repeated success were helpful in managing teaching stress. That means educators' self-efficacy generally increases with experience and success, from preservice preparation early in one’s career to in-service teaching mid-career (Klassen & Chiu, 2010). Although student teaching is generally associated with positive emotions for preservice educators (Hascher & Wepf, 2007), anxiety, nervousness, and worry are also prevalent (Hascher & Hagenauer, 2016). However, a study by Erden and Sönmez (2012) shows that educators with less than one year of experience hold more positive attitudes toward teaching, particularly regarding the perceived developmental appropriateness of early childhood education. This may be due to the differences 12 in the strength of one’s self-concept, as well as variations in background and personality. Preservice educators need to have self-efficacy for the responsibilities they face when teaching (Ryel, Bernsausen & van Tassell, 2001). Studies have found that student teaching prepares preservice educators for their role as educators and plays a significant role in educator retention (Darling-Hammond, Newton, & Wei, 2010; Gedne, 2015). It is worth noting that after completing higher education, most individuals tend to be more confident when facing job responsibilities. However, they have not yet had extensive practice, so they may be vulnerable to a moderate overestimation of their abilities. This may lead preservice educators to put forth greater energy and effort. Too much overestimation can lead to a sense of inferiority among preservice educators, causing negative emotions due to unrealistic expectations. This requires the higher education system to give adequate support to college students. In 2024, the Utah State Legislature passed a bill titled “Equal Opportunity Initiatives.” This bill prohibited higher education institutions, the public education system, and any governmental employer from having DEI programs. It aims to limit the influence of DEI initiatives in hiring, admissions, and other educational practices, focusing instead on a version of equality that disregards personal characteristics. This may result in disadvantaged groups (first-generation college students or multi-racial, disabled) not having the same access as regular students. At the same time, annual legal evaluations result in less financial support, fewer programs, and fewer enrollments within the school. This may be a challenge that the higher education system faces in helping students who often encounter barriers to degree completion. A priority for support that may benefit preservice educators is assistance with the transition from college to work, as well as more practice in their internship or part-time job. 13 Inservice Educators A number of studies suggest that preservice and in-service educators possess different beliefs and perceptions with regard to teaching and learning (Murphy et al., 2004; Wilson et al., 2002), and the amount of teaching experience (Murphy et al., 2004; Richardson, 1996). Inservice educators are more experienced in practicing at both universities, having learned and implemented new in-service training practices (Şenol & Ergün, 2015). However, internal and external pressures on in-service educators can lead to burnout, which may be mitigated by higher levels of cultural competence (Uzun & Sevinç, 2015; Wesołowska et al., 2018) and work-related efficacy (Chen, 2016; Matthews, Barden, & Sherrell, 2018). Educator Preparation & Factors Associated with Self-Efficacy Higher education programs may attend to several factors related to early childhood educators' self-efficacy, including professional development, peer collaboration, student demographics, and the stress experienced by educators. Addressing stress and burnout through targeted interventions can help retain educators and lead to improved educational outcomes for young children. Whether various educator demographics, including race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and non-traditional backgrounds, provide the same opportunity to vulnerable and non-vulnerable groups may influence educators’ self-efficacy. As indicated below, this highlights both the unique strengths and challenges that these educators face in their professional roles. Qualifications & Experience Several factors are typically considered in an educator’s job application: degree level, credentials, training, and educational experience. Educators’ qualifications and attitudes related 14 to the teaching profession indicate that certified educators in elementary schools have higher self-efficacy than non-certified educators, but there are no studies specific to early childhood education. (Capri & Celikkaleli, 2008; Bozdoğan et al., 2007; Aydın & Sağlam, 2012). However, several types of credentials are available to early childhood professionals at various degrees and majors, and two are considered in the current work: a state educator's license in Early Childhood Education and the Child Development Associate (CDA) Credential. Currently, due to a workforce shortage, some programs in higher education offer temporary certification or licensure. According to Putman and Walsh (2021), who summarize in their article, Utah does not require a basic skill test for prep programs. It requires an individual GPA of less than 2.75. Moreover, it will not support diverse enrollment in educator prep programs. For special education and early childhood educators, Utah requires a test that fully measures candidates’ knowledge of the science of reading for licensure. Some researchers have found a positive relationship between educator self-efficacy and teaching experience among preschool, primary, and secondary educators (Cheung, 2008; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Educators' years of experience working with children prior to kindergarten entry were negatively correlated with educator self-efficacy. Educators may have lower self-efficacy when they have been working in the field for some time yet still feel challenged and lacking. (von Suchodoletz, Jamil, Larsen & Hamre (2018). Wolters and Daugherty (2007) found that educators with more years of teaching experience, from preschool through 12th grade, reported higher levels of self-efficacy. However, some researchers have found a negative correlation between educators’ self-efficacy and teaching experience in their studies (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997), which is often presented differently depending on the specific research subject and instrument. 15 Collaborative Support from Peers and Administrators Professional development and continuing education, coupled with a focus on raising selfefficacy levels among in-service preschool educators, may help ensure that tenure in the classroom relates to greater teaching performance and higher levels of self-efficacy, which in turn may improve children's academic achievement. Higher levels of staff collaboration and higher levels of educator control over decisionmaking could allow educators to cope more effectively with difficulties in teaching and thereby promote their level of self-efficacy (Moore & Esselman,1992). Administrators’ sense of collaboration (Desimone et al., 2004; Guo et al., McGinty et al., 2011, Hoy & Spero, 2005) and educator collaborations with opportunities to talk with colleagues and evaluate each other’s teaching practices seem to increase the level of educators’ self-efficacy. The school administrators’ collaboration appears critically important for early childhood educators, given the unique and specific challenges such as lack of perceived career reward and lack of preparation (Manlove, 1993; Townley et al., 1991). Collaborating with colleagues can compensate for shortcomings and challenges by providing validation and expanding educators' knowledge of content, ultimately increasing their self-efficacy. Effective school administrators can have observable impacts on educators as well as students (Altayli & Dagli, 2018). From a lifelong learning perspective, pre-service education is only the first necessary step in building educators’ knowledge. Thereafter, educators are asked to continually engage in professional learning activities undertaken alone and with others (Avalos, 2011; Vanblaere & Devos, 2016), such as training, reading, experimenting, reflection, and collaboration (Kwakman, 2003). Buysse et al. (2010) suggested that professional learning 16 consists of “facilitated teaching and learning experiences that are transactional and designed to support the acquisition of professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions as well as the application of this knowledge in practice”. Supportive administrators may guide the skills of inservice educators during the teaching process, help them adapt to the work environment, and develop their careers effectively, providing them with resourceful training and education. For inservice educators, supportive administrators are aware of the current state of emerging levels and developments in the field worldwide and give the right kind of meaningful support. Peer support is especially valued for pre-service educators, but can be just as helpful for in-service educators. Learning from the experiences of peers can play a more critical role in one's own career path and can sometimes be more effective than formal training (Bozak et al., 2011). Stress of Early Childhood Educators Educators with greater stress, defined as the experience of negative emotions resulting from an educator’s work, have lower self-efficacy (Betoret, 2006; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), poorer educator–pupil rapport, and lower levels of effectiveness (Abel & Sewell, 1999; Kokkinos, 2007). Early childhood educators often face low pay and limited resources, high rates of challenging behavior in their classrooms, and a lack of professional development and training opportunities compared to their K-12 educator (Barnett, 2003; Gomez et al., 2015). As people get older, personal background influences play an increasingly large part in their lives. This is often due to the fact that older educators are not only burdened with family overhead expenses and educational instruction, but also have more things to consider than younger educators. Stress may lead to burnout. Burnout is a reaction to prolonged or chronic job stress that is characterized by three main dimensions: exhaustion, cynicism (less identification with the job), 17 and feelings of reduced professional ability” (Freudenberger & Richelson, 1980). Burnout can bring about physical, psychological, cognitive, and relational disturbances (Nicholson et al., 2020), and lead to leaving one’s job or profession. The data on the high turnover of early childhood educators speaks volumes about the job's less-than-stable nature, which is associated with lower pay and social status (NSECE, 2019). As a result, too many educators are leaving the field in search of higher-value, developmental positions. Individual beliefs and personality characteristics of educators may be most proximal to their experiences of stress. Their personal characteristics, on the other hand, shape their personalities; some educators are characterized by sensitivity and a tendency to experience self-doubt, while others are characterized by optimism, openness, and the ability to manage their emotions effectively. These determine the way educators interact with their students, especially in the face of challenging difficulties. Educators with a low sense of selfefficacy often avoid tasks due to a certain amount of negativity. Educators with high selfefficacy are more likely to reduce anxiety and react quickly to challenging behaviors and events. Classroom Characteristics In addition to educator characteristics, classroom characteristics, such as children’s engagement, are likely to affect educators’ self-efficacy. In fact, the importance of children’s engagement has strong theoretical underpinnings (Bandura, 1997) and is supported in empirical work concerning secondary teachers (Newman et al., 1989; Raudenbush et al., 1992; Ross et al., 1996). Educators’ self-efficacy is related to higher levels of student achievement and student motivation, and has been shown to influence educators’ instructional practices, enthusiasm, commitment, and teaching behavior (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk, Hoy, 2001; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Therefore, educators’ self-efficacy is substantially 18 strengthened when they perceive that students are highly engaged in class activities (Guo, Justice, Sawyer, & Tompkins, 2011). Like the training and peer experience support mentioned above, which is further improved by training, professional development and manager support. