See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/262584443

Understanding teaching assistant self-efficacy in role and in training: Its

susceptibility to influence

Article in Educational Psychology in Practice · March 2014

DOI: 10.1080/02667363.2014.896250

CITATIONS READS

13 1,536

2 authors, including:

Anthea Gulliford
University of Birmingham
38 PUBLICATIONS 648 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Anthea Gulliford on 21 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Nottingham]
On: 21 July 2015, At: 03:50
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Educational Psychology in Practice:

theory, research and practice in
educational psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
[Link]

Understanding teaching assistant self-

efficacy in role and in training: its
susceptibility to influence
a b
Helen Higgins & Anthea Gulliford
a
Denbighshire County Council, Ruthin Town Council, Ruthin,
Denbighshire, UK
b
School of Psychology, University Park, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, UK
Click for updates Published online: 03 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Helen Higgins & Anthea Gulliford (2014) Understanding teaching assistant
self-efficacy in role and in training: its susceptibility to influence, Educational Psychology
in Practice: theory, research and practice in educational psychology, 30:2, 120-138, DOI:
10.1080/02667363.2014.896250

To link to this article: [Link]

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at [Link]
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015
 Educational Psychology in Practice, 2014
Vol. 30, No. 2, 120–138, [Link]

Understanding teaching assistant self-efficacy in role and in

training: its susceptibility to influence
Helen Higginsa,† and Anthea Gullifordb*
a
Denbighshire County Council, Ruthin Town Council, Ruthin, Denbighshire, UK; bSchool of
Psychology, University Park, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

There has been a noted growth in the number of teaching assistants (TAs) in
mainstream schools. Research is inconclusive about their efficacy at changing
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

outcomes for children and has proposed more training for TAs. Generic training
models have suggested that enhancing self-efficacy in turn improves perfor-
mance. This exploratory study investigated factors that may influence TAs’ sense
of self-efficacy and its susceptibility to influence in training. Following two
modes of school-based training by educational psychologists (EPs) data were
collected from 14 mainstream secondary school TAs using focus groups. A the-
matic analysis noted themes regarding self-efficacy, aligned with Bandura’s
sources of information, outcome expectations and whole school support and
norms. Review of the data from this study is likely to be able to guide potential
trainers to coach-consult strategies which are self-efficacy supportive and which
address contextual factors including the perceived status of TAs in schools.
Keywords: teaching assistant; self-efficacy; training; school-effectiveness,

Introduction
Increasing number of teaching assistants (TAs) and TA effectiveness
‘Schools of the future would be rich in trained adults available to support learning
to new higher standards’ (Estelle Morris, Secretary of State for Education and Skills,
2001, p. 19). As Estelle Morris (2001) predicted, and as the last Department for
Education (DfE) statistics indicated (DfE, 2013a), between 2000 and 2012 the num-
ber of teaching assistants (TAs) working in England (in mainstream primary, nursery
and secondary schools/academies) has almost tripled with an increase in numbers
from 79,000 to 232,300. This raises the question of how their contribution can be
best defined and understood.
Groom (2006) noted a growing area of research looking at the impact of TAs,
and this has explored questions of role, efficacy and training. To date the research
has been equivocal on how TAs contribute most effectively in schools, and where
that impact may be seen. Brown and Harris’s (2009) data suggested that the presence
of TAs can be associated with increased GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary
Education) scores, for example; however, several studies have indicated that the pres-
ence of TAs does not correlate with increased academic attainment (Muijs &
Reynolds, 2003; Blatchford, Russell, Bassett, Brown, & Martin, 2007; Blatchford,
Martin, Moriaty, Bassett, & Goldstein, 2002). Other research suggests that TAs may
*
Corresponding author. Email: [Link]@[Link]
†
At East Riding of Yorkshire County Council, Beverley, UK from May 2014.