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020), more than half of all U.S. children have experienced some of the ten types of traumas, including five personal (physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect) and five family-related (incarcerated family member, domestic violence, parental divorce) items. This adds complexity to the work of early childhood educators and this complexity may increase stress for those who may already have limited energy. Some educators may quit due to secondary trauma. It will require studies targeted at addressing the issues of educator stress, the quality of teaching, and the level of educator competence. This will require a series of studies, and gathering more information about the thoughts and current situation of early educators is the best way to get a closer look at their problems and the support they would like to receive in order to help them better. Educator Demographics Self-efficacy, or an educator’s belief in their ability to effectively facilitate learning and manage a classroom, may be influenced by personal background. Personal background may include race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and being a non-traditional or firstgeneration college student. Diemer and Blustein (2007) found that racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic barriers generally hinder individuals’ vocational development. The racial and ethnic backgrounds of educators can affect their self-efficacy in several ways. Educators from minority ethnic groups might face some challenges and biases that can impact their professional experiences and self-perceptions. However, these educators can also 19 bring unique cultural perspectives that enrich their teaching practices and build strong relational ties with students from similar backgrounds. In contexts where diversity is valued and supported, these educators may experience enhanced self-efficacy as they recognize the importance and relevance of their cultural contributions to the educational environment. According to research (Kunemund et al., 2020), the higher the percentage of racial mismatches between educators and students, the lower the educators' classroom management self-efficacy, and in turn, the greater the sense of conflict between educators and students. Those from higher social class backgrounds tend to be more successful in developing career aspirations and are generally better prepared for the world of work because of access to resources such as career offices, guidance counselors, better schools, high-level “social actors,” and familial experience with higher education (Diemer & Ali, 2009). A study found that individuals from lower social classes generally had less career-related self-efficacy in terms of vocational aspirations (Ali, McWhirter, & Chronister, 2005). For educators from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, these experiences can either hinder their self-efficacy, as they may feel less prepared compared to peers from more affluent backgrounds. Non-traditional students are often first in their families and unfamiliar with university expectations. An international research project found that these students are less likely to perform well academically (NCES, 2018; Stone et al., 2016). They may therefore lack the confidence to teach students, which can affect their self-efficacy. Many universities address these challenges by offering enabling programs to facilitate entry into university for non-traditional cohorts and provide ongoing support (Eversole, 2021). Their life experiences can provide them with a broader perspective and a diverse set of skills, enhancing their ability to manage classrooms and connect with students and parents. However, they might also struggle with 20 balancing family, work, and studies, which can impact their training experience and perceived competence. Early childhood educators with different Demographics have their unique strengths, but at the same time, their special situation may also determine that their career path is challenging, which requires excellent psychological qualities and a high level to maintain their self-efficacy. Their unique perspectives and hard-working personalities may help them overcome the difficulties, enabling them to experience a sense of fulfillment that no one else can have, given their previous struggles, thus increasing their sense of self-efficacy as educators. Previous research has identified these factors influencing educators' self-efficacy. Therefore, this study will examine the relationship between early childhood educators' selfefficacy and their personal and environmental factors, such as degrees and majors, work experience, stress levels, and personal background checks. Based on them, explore how to support the educators in early childhood education. Research Questions: 1. What is the relationship between early childhood educators’ self-efficacy and educators’ teaching experience, degrees and majors, stress, and demographic variables such as race/ethnicity, SES, and first-generation college student status? 2. What types of support increase early childhood educators’ self-efficacy in classroom teaching practices? 21 Research Methods This study examined factors that affect the self-efficacy of early childhood educators and investigated the types of support that increase their self-efficacy in actual teaching situations. Research question one, this examined associations between study used - the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale to know the level of their self-efficacy, Teacher Stress Scale to know their level of stress and personal background check to know their demographic information such as teaching experience in the early childhood field, degrees and majors, stress, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and first-generation college student status, stress, and demographic variables such as race/ethnicity, socio-economic status, and first-generation college student status, in the context of personal background. Research question two: This study gathered qualitative data from participants regarding their perspectives on support for teacher self-efficacy. Based on the results, the types of support that increase early childhood educators' self-efficacy will be discussed in the findings section. Participants Early childhood educators were recruited from college students who were enrolled in a higher education program. This institution was located in the western United States. It was a public institution that served the regional area, operating as both a community college and a university. The inclusion criteria were: 1) currently enrolled in an early childhood education (children aged birth to 8 years), elementary (children aged 6-14 years), or special education (children aged 6 to 18 years) professional preparation degree or credential program (e.g., child development minor, early childhood associate, bachelor, master's programs), 2) currently enrolled in an early childhood education course in summer or fall semester of 2025, and 3) taught or currently teaching (including practicum/field experiences and teacher assistants) in an 22 early learning program serving children 0-8 years old as a part-time or full-time teacher. Students majoring in Early Childhood, Elementary, and Special Education, undergraduate and graduate students, were eligible to participate in this study because their teacher preparation included the education of children in kindergarten and primary grades. Child development minors were eligible because their academic training provides foundational knowledge that is directly relevant to teaching effectiveness in early childhood education. Since most participants were both preservice and in-service educators, this study would not involve a comparison of the two groups, but rather a discussion of the self-efficacy factors that affect educators in different contexts and the support available to them. This study employed purposive sampling to maximize participation among the target population relevant to the research questions. It was anticipated that questionnaires would be distributed to approximately 30 Weber State University students who are currently working as educators majoring, minoring, or specializing in Early Childhood, Elementary, or Special Education at the associate, bachelor's, or graduate degree level and are enrolled in Fall 2025 early childhood education courses that have in-field observation and/or practice requirements. These courses include: ECED 2110, 2500, 2600, 2610, 2620, 2640, 2670, 3500, 3570, 3640, 4110, 4230, 4250, 4670, 4721, 4820, and 4861. The Weber State University education program website (Weber State University, 2025) summarized demographic data from Spring 2024 for students enrolled in three early childhood education programs (AAS, BS educator licensure, and nonlicensure). The Early Childhood Education program had the highest enrollment and full-time participation. Hispanic/Latino students (54%) represented the largest minority group, while representation from other racial groups is minimal. Many students were Pell Grant recipients and first-generation college students, indicating financial and educational need. According to the 23 Spring 2025 institutional data (Weber State University, 2025), the total number of students with a primary major in ECE was 218. The proportion of Pell Grant recipients was 44% and the proportion of first-generation students was 31.7%. The study sample (n = 25) consisted entirely of females (Table 1), with the majority being non-Hispanic White (68%), and four participants were Hispanic (16%). Most participants were enrolled in bachelor’s degree programs (68%), while 12% were enrolled in the child development minor program; three participants (12%) were enrolled in a master’s degree program. Regarding financial support, seven participants (28%) received Pell Grants, and the remainder did not. Over half of the participants (60%) were first-generation college students. Table 1. Demographic information of the sample (n =25) Variable Gender Race Degrees and majors Category Frequency Percentage (%) Female 24 96% Male 0 0% Prefer not to say 1 4% Non-Hispanic White 17 68% Hispanic 4 16% Asian 1 4% Other 2 8% Prefer not to say 1 4% Child Development Minor 3 12% Early Childhood Associate 1 4% Bachelor 17 68% 24 Financial Support Educational Need Master 3 12% Other 1 4% Eligible for Pell Grant 7 28% Ineligible Pell Grant Recipients 18 72% First-generation College Students 15 60% Non-First-generation College Students 10 40% Measures Research Question 1. The relationship between self-efficacy and teaching experience, degrees and majors, stress, and demographic variables. Educator Self-Efficacy Measure. (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998) was used to assess educators' perceptions of their competence across a wide range of activities and tasks. It has been a valid measure of teacher self-efficacy, assessing both personal competence and an analysis of the task in terms of resources and constraints specific to teaching contexts. Policymakers, early childhood educators, and researchers have suggested that efforts are needed to improve the quality of early childhood education and ensure the quality of early childhood educators (Barnett, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Vecchiotti, 2001). Prior analyses demonstrated the impact of professional credentials, peer leadership support, educator stress, and racial specificity on educator self-efficacy. To better understand the factors influencing self-efficacy, the educator and classroom factors related to teacher self-efficacy were examined, while controlling for educator demographics (i.e., gender, race, and education level). An online educator-report survey (see Appendix D) was used to measure the relationship 25 between early childhood educators’ self-efficacy and other variables in Research Question #1. This survey consisted of three parts. First, the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES) was used to measure teacher self-efficacy. Second, demographic questions regarding gender, major, work experience, SES, and first-generation status were used to measure personal background. Finally, the Early Childhood Educator Stress Form was used to measure teacher stress. The Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES) was developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001). It consisted of 24 items for the long form and 12 items for the short form (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The third version had been modified by research to include three factors (Efficacy for instructional strategies, Efficacy for classroom management, and Efficacy for student engagement). The items were on a nine-point Likert scale ranging from 1, nothing, to 9, a great deal. The survey instrument was based on established self-efficacy theories and underwent three iterations of validation and modification, ensuring its reliability. OSTES had been tested to be reliable in different dimensions of Student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The rationale for selecting the OSTES for this study is presented in Table A (see Appendix A), which summarizes a comparison of seven internationally recognized and widely used scales on educator self-efficacy, all of which are based on Bandura's theory of self-efficacy. However, they differ in terms of their specific focus and the operationalization of their constructs. The Gibson and Dembo's Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) and Bandura's Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Bandura, 1997) emphasize broader teacher responsibilities, while the Ohio State teacher efficacy scale (OSTES) (Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001) and Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) focus more specifically on instructional tasks, classroom management, and student engagement. General Self-efficacy Scale (GES) 26 (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 2009) and Bandura's Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale are used widely across all types of educators, while others, such as the Preschool Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs Scale (Tepe, 2011) and OSTES, are more specific to early childhood and preschool education. Scales like OSTES and TES have undergone significant modifications to better assess specific aspects of teacher efficacy, such as classroom management, instructional strategies, and engagement. The Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale was selected due to its combination of research aspects, target population, and reliability. The Early Childhood Educators Stress Scale was developed based on the items for the Teacher Stress Scale (TSS) (Chen, Li, Rodrigues, & Kaufman, 2022) informed by theories (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Kyriacou, 2001) and the extant literature on early childhood teacher stress and stress coping (Whitaker et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2016; Clayback & Williford, 2021; Tebben et al., 2021; Chen, 2022). TSS comprised two constructions: (1) Inadequate Schoolbased Support, and (2) Teaching-related Demands. It involved a five-point Likert scale (1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree, and 5= Strongly Agree). It was designed to test the stress of early childhood educators and to inform better improvements and solutions based on the results. The study revealed that the overall TSS and its subscales exhibited good internal consistency. Personal Background questions asked participants to provide demographic data on their gender, race, and ethnicity, professional and degrees and majors, SES measured by educators’ eligibility for the Pell Grant, work experience, and first-generation college student data, each of which was the independent variable in the study to find out what factors could influence educators' self-efficacy. Time-related positive associations with TSE, like age and prior work experience, were found by Chester and Beaudin (1996), Ross, Cousins, and Gadalla (1996), and 27 Fackler and Malmberg (2016). In the previous literature review that emphasized the influence of demographic factors on the self-efficacy of educators, these factors may have a significant impact on educators' self-efficacy (Diemer & Blustein, 2007; NCES, 2018; Stone et al., 2016), thus requiring further research on them. Research Question 2: supports that increase early childhood educators’ self-efficacy. Qualitative data were gathered using four open-ended questions in the online questionnaire. These questions gather information about the key influences on educators' selfefficacy. They examined how classroom experiences, supportive relationships with colleagues or supervisors, and participation in professional development activities influence teachers' confidence in their abilities. In addition, the questions invited educators to reflect on other personal or contextual factors that may influence their sense of teaching self-efficacy, such as background, school culture, or student engagement. Educators’ responses were considered to be a result of their personal belief system (Jones & Carter, 2007). The open-ended questions offered educators an opportunity for clarification and extended comments (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). Data Collection The online questionnaire was distributed via various channels, including requests for course instructors to post an invitation to participate in the study on Canvas announcements, the online instructional platform, and email invitations to all early childhood education, elementary education majors, graduate students, and students in the child development minor. The researcher first reached out to faculty members who taught early childhood courses in the Fall 2025 semester. The initial email included: 1) a letter with a request for permission to conduct the survey among their students, the purpose of the study, instructions on completing the survey via 28 a QR code and a hyperlink, and confidential data collection, 2) a sample informed consent form to ensure ethical compliance, 3) a copy of the entire questionnaire, 4) a template message that faculty can paste in their announcement to students, and 5) a recruitment flyer to attach to the announcement (see Appendices B, C, D, and E). Once the faculty members had given permission, they were invited to post a Canvas announcement with the provided flyer, inviting their students to participate in the survey. No incentives were provided for participants. Two methods were used to increase the response rate. Students were notified through an invitation letter and flyer that they would receive information about project findings, enabling them to learn about the early childhood profession and feel more motivated to respond to the survey. A second attempt to collect data was made a month after the initial announcement was posted by the administrative assistants, sending the same invitation email to all students enrolled in early childhood education, elementary education, and special education undergraduate and graduate programs, and child development minors, through the internal database. No special education students responded. Data Analysis Quantitative Data To test Research Question #1, the IBM SPSS Statistics program was used for the analysis of quantitative data. Descriptive statistics for personal demographic variables, expressed as percentages, are reported in Table 1. Descriptive statistics, means, and standard deviation for self-efficacy, stress, and their degrees and majors were examined. The variable of educator race was divided into two groups: Non-Hispanic White and all other groups. Descriptive statistics, including an Independent Group t-test, were used to compare the differences between first- 29 generation and non-first-generation college students, between those eligible for the Pell Grant and those not eligible, and between Non-Hispanic White students and students of other races. The categorical variables were coded prior to the test, e.g., 1 = first-generation college student, and 2 = non-first-generation college student. The test for equality of Variances was checked to determine if the assumption of equal variances is met. If the significance level was greater than 0.05, the assumption of equal variances was met. One-way analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether the variable varied with teaching experience. The categorical variables were coded, e.g., 1 = < 12months, 2 = 1-3 years, 3 = 4-6 years, 4 = Beyond 6 years. The ANOVA table shows the F-value and the significance level (p-value). If p < 0.05, the null hypothesis can be rejected, and it will be concluded that there are significant differences between groups. Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted, with educator self-efficacy scores as the dependent variable, teacher stress scores and teaching experience as the independent variables, and participants’ race/ethnicity, Pell Grants status, and first-generation college student status controlled for. The first tier includes race, first-generation college students, and Pell Grant recipients. The second tier includes teaching experience and stress scores. The strength and direction of the relationship are indicated by the correlation coefficient (r), which ranges from -1 to +1. The p-value indicates the statistical significance of the relationship between independent and dependent variables. A small p-value (< 0.05) indicates a statistically significant relationship. Qualitative Data To test Research Question #2, the author summarized the data from students’ responses 30 to the four open-ended questions, focusing on understanding the key factors that influence their self-efficacy. The analysis first summarized educators' descriptions of specific teaching experiences to identify what successful or challenging events enhanced their confidence in teaching. Next, participant responses about feedback from colleagues, mentors, or administrators provided insight into whether social support positively impacts educators' self-efficacy, and these responses were summarized. Then, participants’ perspectives on how professional development, such as training programs and workshops, can help improve their teaching skills and confidence. Ultimately, this open-ended exploration of additional factors enabled the identification of potential effects of personality traits, cultural background, and work environment on teacher selfefficacy. Contributes a comprehensive understanding of the composition of educator selfefficacy and the path to its enhancement, providing a basis for the development of subsequent educational support strategies. 31 Results This section presents the results of the statistical analysis conducted to examine the effects of various factors on preschool educators’ self-efficacy in relation to Research Question 1. The following analysis includes descriptive statistics, along with independent group t-tests to compare differences between first-generation college students and non-first-generation college students, as well as between students eligible for Pell Grants and those ineligible for them, and their race and ethnicity (Non-Hispanic White students and students of other races). Additionally, One-way analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether the variation is due to the work years variable. Hierarchical regression analysis aims to examine how teaching experience and teacher stress predict self-efficacy, while controlling for demographic variables (Pell Grant status, first-generation college student status, race, and ethnicity). Additionally, analyzing the commonalities in responses to the four open-ended questions helped identify the key factors influencing educators’ self-efficacy in response to Research Question 2. Research Question 1: To examine Research Question 1, the effects of various factors on the self-efficacy of preschool educators were investigated. The analyses included descriptive statistics, independent group t-tests, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA), and linear regression analysis. Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics for educators’ self-efficacy and related variables were presented in Table 2. The mean score for educators’ self-efficacy was M = 6.69 (SD = 1.08), indicating a moderately high level of perceived teaching confidence. The results indicated the average level 32 Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of self-efficacy, its three factors, and the stress score Variable n M SD Min Max Total Self-Efficacy 25 6.69 1.08 3.33 7.96 Student Engagement 25 6.78 1.26 3.88 9 Instructional Strategies 25 6.56 1.22 3 7.75 Classroom Management 25 6.73 1.72 3.13 9 Total Stress 25 22.2 5.9 8.0 32.0 of confidence teachers reported in each factor. Educators reported a relatively high level of selfefficacy in Student Engagement (M = 6.78, SD = 1.26), suggesting that they generally feel confident in motivating and engaging students in classroom activities. This is the highest score among the three factors. For Instructional Strategies, the mean score was 6.56 (SD = 1.22), indicating a moderate to high level of confidence in planning and delivering effective instructional methods. Classroom Management received an average score of 6.73 (SD = 1.72), reflecting educators’ perceptions of their ability to maintain an organized and conducive learning environment. The average difference among the three factors is minimal. Teacher stress scores indicate a moderate level of stress that educators perceive in their professional roles, with a mean stress score of M = 22.2 (SD = 5.9). For their degree and major variable, participants represented a range of educational backgrounds, with the majority holding a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education (Table 3). Due to small and uneven group sizes, degree and major were not included in inferential analyses. The highest proportion (N = 14, 56%) of educational qualifications is bachelor's degrees in early childhood education (Table 3). 33 Table 3. Distribution of Samples by Degree and Major Degree Groups Major in Early Education major Education Master Minor M SD 6.26 1.07 3 (12%) 7.54 0.30 3 (12%) 7.31 0.26 4 (16%) 7.17 0.92 Bachelor of Early Childhood (Education) 14 (56%) Childhood Education Associate of Early Childhood Major in Elementary n (%) Bachelor of Elementary Education Master of Inclusive Early Childhood Education Minor in Child Development 1 (4%) Independent Group T-Tests Independent Group t-tests were conducted to examine whether self-efficacy differed between (a) first-generation college students and non-first-generation college students, (b) educators eligible for Pell Grants and that ineligible, and (c) White and Non-White educators. Coding the categorical group variables, 1= first-generation college student, 2 = non-firstgeneration college student; 1 = eligible for Pell Grant, 2 = ineligible for Pell Grant; 1 = NonHispanic White students, 2 = Other Race students. As shown in Table 4, there was no significant difference (all two-tailed p-values > 0.05) in total teacher self-efficacy scores (t (23) = 0.91, p = .372), instructional strategies (t (23) = 0.20, p = .843) and classroom management (t (23) = 0.42, p = .677) between first-generation (n = 15) and non-first-generation educators (n = 10). The results of the independent groups t-test indicated that the difference in student engagement scores between first-generation college students and non-first-generation college students did not reach the standard level of statistical 34 significance (t (23) = 1.94, p = .064). However, this p-value was very close to the .05 level, indicating a marginally significant trend between the two groups: first-generation college students (M = 7.12, SD = 1.16) reported higher student engagement than non-first-generation college faculty (M = 6.28, SD = 0.89). Table 4. Independent-Group T-test for Self-Efficacy by First-Generation Students Variable Grouping Variable Group n M SD Total Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale Scores 1 15 6.84 1.10 2 10 6.45 0.95 1 15 7.12 1.16 2 10 6.28 0.89 1 15 6.59 1.24 2 10 6.50 0.93 1 15 6.82 1.32 2 10 6.59 1.35 Student Engagement Instructional Strategies Classroom Management t p 0.91 .372 1.94 .064 0.20 .843 0.42 .677 Note: 1 = First-generation College Students; 2 = Non- first-generation College Students Table 5 showed no significant difference (all two-tailed p-values > 0.05) was found between educators eligible for Pell Grants and those ineligible for Pell Grants in total teacher self-efficacy, student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management factors. The means of the two groups were very close in terms of the variables. This means that regardless of whether Pell Grant recipients were included, these variables showed no significant differences. On average, educators who were first-generation college students and received Pell Grants had slightly higher levels of self-efficacy. Table 5. Independent-Group t-Test for Self-Efficacy by Pell Grants students Variables 35 Grouping Variable Group n M SD Total Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale Scores 1 7 6.91 0.97 2 18 6.60 1.08 1 7 7.18 1.35 2 18 6.63 1.02 1 7 6.57 1.09 2 18 6.55 1.14 1 7 6.97 1.25 2 18 6.64 1.36 Student Engagement Instructional Strategies Classroom Management t p* 0.65 .261 1.11 .139 0.45 .482 0.56 .290 Note: 1 = Students’ eligible for Pell Grant; 2 = Students’ ineligible for Pell Grant Since most students were Non-Hispanic White (68%), 40% were Hispanic/ Latino, 4% were Asian, and 12% were multiracial. The variable of educator race was divided into two groups (Group 1: Non-Hispanic White students; Group 2: Other Race students). Statistical results revealed no significant differences between groups in total teacher self-efficacy scores (t (23) = -1.15, p = .263), student engagement (t (23) = -0.76, p = .454), instructional strategies (t (23) = -0.65, p = .521), and classroom management (t (23) = -1.54, p = .139). However, in the classroom management variables, students of other races (M = 7.30, SD = 1.23) scored significantly higher than white students (M = 6.46, SD = 1.29), it was representing the largest difference in all factors. One-way analysis of Variance (ANOVA) To further investigate whether self-efficacy levels varied among preschool educators with different backgrounds, a series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. One categorical independent variable of years of teaching experience were used to examine their 36 potential effects on overall teacher self-efficacy scores and their three factors: student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management. Participants were divided into four groups and coded according to their years of teaching experience: 1 = less than 12 months, 2 = 1-3 years, 3 = 4-6 years, and 4 = more than 6 years. Table 6 presents the distribution and descriptive statistics of teaching experience in all variables, which were 1-3 years (32%) and more than 6 years (32%). As teaching experience increases (from Group 1 to Group 4), the average of all self-efficacy scores (Group 1: M = 5.57, SD = 1.34; Group 2: M = 6.66, SD = 0.94; Group 3: M = 6.84, SD = 0.69; Group 4: M = 7.34, SD = 0.43) and other teaching experience groups show an upward trend (Figure 2). Table 6. Distribution and Descriptive Statistics of Samples by Teaching Experience Variables Teacher Self-efficacy Scale Scores Student Engagement Instructional Strategies Teaching Experience Groups Number (%) M SD 1 5 (20%) 5.57 1.34 2 8 (32%) 6.66 0.94 3 4 (16%) 6.84 0.69 4 8 (32%) 7.34 0.43 Total 25 6.69 1.04 1 5 (20%) 5.60 1.03 2 8 (32%) 6.71 1.10 3 4 (16%) 7.07 0.74 4 8 (32%) 7.46 0.83 Total 25 6.78 1.12 1 5 (20%) 5.18 1.40 2 8 (32%) 6.83 0.89 3 4 (16%) 6.68 0.94 37 Classroom Management 4 8 (32%) 7.08 0.35 Total 25 6.56 1.10 1 5 (20%) 5.93 1.87 2 8 (32%) 6.44 1.26 3 4 (16%) 6.79 0.83 4 8 (32%) 7.49 0.90 Total 25 6.73 1.31 Note: 1= < 12 months; 2= 1-3 years; 3 = 4-6 years; 4 = Beyond 6 years Figure 2. Means of The Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale Scores Table 7 presents the results of the ANOVA (F (3, 21) = 4.27, p = .017), indicating a significant difference in self-efficacy among the different teaching experience groups. This demonstrates that the more experience they have, the higher their self-efficacy. The factor of 38 student engagement showed significant between-group differences (F (3, 21) = 3.98, p = .022). Instructional strategies exhibited significant between-group differences (F (3, 21) = 5.14, p = .008). Classroom management did not show significant between-group differences (F (3, 21) = 1.81, p = .176). Table 7. One-way ANOVA Results for Self-Efficacy by Teaching Experience Groups SS df M Square F Between Groups 9.78 3 3.27 4.26 .017* Within Groups 16.06 21 .77 Total 25.83 24 Between Groups 10.93 3 3.65 Within Groups 19.27 21 .92 Total 30.22 24 Between Groups 12.39 3 4.13 Within Groups 16.89 21 .804 Total 29.27 24 Between Groups 8.49 3 2.83 32.78 21 1.56 41.27 24 Dependent Variable Total Teacher SelfEfficacy Scale Student Engagement Instructional Strategies Classroom Management Within Groups Total P 3.98 .022* 5.14 .008* 1.81 .176 Following the identification of significant differences by analysis of variance (ANOVA), Levene's LSD test for multiple comparisons was employed to clarify the specific differences among groups (Table 8). The results indicate that the total self-efficacy score of Group 1 was significantly lower than that of Groups 2 (MD = -1.09, SE = 0.50, p = .040), 3 (MD = -1.27, SE = 0.50, p = .04), and 4 (MD = -1.77, SE = 0.50, p = .002) across the teacher self-efficacy scales. 39 Within-group variance decreased with increasing teaching experience, indicating that more experienced educator groups exhibited greater consistency in self-efficacy. Table 8: LSD Post-hoc Tests about Teaching Experience for All Factors Dependent Variable Teacher Self-efficacy Scale Student Engagement Instructional Strategies Classroom Management Comparison MD SE p* CI 95% CI 95% Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 vs 2 -1.09* 0.50 0.040* -2.13 -0.05 1 vs 3 -1.27* 0.59 0.041* -2.49 -0.05 1 vs 4 -1.77* 0.50 0.002** -2.81 -0.74 1 vs 2 -1.10 0.55 0.056 -2.24 0.03 1 vs 3 -1.46* 0.64 0.033* -2.80 -0.13 1 vs 4 -1.85* 0.55 0.003** -2.99 -0.72 1 vs 2 -1.65* 0.51 0.004** -2.72 -0.59 1 vs 3 -1.51* 0.60 0.020* -2.76 -.026 1 vs 4 -1.90* 0.51 0.001** -2.97 -0.84 1 vs 2 -0.51 0.71 0.480 -1.99 0.97 1 vs 3 -0.85 0.84 0.318 -2.60 0.89 1 vs 4 -1.56* 0.71 0.040 -3.04 -0.08 Note: *p< .05, **p< .005 In the student engagement factor, significant differences were found between Group 1 and Group 3 (MD = -1.46, SE = 0.64, p = .033) and between Group 1 and Group 4 (MD = -1.85, SE = 0.55, p = .003). The difference between Group 1 and Group 2 was not significant but close to being significant (MD = -1.10, SE = 0.55, p = 0.056). 40 In the instructional strategies factor, there were significant differences between Groups 1 and 2 (MD = -1.65, SE = 0.51, p = .004), Groups 1 and 3 (MD = -1.51, SE = 0.60, p = .020), and Groups 1 and 4 (MD = -1.90, SE = 0.51, p = .001). Only the difference between Group 1 and Group 4 was significant (MD = -1.56, SE = 0.71, p = .040), while the differences between Group 1 and Group 2 (MD = -0.51, SE = 0.71, p = .480) and between Group 1 and Group 3 (MD = 0.85, SE = 0.84, p = .318) were not significant. No significant differences were found between the other groups. It is worth mentioning that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was examined using Levene’s test. Results indicated that the assumptions were met for the Teacher Selfefficacy Scale (p = .180), Student Engagement (p = .591), and Classroom Management (p = .428). However, Levene’s test was significant for the Instructional Strategies factor (p = .029), suggesting a violation of the homogeneity of variance assumption for this variable. So these results for Instructional Strategies were interpreted with caution. Hierarchical regression analysis Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted, with educator self-efficacy scores as the dependent variable. The first model included Pell Grant status, first-generation college student status, and race as control variables. In the second model, the core predictor variables of teaching experience and teacher stress scores were added. Race/ethnicity, first-generation college student status, and Pell Grant recipient status were created as new variables, with 1 indicating “Yes” and 2 indicating “No.” In the analysis, use the "No" as the reference group. and entered the model as a set of dummy-coded predictors. The teaching experience variable and teacher stress scores are directly incorporated into the regression model as continuous variables. 41 Table 9 shows the descriptive statistics and interrelation of these variables. There is a significant positive correlation between teaching experience and teachers' self-efficacy (r = .579, p = .001). The correlation between teacher stress and self-efficacy was not significant (r = .024, p = .454). The correlations between the remaining demographic variables and teacher selfefficacy were not statistically significant. Table 9. Mean Levels and Interrelationships of Variables Variable Mean SD Correlation with Self-efficacy (r) p Teacher Self-Efficacy Scores 6.69 1.04 1.000 Teaching Experience 2.60 1.16 .579 .001** Teacher Stress Scores 22.16 5.91 .024 .454 Pell Grants Status 1.72 0.46 -.134 .261 First-Generation College Status 1.40 0.50 -.186 .186 Race and ethnicity 0.48 .232 .132 1.32 Note: **p< .005 The analysis revealed that Model 1, which included only control variables, was not statistically significant (F (3, 21) = 0.675, p = .577). This model provided limited power for teacher self-efficacy. After incorporating teaching experience and teacher stress scores into Model 2, the regression model showed significant improvement and was statistically significant (F (5, 19) = 3.016, p = .036). In Table 10, controlling for all other variables, teaching experience was the strongest and only significant predictor of teachers' self-efficacy (B = -0.565, SE = 0.163, β = .629, p = .003). And the variable of teacher stress scores is not a significant predictor of educator self-efficacy or its three factors (B = -0.011, SE = 0.032, β = -0.063, p = .738). None of the other predictor variables reached statistical significance (all p > .05). This confirms that in the regression model, these variables do not have an independent, significant influence on 42 educators’ self-efficacy. The variance inflation factor (VIF) values for all independent variables ranged from 1.04 to 1.33, indicating no multicollinearity and ensuring the stability of the regression coefficient estimates. Table 10. Regression Coefficients and Significance Tests Predicted Variable B SE β p Teaching Experience 0.565 0.163 .629 .003** Stress Scale Score -0.011 0.032 -.063 .738 Note: **p< .005 Qualitative data for Research Question #2: Open-ended Question 1: Describe a specific moment or experience in your teaching career that significantly impacted your confidence in your teaching abilities. Based on students' responses in the survey, answers were collected from diverse perspectives, both positive and negative experiences. Many educators' self-efficacy stems from the positive, observable impact of their teaching strategies on students. For example, one student, serving as a substitute teacher, successfully motivated children who were not interested in class by introducing reward systems and raffles, music, and games. She said, “By the end of the day, I felt closer to the students, and they didn't fight with me to get their work done once we established that relationship.” It impacted her confidence, strengthened teacher-student relationships, and improved learning outcomes. More powerful evidence came from another student, who wrote in her response that years later, she received feedback from her parents confirming that her teaching had a lasting, positive impact on the child, “ Hearing that my teaching had a positive influence that stayed with her children long after they left my classroom 43 was incredibly affirming and gave me a deeper confidence in my ability to make a meaningful impact”, reinforcing her belief that the value of teaching extends beyond the classroom. However, in contrast, confidence can be easily damaged by unrealistic expectations. Several students described feelings of helplessness and failure when managing large numbers of students with special needs or behavioral challenges alone, without adequate training, assistants, or effective guidance. For example, this student described “When I struggled, I was told I just needed to 'engage more,' while I was managing a class with mostly neurodivergent children, which made me feel like I was failing rather than recognizing the unrealistic expectations.” And the other students said, “Having a classroom with over 20 students and little help from an assistant, while many children displayed aggressive behavior or had special needs,” and “I could never manage the class of kids aged K-6 by myself”. This made me doubt if I wanted to be a teacher at all. Especially when supervisors didn’t offer solutions and even told the students to engage more. Such practices may decrease educators' self-efficacy. Additionally, in another student's description, she had a child who had some aggressive behaviors that included the destruction of furniture and hurting teachers. She tried her best to get through to him, but never could. She ultimately expelled him from the center. That made her feel like a failure as a teacher. These experiences collectively demonstrate that educators' self-efficacy is built not only on individual instructional competence but also relies on an environment that provides professional resources and guidance, as well as emotional support. Positive feedback from children and parents serves as the vital nourishment that sustains this confidence. Open-ended Question 2: In what ways do your colleagues, mentors, supervisor, and their feedback affect your self-efficacy as an educator? 