© 2014 Association of Educational Psychologists

 Educational Psychology in Practice 121

improve on-task behaviour (Blatchford, Bassett, & Brown, 2005), support inclusion
(Lacey, 2001) and reduce teachers’ administrative jobs (Gunter et al., 2005). Alborz,
Pearson, Farrell, and Howes’ (2009) systematic review of the research suggested that
“TAs appear effective when trained and supported to deliver specific interventions”
(p. 15). However, significantly, the Deployment and Impact of Support Staff (DISS)
project concluded that individual children with special educational needs (SEN) sup-
ported by TAs made significantly less progress than similar children who were not
supported (Blatchford et al., 2009), and other researchers have argued that TAs may
often be considered obstacles between the children they are supporting and their
peers (Farrell, Balshaw, & Polat, 1999; Groom, 2006). Overall, the literature has
highlighted concerns regarding the efficacy and attunement of TA contributions.
Together with the DfE’s focus upon impact (DfE, 2013b), this places the ques-
tion of creating effective outcomes for children through the TA role at the forefront
of TA research. Significantly, Blatchford, Russell, and Webster (2012) argued in
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

their Effective Deployment of Teaching Assistants (EDTA) project that the apparent
lack of progress shown in the DISS project was not the fault of the TAs but due to
issues associated with the deployment, practice and preparedness of the TAs. They
proposed that changes to these three areas would increase the effectiveness of TAs
on pupil performance. All of this points to the need for a considered approach to
skill development and professional role development for TAs.

TA role, skills and training

Attention has been paid by several researchers to the nature and ambiguity of the TA
role and training within that role (Farrell, Balshaw, & Polat, 2000; Groom, 2006,
Blatchford et al., 2007). Survey and observation data suggests that TAs spend the
majority of their time working directly with children, described as a “Wider
Pedagogical Role” (Blatchford, Russell, & Webster, 2012). Research over the past 20
years has also indicated that a large proportion (at least 59%) of TAs enter the profes-
sion at either GCSE level or below (Blatchford, Webster, & Russell, 2012; Russell,
Blatchford, Bassett, Brown, & Martin, 2005; Clayton, 1990). Although the majority
of TAs complete some training specific to the role, this has often been described as
“patchy” and not necessarily leading to qualifications (Russell et al., 2005).
Blatchford, Russell, and Webster (2012) argued that these issues relating to train-
ing are part of the lack of “preparedness” that TAs face, which they suggest nega-
tively influence child outcomes. “Preparedness” includes skill and professional role
development noted by a number of authors (The Plowden Report, Central Advisory
Council for Education, 1967; The Warnock Report, 1978; Moran & Abbott, 2002).
The findings from the ETDA project (Blatchford, Russell, & Webster, 2012) sug-
gested that 70% of school leaders (for example, head teachers) felt that TAs pre-
paredness was improved through targeted training and discussions with teachers or
SEN specialists. However, this view was not shared by teachers and TAs, who sug-
gested that other factors such as TAs “tuning in” to teachers’ talk improved pre-
paredness more (Webster, Blatchford, & Russell, 2012). Cajkler, Tennant, Tiknaz
and Sage’s (2007) systematic review of studies where TAs had been trained noted a
significant number of papers where TA performance improved following training.
Factors underpinning any change in behaviour explored in these articles included
improvement in TA self esteem and confidence. Within Cajkler et al.’s (2007)
review 29 out of 81 studies also focused on TAs’ self esteem and confidence
 122 H. Higgins and A. Gulliford

following training, as a training outcome. The theme of increasing TA confidence

and self esteem continues to be echoed by more recent researchers (Webster et al.,
2012; Butt & Lowe, 2012). However Cajkler et al. (2007) particularly highlighted
three studies that indicated that despite positive changes in knowledge, skills, self
esteem and confidence, TAs’ behaviour and performance within the teaching and
learning process did not change (Edwards & Clemson, 1997; Hutchings, 1997;
Swann & Loxley, 1998). One author (Hutchings, 1997) suggested that lack of
change in TA performance was due to external factors such as a lack of opportunity
given to the TAs by the teachers to demonstrate their new skills. Hayes, Richardson,
Hindle, and Grayson (2011) concluded that TA self-efficacy was a factor which
influenced their implementation of a Video Interaction Guidance intervention. They
also suggested that TA self-efficacy is influenced by training opportunities.
The influence of the socio-political context of the school upon the delivery of
the TA role has been noted. Taylor and Gulliford (2011) identified the subtle but sig-
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

nificant influences on Nurture Group provision staffed by TAs as opposed to teach-

ers, where for example, TAs were not involved in formal meetings with parents on
the child’s entry to the nurture group. There was a noted impact upon the subsequent
development of the partnership between home and school. This in turn raised ques-
tions regarding the empowerment of TAs in the wider school structure. Green
(2013), in a study of a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) based intervention in
schools, highlighted the need for TAs to have careful and ongoing support in the
planning and delivery of programmes. Training TAs on an intervention’s core con-
tent was not sufficient to ensure their confident delivery of a 10 week programme,
or full adherence to the programme’s core principles in the scaffolding of students.
Empowerment of TAs within the wider ecology of the school, then, has been noted
as important to the ultimate effectiveness or otherwise of interventions, reflecting a
wider understanding that a practitioner’s capacity to respond to training has a rela-
tionship with features of the organisation (Butterfoss, Kegler, & Francisco, 2008).
Research therefore highlights both the issue of increasing confidence and self esteem
of TAs through training and the possible external and organisational factors that
may impact on effective TA performance and children’s outcomes (Blatchford,
Russell, &Webster, 2012). However, this specific focus on the role and functioning
of TAs themselves within and following training is rare within research.