44 Influenced by colleagues, mentors, supervisors, and feedback, educators' self-efficacy may be strengthened by supportive, specific, constructive, and appropriate feedback in teaching contexts. In their response, the same as open-ended research question 1, positive feedback from mentors on teacher and student interaction methods (such as “I had a mentor in the practicum program who always expressed how impressed she was with how I did with the students. Her confidence and further guidance in how I worked with the students gave me a great deal of confidence in my abilities to work with them as well.” or the strategies for specific classroom management (such as maintaining discipline during lunch breaks), not only helps Educators recognize their strengths but also guide their professional development. A great team for every preschool educator may also be good for their self-efficacy. For example, a student said: “We have a great team that allows each of us to shine in ways we are doing our best. I find myself more fulfilled when achievements I have made are highlighted amongst my peers.” Furthermore, practical knowledge was imparted through university education programs, established mentor teams. Educators’ confidence in classroom practice was enhanced through the sharing of resources. However, the content and the way feedback was given could also reduce educators' selfefficacy. When feedback ignores the unique context of teaching situations, such as working with neurodiverse child populations in the previous text, or offers only abstract requirements without specific solutions, it can easily instill self-doubt among educators. One student mentioned that “Most of the time, their feedback helps me make changes. But often it makes me feel bad.” This suggests that the mentors should consider whether these responses lack tolerance or optimism. Or as another student put it, “Having team members that notice when the classroom is being challenging and sharing some sort of support, even when it's just giving a bathroom or lunch 45 break.” This clearly demonstrates the importance of mutual assistance and resource integration within a team. These responses suggest that educational institutions should establish developmental evaluation systems that balance professional autonomy with support and positive, optimistic, and effective feedback, which is essential for maintaining and enhancing educators' self-efficacy. Open-ended Question 3: How has your participation in professional development activities influenced your teacher self-efficacy? Effective professional development activities might enhance students' self-efficacy in multiple ways. For example, training in practical skills, such as infant care standards and children's health and safety, directly enhanced students' independence and competence in daily management. Additionally, another student mentioned that “Guidance student teaching beyond behaviors and several other courses have helped me to feel more confident, also a STEM training I take every summer helps me think about what I am teaching more critically”, which deepened her understanding of teaching content. And professional development organizations, such as NAEYC conferences, as one student said, “Attending workshops like NAEYC conferences or any early childhood conferences where you connect with other educators and learn from them has also been helpful to create more trust in my teaching and promote self-efficacy,” provide ongoing support to educators through peer communication and shared experiences. Most students mentioned in their responses that they had not participated in professional development activities. One student was unsure whether she had engaged in such activities outside of the university. Some students highlighted gains from their school internship courses and classroom experiences, as well as exchanges with colleagues, which were considered forms of professional development. As this student stated: “For example, I often collaborate with 46 colleagues, share resources, and reflect on classroom experiences as ways to improve my practice. I also turn to professional articles, online resources, and conversations with mentors for guidance. “The Melba S. Lehner Children's School has helped me with observations and field experience that help me to learn firsthand.” This answer once again demonstrates the impact of internship courses and experience on teachers' self-efficacy. When professional development activities lack continuity or fail to connect with real practice, their effectiveness might be limited. Activities often focus more on theory than on practice, lack targeted design and follow-up guidance, and make it difficult to turn them into real teaching capabilities. This is also why two of the students are not optimistic about professional development, as they thought it was useless. They thought, “Make professional development ongoing, hands-on, and teacher-driven. Connect learning to real challenges, including coaching and collaboration, differentiate for teacher goals, and let teachers lead and evaluate progress through data and feedback.” Open-ended Question 4: What other factors do you think have affected your self-efficacy in teaching? Multiple factors may contribute to educators' self-efficacy development in these responses. One particularly impressive response was: “Another factor that has greatly influenced my self-efficacy as a teacher is my deep belief that what I teach and do is crucial to children’s growth and development.” It shows that the lessons, relationships, and experiences the teacher provides can shape how children see themselves as learners, which gives educators a strong sense of purpose. And this belief drives educators to put forth their full effort in planning, teaching, and building connections, even when challenges arise. And another important factor is key experiences during early childhood teaching practice. For example, one student recalled an experience during their internship where they collaborated with their mentor to correct teaching 47 mistakes, “Seeing that she made a mistake and just laughed it off, really helped me to understand that teachers can make mistakes too. This was early on in my teaching journey, and it has helped me so much in my confidence and understanding that it's okay to make mistakes.” It may enhance professional confidence by lowering expectations for teaching perfection. Environmental support factors were also relevant: a collaborative team, adequate teaching resources, and reasonable workloads were repeatedly highlighted as foundational conditions for maintaining educators' self-efficacy. As students said: “My classroom experiences, the support I’ve received from colleagues and administrators, and the diversity of students I’ve worked with. Seeing positive results from my teaching has boosted my confidence, while challenging situations have helped me grow,” emphasized the importance of collaborative team and colleague support. A contrasting example would be: “when the head teacher or another teacher is out, and I am by myself or having to lead the classroom are moments that have impacted my self-efficacy because I didn't have anyone else to rely on that I was able to rely on myself.”. And “Access to helpful resources, ongoing training, and maintaining a healthy worklife balance have played important roles in supporting my growth as a teacher,” emphasized the importance of resources for teachers’ continuous professional development. Additionally, one student identified the maintenance of personal mental health as a foundational factor influencing her self-efficacy: “Honestly, therapy outside of work has allowed me to truly be myself and be confident in what I love.” The interaction among all factors suggests that educators' self-efficacy may be influenced by practical experience and supportive environments. It should be noted that, due to limitations in the survey sample, the causal relationships among these factors remain to be verified through more rigorous research methods. 48 While the correlation between certain factors (such as mental health and self-efficacy) is reflected in their responses, their specific actions need further exploration. 49 Discussion & Implications To test research question 1, this study aims to investigate the relationship between educators' self-efficacy and multiple other factors through a series of quantitative analyses. Our survey covered multiple variables, including race and ethnicity, first-generation college student status, Pell Grant eligibility, teaching experience, degree and major, and stress scale scores. Research findings indicate that variables such as teaching experience, degrees, and majors have a significant influence in this study, while other factors demonstrate a lesser or no impact. This emphasizes the complexity of understanding individual differences within educational environments. First-generation college student status exhibits an upward trend in predicting the “student engagement” self-efficacy factor. This finding suggests that participants who were also firstgeneration college students may be particularly good at connecting with their peers and fostering an inclusive classroom environment. However, a study reveals that first-generation students are more likely to encounter additional barriers to academic and social integration in college, as they often lack support from family members who may not understand the time commitments involved (Phinney & Haas, 2003). It was hypothesized that this advantage may stem from their personal experiences overcoming academic challenges, which fostered greater empathy, resilience, and a deeper understanding of the various barriers students face in engaging with learning. In a study examining the impact of Hispanic female early childhood educators' selfefficacy on the academic performance of first-generation college students, it was observed that not only does the status of being a first-generation college student influence preschool teachers' self-efficacy, but educators' self-efficacy also affects these students' ability to complete their course (Huss-Keeler, 2022). This study identified a trend but failed to reveal any statistically 50 significant effects for the self-efficacy of student engagement. Increasing the sample size may bring the results closer to significance for the specific factor mentioned above. In the independent-group t-test, students' financial needs, as well as their race and ethnicity, were also identified as potential variables that might influence educators' self-efficacy. However, neither the t-test nor the linear regression analysis revealed any significant association with educators' self-efficacy. This finding suggested that, within the sample of this study, these specific background factors may not be key variables influencing educators' perceptions of their own teaching abilities, or that the Pell Grant metric may not adequately capture financial need factors that influence educators' self-efficacy. The relationship between students with financial need and educator self-efficacy was not surprising, given that salaries in the early childhood field are often low. Many students who choose this career are aware of this reality before they begin working, yet they still pursue it, likely driven by a passion for the work and a desire to achieve their full potential. Some students wrote in their qualitative responses that they find fulfillment by recognizing their own value through their teaching. Perhaps for these reasons, the financial needs may not significantly impact their self-efficacy. A study examined the influence of race on self-efficacy in early childhood education, finding that teacher race (Black vs White) was significantly correlated with teachers' selfefficacy (Guo, Justice, Sawyer, & Tompkins, 2011). That research differs from this study in that it includes a larger sample size. It is worth noting that in this study, students from the nonHispanic white group accounted for up to 68% of the sample. This is due to the specific distribution of students at this institution where the study was conducted. Since no Black individuals participated in this research, when comparing results with other literature, whether the same or different, they carry significant limitations. This originates from regional variations. 51 Within this variable, a moderate effect size was observed around the classroom management factor. This suggests that actual differences may exist that are not captured by current statistical tests, with the lack of significance likely due to insufficient statistical power resulting from group imbalance in sample size. Therefore, future studies that increase sample size, particularly by expanding the representation of underrepresented ethnic groups, are expected to provide more conclusive evidence clarifying the relationships among these variables. In contrast, findings regarding educators' teaching experience provided different results. As expected, experience tended to be a more stable and consistent predictor of certain teaching abilities, such as classroom management and instructional strategies. Experienced educators demonstrate greater confidence in these areas, undoubtedly the result of years of practice, experience, and professional development. However, it is important to note that experience alone does not fully account for the differences we observe in “student engagement.” This suggests that the ability to establish deep connections with students may result not only from years of teaching but also from educators' personal backgrounds, identities, and the specific mindsets they cultivate. Furthermore, the results showed significant differences between students with less than 1 year of experience and the other three work experience groups (1–3 years, 4–6 years, and over 6 years), but no significant differences among the latter three groups. The lack of significant differences between educators with less than 1 year of experience and those with more than 1 year may indicate that substantial growth in self-efficacy primarily occurs during the transition from the “novice” to the “early career” stage. Once basic teaching skills and daily routines are established, increased experience may no longer significantly enhance confidence. Educators with more years of experience may already have developed the necessary classroom management strategies, instructional flexibility, and confidence in interacting with students. 52 The significant gap between educators with less than one year of experience and those with more experience played a crucial role in shaping their self-efficacy during early practicum experiences. For many students, practicums during the first two years of undergraduate study provide important opportunities to develop basic professional competencies and classroom skills. During an internship, students typically engage in guided observations, co-teaching experiences, and structured reflections with mentor teachers. These ongoing discussions and timely feedback from experienced educators serve as sources of early ownership and alternative experience, two core components of self-efficacy development as outlined by Bandura. Such interactions help students establish realistic expectations, practice decision-making in authentic environments, and begin forming professional identities before entering the workplace. Based on research and professional practice, internship experiences reflect a cyclical process of practice and reflection. This factor can be addressed by engaging in peer experience sharing and conducting a series of professional training sessions to bring participants closer together. Some researchers have found a positive relation between teacher self-efficacy and teaching experience among preschool, primary, and secondary teachers (e.g., Cheung, 2008; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007), as I found. But some researchers have found different answers (e.g., Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Greenwood et al., 1990; Guo et al., 2010). These differences may originate from environmental variations such as school atmosphere, mentor availability, administrative support, workload demands, or cultural expectations regarding teaching. The development of self-efficacy may also be nonlinear: rapid growth in the initial years may be followed by a plateau once core professional competencies are established. In this study, significant differences between the experienced group after the first year may reflect this pattern, indicating that increases in self-efficacy are concentrated in the early stages of teaching 53 careers. The findings of the regression analysis provide important insights into the factors that contribute to preschool teachers’ self-efficacy. Among all predictors included, teaching experience emerged as the only significant and positive predictor of preschool teachers’ selfefficacy. This indicates that, after controlling for stress and other demographic or programrelated variables, increases in teaching experience are consistently associated with higher selfefficacy. In contrast, teacher stress did not significantly predict self-efficacy. This result may seem strange given that stress is frequently identified as a risk factor for diminished teacher confidence and performance (e.g., Klassen et al., 2013). However, especially for preschool educators in early-career settings, stress may decrease daily and may not directly undermine their broader, more stable sense of professional efficacy. It is also possible that early childhood educators in this sample had access to supportive environments, mentorship, or program structures that reduced the negative impact of stress on self-belief. Additionally, stress may not be a strong predictor until teachers take on heavier workloads, larger class sizes, or broader responsibilities, which often occur later in one’s career. From another perspective, stress may originate not only from their current teaching responsibilities but also from broader personal and educational contexts, such as financial pressures, family expectations, immigration challenges, or the demands of balancing coursework with internship requirements. These background pressures may affect their overall well-being, but may not directly reduce their sense of competence in classroom tasks. According to Bandura's (1997) social cognitive theory, individuals interpret stress through their perceived agency, their belief in their ability to regulate behavior, exert control, and influence outcomes. 54 Educators who perceive themselves as capable of managing or redefining stress, whether through problem-solving, emotional regulation, or seeking social support, may protect their self-efficacy even when stress levels rise. The lack of results may reflect participants' ability to exercise personal agency in mitigating the negative emotional consequences of stress, thereby sustaining their confidence in teaching. This interpretation reinforces Bandura's perspective: self-efficacy not only shapes performance but also influences how individuals process and respond to stressful situations. Thus, while stress did not significantly predict educators' self-efficacy in this sample, it may interact with their coping strategies, prior mastery experiences, and situational support to produce effects that are more pronounced than those in larger or more diverse samples might reveal. Furthermore, the finding that all demographic control variables were insignificant is quite revealing. It suggests that when predicting self-efficacy among teachers, a specific professional group, direct experiential factors within the professional domain may have greater explanatory power than general background characteristics such as Pell Grant recipients or being firstgeneration college students. Educators' professional beliefs may be shaped more by their occupational environment than by their original background. For research question 2, which employs a qualitative approach, students' responses inherently carry a degree of subjectivity. Therefore, the discussion section focuses only on how their answers support the findings. Based on the responses to Open-ended Question 1, two sources of building professional confidence among educators in the samples are evident: both internal self-efficacy gained through personal teaching practice and deep reliance on external support systems. Positive experiences, such as successfully motivating students through innovative strategies or receiving sustained positive feedback from students and parents, serve as powerful energy for growth in self-efficacy. These moments allow students to recognize the 55 immediate value and lasting impact of their work, reinforcing their professional identity. In contrast, when students are placed in poor resource environments, especially when they feel isolated and helpless in the face of complex children's needs, their self-efficacy suffers significant damage. The helplessness described in students’ answers was caused by a lack of training, assistants, and effective guidance. Positive feedback was undoubtedly a crucial motivator, but more fundamentally, it is essential to systematically build a supportive system that enables, rather than drains, students' professional passion. This means support for students should extend beyond short-term skill training. Instead, it should involve providing ongoing professional guidance and support. When feedback is context-specific, focuses on areas students can control and improve, and provides concrete strategies, it becomes a powerful tool for enhancing professional competence and selfefficacy. Conversely, abstract or purely accountability feedback destroys students’ autonomy and competence, leading to self-doubt. This encourages educational institutions to provide professional training for mentors and supervisors, ensuring they have the skills to deliver respectful and constructive feedback while clearly outlining available resources and pathways. Based on the above feedback, the professional development activities in Open Question 3 had a significant impact on educators' self-efficacy. When activities provide specific transferred skills, reinforce content knowledge through substantive teaching, and incorporate ongoing peer exchange and support networks, they effectively enhance educators' professional autonomy and classroom mastery, thereby directly increasing their self-efficacy. This reminds us that supporting students' growth cannot rely only on a few occasional lectures or training sessions. Create an environment where teachers learn from one another and share experiences, transforming professional growth into a sustained process supported by ongoing exchange and 56 collaboration. In quantitative research, the significantly effective factor influencing educators' selfefficacy is their years of teaching experience. Findings indicate that students with less than one year of experience exhibit significantly lower self-efficacy than more experienced students. However, since there was only one response from students with less than 1 year of teaching experience, and it consisted of only a few sentences, it is difficult to identify common phenomena between the two groups. Therefore, this paragraph is based only on the analysis of the different responses. However, it is worth noting that in the second question, the only response from someone with less than one year of experience was: “I find myself more fulfilled when achievements I have made are highlighted amongst my peers.” This indicates that positive evaluations from colleagues and mentors toward students who have been employed for less than a year influence their self-efficacy, clearly providing evidence that positive feedback helps students enhance their sense of self-efficacy. Compared to other students with over a year of teaching experience, more emphasis is placed on sharing teaching experiences among colleagues and receiving positive feedback from other educators. Meanwhile, most other students focus more on ongoing professional development, collaboration among peers, and in-class support. Overall, the factors influencing educators' self-efficacy in teaching are complex and multi-layered. They originate from individual practical experiences, recognition of work value, and maintenance of mental health, while also being deeply rooted in environmental factors such as team collaboration, resource allocation, and workload. The responses also revealed in education legislation can indirectly yet profoundly undermine educators' sense of belonging and self-efficacy by affecting campus culture, job stability, and curriculum support. These findings clearly indicate that educators’ self-efficacy cannot be established and maintained solely through 57 individual efforts. While encouraging educators to prioritize their own mental health and gain experience, schools need to create an internal environment that is collaborative and rich in resources. More importantly, the development and adjustment of education policies should thoroughly evaluate their potential impact on educators' job security. When a supportive environment and a stable policy framework work together to provide educators with a safety net, educators can focus on teaching and gain sustained confidence and growth. 58 Limitations The conclusions of this study are primarily based on quantitative and qualitative responses collected from a specific survey. First, the sample size is relatively small, which limits the statistical power and stability of the findings; individual experiences may not reflect broader patterns. Second, the participants' backgrounds were relatively similar. Consequently, the findings may not broadly represent educators across all regions, educational levels, school types, or those with diverse demographic and cultural backgrounds. As mentioned in the section on the bill within the qualitative research, this legislation was enacted by Utah and does not apply to other jurisdictions. Qualitative research findings rely entirely on participants' self-reports. While this approach effectively captures subjective experiences and feelings, its accuracy may be subject to various biases. For example, social expectation bias may lead participants to report experiences that align with professional standards or positive expectations. Additionally, participants' immediate emotional state during responses may influence their overall assessment of selfefficacy. These factors may result in a gap between the data and objective reality. Additionally, I observed the relationship between collaborative teams and higher selfefficacy. However, it remains unclear whether supportive teams enhance educators' confidence or whether educators who are more confident and capable are better integrated into collaborative environments. A complex interaction may exist between these factors. 59 Appendix A Table A. Measures of (Teacher) Self-Efficacy Teacher self-efficacy Scale Table 1. The Gibson and Dembo’s Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) The Gibson and Dembo’s Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES), developed in 1984, is based on Bandura's self-efficacy theory. It was designed to measure teachers' beliefs in their ability to make a positive impact on students' learning outcomes essentially reflect the extent to which teachers perceive the environment to be controllable. They developed a 30-item measure of teacher effectiveness. They referred to the first factor as personal teaching efficacy, assuming it reflected self-efficacy, and the second as teaching efficacy, assuming it captured outcome expectancy. 25 items on a 6-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. They are used for all teachers. Modification or Revision 1: In science education, for secondary school teachers . Riggs and Enochs (1990) developed an instrument, based on the Gibson and Dembo approach, to measure efficacy of teaching science—the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI). Consistent with Gibson and Dembo, they have found two separate factors, one they called personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) and a second factor they labeled science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE). The two factors were uncorrelated. Modification or revision 2: Guskey and Passaro (1994) attempted to add clarity to the meaning of these two factors of Gibson and Dembo's TES by modifying the wording of the items. They noted that all of the 11 items on the Gibson and Dembo TES that loaded on the 60 personal teaching efficacy factor were worded positively and thus geared to an internal orientation (“I can”), whereas the items that loaded on the second factor, labeled general teaching efficacy, were negatively worded, consistently reflecting an external orientation, (“teachers can’t”). When Guskey and Passaro reworded the personal efficacy items so that half reflected an internal and half an external orientation, and did the same with the general teaching efficacy items, the results conformed to an internal/external dichotomy rather than the personal/general dimensions. 2. Ohio State teacher efficacy scale (OSTES) (Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001) The Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES), developed at the College of Education at The Ohio State University, was designed to measure a wide range of instructional tasks and competencies in both preservice and inservice teachers. The process began with members of a workshop independently selecting items from Bandura's scale that they felt were critical for instructional effectiveness. This led to the creation of a 52-item scale to assess various teaching tasks. During the initial study, the OSTES underwent refinement, reducing the scale to 32 items. This version was tested on a sample of 224 participants, including 146 preservice teachers and 78 inservice teachers from diverse racial backgrounds. The scoring was based on a 9-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 ("none") to 9 ("a lot"), providing a detailed measure of teacher efficacy. In the second study, the scale was further condensed to 18 items divided into three subscales: student engagement efficacy (8 items), teaching strategy efficacy (7 items), and classroom management efficacy (3 items). This streamlined version allowed for more focused 61 analysis of key areas of teacher efficacy. The third study involved field-testing this revised scale in a classroom setting at The Ohio State University. Feedback from 19 participants led to the inclusion of several new questions, resulting in a total of 36 items. The updated version was subsequently tested on a larger sample of 103 preservice teachers and 255 inservice teachers, again from various racial backgrounds. The three main factors of the final OSTES are efficacy for instructional strategies, efficacy for classroom management, and efficacy for student engagement. This tool has become a widely used measure of teacher self-efficacy in both research and practice. 3. Bandura's teacher self-efficacy scale (Bandura, 1997) Bandura (1997) pointed out that teachers’ sense of efficacy is not necessarily uniform across the many different types of tasks teachers are asked to perform, nor across different subject matter. In response, he constructed a 30-item instrument with seven subscales: efficacy to influence decision making, efficacy to influence school resources, instructional efficacy, disciplinary efficacy, efficacy to enlist parental involvement, efficacy to enlist community involvement, and efficacy to create a positive school climate. Each item is measured on a 9-point scale anchored with the notations: “nothing, very little, some influence, quite a bit, a great deal.” This measure attempts to provide a multi-faceted picture of teachers’ efficacy beliefs without becoming too narrow or specific. Unfortunately, reliability and validity information about the measure have not been available. 4. Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) is a widely used tool for assessing teachers' 62 perceptions of their own self-efficacy. The full version of the questionnaire typically examines five dimensions of teacher self-efficacy, though the specific version used in the study referenced here focuses on an 11-item subset. This version specifically measures two main aspects: teachers' selfefficacy in teaching and their efficacy in creating a positive school climate. Teachers respond to each item using a 5-point Likert scale, where the response options range from "not much" (1 point) to "a lot" (5 points). This scoring system allows for a nuanced understanding of how confident teachers feel in their ability to manage classroom tasks and contribute positively to the overall school environment. The scale provides a comprehensive look at how various aspects of teaching efficacy can impact teacher performance and student outcomes, especially in the areas of classroom management, instructional strategies, and fostering student engagement. 5. General Self-efficacy Scale (GES) (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 2009) The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GES), developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem in 1981, is a well-established tool that assesses an individual's belief in their ability to handle various difficult situations. It was initially created as a 20-item scale but later reduced to a 10-item version. The GES has been translated into several languages, including English, German, Spanish, French, Hebrew, Hungarian, Turkish, Czech, and Slovak, and has undergone psychometric validation in multiple studies. The scale is commonly used across different age groups, except infants, and includes items such as "Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations," which reflect the general confidence individuals have in solving problems. 6. The teachers’ social self-efficacy scale (TEESE) (Vatou,.et al , 2022) The Teachers’ Social Self-Efficacy Scale (TEESE), created by Vatou et al. (2022), was developed specifically to measure the social aspects of teacher self-efficacy. This scale focuses on 63 teachers' beliefs about their ability to interact effectively with both students and colleagues. The development process followed a rigorous six-step survey design that ensured content validity. The TEESE is composed of 29 items covering five dimensions: Teacher Sensitivity, Social Guidance, Teacher–Child Relationship, Classroom Climate-Children Engagement, and Classroom Management-Conflict Resolution. Teachers rate their efficacy using a 9-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ("not at all") to 9 ("a great deal"). 7. Preschool Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs Scale (Tepe, 2011) The Preschool Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs Scale, developed by Tepe (2011), is a 37-item instrument specifically designed for preschool teachers. It assesses six dimensions of self-efficacy: Learning-Teaching Process (9 items), Communication Skills (7 items), Family Involvement (5 items), Planning (6 items), Organizing Learning Environments (5 items), and Classroom Management (5 items). This scale is tailored to evaluate the unique challenges preschool teachers face and provides insights into their confidence across various aspects of early childhood education. 64 Appendix B Invitation email to faculty in Weber State University early childhood programs: Dear Professor ___: I hope this email finds you well. My name is Yingnan Ma. I am currently working on my Master’s thesis in the MEd Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care program at Weber State University. Dr. Wei Qiu is the Chair of my thesis committee. I am reaching out to invite your students to participate in i research study titled “Factors of Self-Efficacy among Early Childhood Educators.” The study has received approval from the Weber State University IRB Committee (___). I would greatly appreciate it if you could post the invitation message below and the attached flyer on Canvas for ECED XXXX that you teach this fall semester. A group email to all enrolled students with the message and the flyer would be fine as well. If students agree to participate, they will complete a 10-minute online survey that focuses on the factors that influence the selfefficacy of early childhood educators. Participation is completely voluntary. All responses will be kept confidential, and the findings will be used to enhance educational practices in our early childhood field. Should you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to reach out. I genuinely appreciate your time and support. Warm regards, Yingnan Ma Weber State University yingnanma@mail.weber.edu 65 Invitation to students in Weber State University's early childhood programs: Hello! My name is Yingnan Ma, a graduate student in M.Ed. Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care program at Weber State University. I am conducting a study to explore factors that influence the self-efficacy of early childhood educators in order to provide the best support needed by teachers. You are invited to fill out a survey that will take approximately 10 minutes of your time. All responses will be kept anonymous and confidential. If you have any questions about this survey, please contact me at yingnanma@mail.weber.edu or my project chair Dr. Wei Qiu at weiqiu@weber.edu. Scan the QR code or click here to take the survey: https://weber.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5pqNGni3p4BDHTg Thank you for supporting early childhood educators! 66 Flyer to participants: 67 Appendix C Informed Consent Letter IRB: Dear fellow early childhood educator: My name is Yingnan Ma, a student in MEd in Inclusive Early Childhood Education and Care at Weber State University. You are invited to participate in a research study titled "Factors of Selfefficacy Among Preservice and Inservice Early Childhood Educators” for my Master project . Purpose of the Study: This study focuses on the self-efficacy of preservice and in-service early childhood educators. The findings of the study will be used to provide guidance on how to improve the self-efficacy of early childhood educators in their professional preparation and ultimately improve the quality of instruction and educators' job satisfaction. Procedures: If you agree to participate, you will complete a 10 minute online survey consisting of about 40 questions related to beliefs about your abilities to perform various teaching tasks effectively, stress, demographic information, and thoughts about ways to increase teacher efficacy. The survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Your responses will remain anonymous and confidential. Risks and Benefits: Participation in this study involves minimal risk such as activating emotions related to remembering stressful events. The potential benefits include gaining insight into your own self-efficacy in teaching. Your participation will contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of education. Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future relationship with Weber State University. Confidentiality: All information collected during this study will be kept strictly confidential. Data will be stored securely and only accessible to the research team. Your name or any identifying information will not be associated with your responses in any reports or publications. Contact Information: If you have any questions about the study or desire to withdraw at any 68 time, please contact me at yingnanma@mail.weber.edu, or my thesis advisor Dr Wei Qiu: weiqiu@weber.edu. For questions about your rights as a research participant or to discuss problems, complaints or concerns about a research study, contact the Chair of the Weber State University IRB Committee IRB@weber.edu. IRB Compliance: This study was approved by WSU’s Institutional Review Board with protocol number ____. Consent: By completing and submitting the survey, you indicate your voluntary consent to participate in this study. Thank you for considering participation in this important research. Your input is valuable and greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Yingnan Ma yingnanma@mail.weber.edu 69 Appendix D Link and QR code to the Online Survey: https://weber.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5pqNGni3p4BDHTg Survey: Thank you for participating in this survey! Your input is important to help us gain insights into self-efficacy of early childhood educators. Please read the instructions carefully and answer each question honestly. Your response will remain confidential and no identifying information will appear in any reports. You will respond to about 40 items including four open-ended questions, which takes approximately 10 minutes. Participation is voluntary. If you have questions, contact Dr. Wei Qiu at weiqiu@weber.edu or Yingnan Ma at yingnanma@mail.weber.edu. By completing the survey, you consent to participate in this study. Q1: Your Gender: o Male o Female o Other o Prefer not to say Q2: Your Race and Ethnicity: o Non-Hispanic White o Non-Hispanic Black 70 o Hispanic o Asian o Pacific Islander o Native American o Others o Prefer not to say Q3: Which degree or professional credential program have you completed or are you currently enrolled in? (Select all that apply) o Child Development Associate (CDA) o A.A.S. Early Childhood o B.S Early Childhood o B.S Early Childhood Education o B.S Elementary Education o B.S Special Education o Minor in Child Development o M.Ed. Inclusive Early Childhood Education & Care o Other Q4: Have you been eligible for any financial support or need-based scholarships in the past three years (e.g., Pell Grant, Federal Work Study)? As a general rule, most Pell Grants are awarded to dependent students whose families make less than $30,000 each year. Some money may be available to students whose families make up to $60,000 each year. o Yes o No Q5: How long have you taught children birth-8 years in the early childhood field? (Baby-sitting is excluded.) o < 12 months o 1-3 years o 4-6 years o Beyond 6 years Q6: Are you a first-generation college student (A student whose parents or legal guardians have not completed a four-year college degree)? o Yes 71 o No This is a five-point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Please rate based on your own feelings. Q7: Teacher Stress Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) I felt stressed for not having support from the administrators at my school. I felt stressed for not having support from colleagues at my school. I felt stressed for having to manage student behaviors. I felt stressed for having too much teaching work to do. I felt stressed for not having enough time to complete my teaching work (e.g., preparing, teaching the curricular content). I felt stressed for not being able to meet the diverse learning needs of my students. I felt stressed about not doing a good job with my teaching. The following are three teacher efficacy scales of 24 items on a nine-point Likert scale from 1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal). Please choose the option that best suits you based on your own experience! Q8: Student Engagement Nothing (1) How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students? How much can you do to help your students think critically? How much can you do to motivate students who show (2) Very Little (3) (4) Some Influence (5) (6) Quite a bit (7) (8) A Great Deal (9) 72 low interest in school work? How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work? How much can you do to help your students value learning? How much can you do to foster student creativity? How much can you do to improve the understanding of a student who is failing? How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school? Q9: Instructional Strategies Nothing (1) (2) Very Little (3) (4) Some Influence (5) Some Influence (5) (6) Quite a bit (7) (8) A Great Deal (9) (6) Quite a bit (7) (8) A Great Deal (9) How well can you respond to difficult questions from your students ? How much can you gauge student comprehension of what you have taught? To what extent can you craft good questions for your students? How much can you do to adjust your lessons to the proper level for individual students? How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies? To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused? How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom? How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable students? Q10: Classroom Management Nothing (1) (2) Very Little (3) (4) 73 How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? To what extent can you make your expectations clear about student behavior? How well can you establish routines to keep activities running smoothly? How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students? How well can you keep a few problems students form ruining an entire lesson? How well can you respond to defiant students? Q11: Describe a specific moment or experience in your teaching career that significantly impacted your confidence in your teaching abilities. Q12: In what way do your colleagues, mentors, supervisor and their feedback affect your selfefficacy as an educator? Please share any relevant experiences. Q13: How has your participation in professional development activities influenced your teacher self-efficacy? Please provide examples of specific programs or workshops that impacted you. Q14: What other factors do you think have affected your self-efficacy in teaching? Please explain. 74 References Abel, M. H., & Sewell, J. (1999). Stress and burnout in rural and urban secondary school teachers. The journal of educational research, 92(5), 287-293. Ali, S. R., McWhirter, E. H., & Chronister, K. M. (2005). Self-efficacy and vocational outcome expectations for adolescents of lower socioeconomic status: A pilot study. Journal of career assessment, 13(1), 40-58. Altayli, Y., & Dagli, G. (2018). Evaluating perspectives of novice primary school teachers concerning experienced peer mentoring and administrative support. Quality & Quantity, 52(Suppl 1), 367-388. Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teaching and teacher education, 27(1), 10-20. Aydın, R., & Sağlam, G. (2012). Öğretmen adaylarinin öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik tutumlarinin belirlenmesi (Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Örneği). Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(2), 257-294. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986(2328), 2. Bandura, A., & Wessels, S. (1994). Self-efficacy (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). Bandura, A., & Wessels, S. (1997). Self-efficacy (pp. 4-6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 75 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 1-26. Barnett, W. S. (2003). Better Teachers, Better Preschools: Student Achievement Linked to Teacher Qualifications. NIEER Preschool Policy Matters, Issue 2. Batra, S. (2013). The psychosocial development of children: Implications for education and society—Erik Erikson in context. Contemporary education dialogue, 10(2), 249-278. Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self‐efficacy, coping resources, and burnout among secondary school teachers in Spain. Educational psychology, 26(4), 519-539. Biopsychosocial model. (2025). In Wikipedia. Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model. Bozdoğan, A. E., Aydın, D., & Yıldırım, K. (2007). Öğretmen adaylarinin öğretmenlik mesleğine ilişkin tutumlari. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2), 83-97. Buysse, V., Castro, D. C., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2010). Effects of a professional development program on classroom practices and outcomes for Latino dual language learners. Early childhood research Quarterly, 25(2), 194-206. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers' job satisfaction. Journal of educational psychology, 95(4), 821. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A study at 76 the school level. Journal of school psychology, 44(6), 473-490. Çapri, B., & Çelikkaleli, Ö. (2008). ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ ÖĞRETMENLİĞE İLİŞKİN TUTUM VE MESLEKİ YETERLİK İNANÇLARININ CİNSİYET PROGRAM VE FAKÜLTELERİNE GÖRE İNCELENMESİ. İnönü üniversitesi eğitim fakültesi dergisi, 9(15), 33-53. CDC, A. W. (2020). Centers for disease control and prevention. Cheung, H. Y. (2008). Teacher efficacy: A comparative study of Hong Kong and Shanghai primary in-service teachers. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 103-123. Chen, Y. J., Chien, H. M., & Kao, C. P. (2019). Online searching behaviours of preschool teachers: A comparison of pre-service and in-service teachers’ evaluation standards and searching strategies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 66-80. Darling‐Hammond, L., Newton, X., & Wei, R. C. (2010). Evaluating teacher education outcomes: A study of the Stanford Teacher Education Programme. Journal of education for teaching, 36(4), 369-388. Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J. J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, C. D. (2008). Measuring teachers’ selfefficacy beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS-Self. Teaching and teacher education, 24(3), 751-766. Desimone, L., Payne, B., Fedoravicius, N., Henrich, C. C., & Finn-Stevenson, M. (2004). Comprehensive school reform: An implementation study of preschool programs in elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 369-389. Diemer, M. A., & Blustein, D. L. (2007). Vocational hope and vocational identity: Urban 77 adolescents’ career development. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(1), 98-118. Diemer, M. A., & Rasheed Ali, S. (2009). Integrating social class into vocational psychology: Theory and practice implications. Journal of Career Assessment, 17(3), 247-265. Edwards, K., & Loveridge, J. (2011). The inside story: Looking into early childhood teachers' support of children's scientific learning. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(2), 2835. Freudenberger, H. J., & Richelson, G. (1980). Burn-out: The high cost of high achievement. (No Title). Gedne, G. (2015). Awakening pre-service teachers to children’s social exclusion in the classroom. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 6(1). Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher education, 13(4), 451-458. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of educational psychology, 76(4), 569. Guo, Y., Kaderavek, J. N., Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., & McGinty, A. (2011). Preschool teachers' sense of community, instructional quality, and children's language and literacy gains. Early Education and Development, 22(2), 206-233. Guo, Y., Justice, L. M., Sawyer, B., & Tompkins, V. (2011). Exploring factors related to preschool teachers’ self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 961-968. Hascher, T., & Wepf, L. (2007). Lerntagebücher im Praktikum von 78 Lehramtsstudierenden. Empirische Pädagogik EP-Zeitschrift zu Theorie und Praxis erziehungswissenschaftlicher Forschung, 21(2), 101-118. Hascher, T., & Hagenauer, G. (2016). Openness to theory and its importance for pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy, emotions, and classroom behaviour in the teaching practicum. International Journal of Educational Research, 77, 15-25. Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of educational psychology, 105(3), 774. 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. Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers' sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The elementary school journal, 93(4), 355-372. Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of educational Psychology, 102(3), 741. Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. British journal of educational psychology, 77(1), 229-243. Kunemund, R. L., Nemer McCullough, S., Williams, C. D., Miller, C. C., Sutherland, K. S., Conroy, M. A., & Granger, K. (2020). The mediating role of teacher self‐efficacy in the relation between teacher–child race mismatch and conflict. Psychology in the Schools, 57(11), 1757-1770. 79 Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and teacher education, 19(2), 149-170. Manlove, E. E. (1993). Multiple correlates of burnout in child care workers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(4), 499-518. Matthews, J. J., Barden, S. M., & Sherrell, R. S. (2018). Examining the relationships between multicultural counseling competence, multicultural self-efficacy, and ethnic identity development of practicing counselors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 40(2), 129141. Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2007). Self‐efficacy of college intermediate French students: Relation to achievement and motivation. Language learning, 57(3), 417-442. Mims, S. U., Scott-Little, C., Lower, J. K., Cassidy, D. J., & Hestenes, L. L. (2008). Education level and stability as it relates to early childhood classroom quality: A survey of early childhood program directors and teachers. Journal of research in childhood education, 23(2), 227-237. Moore, W. P., & Esselman, M. E. (1992). Teacher Efficacy, Empowerment, and a Focused Instructional Climate: Does Student Achievement Benefit?. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge University Press. Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. Advances in motivation and achievement, 10(149), 1-49. Putman, H., & Walsh, K. (2021). State of the States 2021: Teacher Preparation Policy. National 80 Council on Teacher Quality. Prilleltensky, I., Neff, M., & Bessell, A. (2016). Teacher stress: What it is, why it's important, how it can be alleviated. Theory into practice, 55(2), 104-111. Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 150-167. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. Handbook of research on teacher education, 2(102-119), 273-290. Rogers, Carl. (1959). "A theory of therapy, personality relationships as developed in the clientcentered framework.". In S. Koch (ed.). Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. 3: Formulations of the person and the social context. New York: McGraw Hill. Ryel, R., Bernsausen, D., & van Tassell, F. (2001). Advocating resiliency through wellness. In Association of Teacher Educators annual meeting. New Orleans: CA. Saklofske, D. H., Michayluk, J. O., & Randhawa, B. S. (1988). Teachers' efficacy and teaching behaviors. Psychological Reports, 63(2), 407-414. Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self‐efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analyses. Applied psychology, 57, 152-171. Self-concept. (2025). In Wikipedia. Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-concept#. Şenol, F. B., & Ergün, M. (2015). The comparison of teacher self efficacy beliefs between preservice preschool teachers and preschool teachers. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 8(3), 297-315. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with 81 strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of educational psychology, 99(3), 611. Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2014). Self-esteem and identities. Sociological perspectives, 57(4), 409-433. Thompson, G., & Woodman, K. (2019). Exploring Japanese high school English teachers’ foreign language teacher efficacy beliefs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 48-65. Tournaki, N., & Podell, D. M. (2005). The impact of student characteristics and teacher efficacy on teachers’ predictions of student success. Teaching and teacher education, 21(3), 299314. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and teacher education, 17(7), 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. Uzun, Ö., & Sevinç, S. (2015). The relationship between cultural sensitivity and perceived stress among nurses working with foreign patients. Journal of clinical nursing, 24(23-24), 34003408. Vanblaere, B., & Devos, G. (2016). Exploring the link between experienced teachers’ learning outcomes and individual and professional learning community characteristics. School effectiveness and school improvement, 27(2), 205-227. von Suchodoletz, A., Jamil, F. M., Larsen, R. A., & Hamre, B. K. (2018). Personal and 82 contextual factors associated with growth in preschool teachers' self-efficacy beliefs during a longitudinal professional development study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 278289. Weber State University. (2021) 2021 Higher Education Accreditation Standards Association, Baccalaureate, and Initial Master’s Degree Programs Renewal Accreditation.https://www.weber.edu/chfam/bs_earlychildhooded.html; Weber State University. (2024) The Science of Early Childhood Education Program https://www.weber.edu/ie/Results/eced-pr-2024-25.html) Weber State University. (2025). Report Gallery: Ten year trends enrollment, FTE, graduation, and majors. Wesołowska, K., Hietapakka, L., Elovainio, M., Aalto, A. M., Kaihlanen, A. M., & Heponiemi, T. (2018). The association between cross-cultural competence and well-being among registered native and foreign-born nurses in Finland. PloS one, 13(12), e0208761. Williams, D. R., Mohammed, S. A., Leavell, J., & Collins, C. (2010). Race, socioeconomic status, and health: complexities, ongoing challenges, and research opportunities. Annals of the new York Academy of Sciences, 1186(1), 69-101. Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers' sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of educational psychology, 99(1), 181. Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of educational Psychology, 82(1), 81. 83 Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. Self-efficacy in changing societies, 1(1), 202-231.