Training and self-efficacy

Studies of training and continuing professional development (CPD) for any profes-
sionals note, amongst other aspects, the need for recipients of training to optimise
their experience and move from being recipients of training, to actors, where imple-
mentation of new knowledge and skills becomes possible (Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Turner, Nicholson, & Sanders, 2011). Typically, following
training, behaviour change and adaptation to delivery of new work patterns is seen
as non-automatic and problematic. Balchin, Randall, and Turner (2006) addressed
this using a coach–consult training model, which aimed to develop the sense of mas-
tery and self-efficacy of individual staff (see later).
A strong relationship has been outlined in the literature between self-efficacy and
performance (Enderlin-Lampe, 2002). Penrose, Perry, and Ball (2007) asserted that
raising teacher self-efficacy would have a better effect on pupil outcomes than
working through models of school effectiveness. Equally, Enderlin-Lampe (2002)
 Educational Psychology in Practice 123

argued that within a learning organisation framework reforms which focus on

empowering self-efficacy of staff are a key part of effective schools.

Self-efficacy
The earliest self-efficacy research focused on Rotter’s (1966) locus of control theory
which stated that a person’s level of self-efficacy will be determined by whether they
have an internal or external explanation for outcomes of tasks and/or responsibilities,
while Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to orga-
nise and execute the course of action required to produce given attainment” (p. 3)
and viewed it as a behavioural change based on a cognitive motivation construct.
Most self-efficacy theories based on Bandura’s premise refer to some extent to
two factors; efficacy expectancy and outcome expectations. Efficacy expectancy is
the belief in one’s capacity to influence an outcome. Outcome expectancy is the
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

belief that if effort is applied an expected outcome will be achieved (Tobin, Muller,
& Turner, 2006). The interaction of these two factors and the perceived self-efficacy
process is shown in Figure 1.
Bandura (1977) asserted that self-efficacy beliefs are developed through four dif-
ferent sources of information and through 14 different modes of induction (see
Table 1).
Bandura (1977) argued that enactive mastery experience/performance accom-
plishment is the most influential on self-efficacy. He further stated that perceived
self-efficacy is domain specific and situational and can therefore change over time
and in different contexts. Furthermore, self-efficacy can change in three different
dimensions (Bandura, 1977):

! Strength (the degree to which efficacy could be modified)

! Generality (how it can be applied to various situations)
! Magnitude (the amount of effort put into the task)

Enderlin-Lampe (2002) captured Bandura’s different sources of self-efficacy and the

different ways people could respond to a certain situation in a model which locates
perceived self-efficacy as the pivotal feature. This is argued to be fed by: perfor-
mance accomplishment (achievements); vicarious learning (apprenticeship experi-
ences); verbal persuasion; and emotions arousal. Perceived self-efficacy is also
influenced by how the individual exercises choice (engaging versus avoiding) per-
formance (linked to effort and intensity) and persistence.
Enderlin-Lampe’s (2002) model is useful at explaining what a person might do if
they have a high or low level of self-efficacy. For example, if a person has a high
level of self-efficacy because they have had a previous success in a task

Person Behaviour Outcome

Efficacy Outcome
Expectation Expectation

Figure 1. Bandura’s (1977) model of perceived self-efficacy as a process made of the

factors; efficacy expectation and outcome expectation.
 124 H. Higgins and A. Gulliford

Table 1. The different sources and modes of induction of self-efficacy (from Bandura,
1977).
Source Mode of induction
Enactive mastery experiences/ (1) Participant modelling
performance accomplishment (2) Performance desensitisation
– having a successful firsthand (3) Performance exposure
experience of the task (4) Self-instructed performance

Vicarious experiences – (1) Live-modelling

watching someone having (2) Symbolic modelling
success with a task
Verbal persuasion – someone (1) Suggestion
trying to verbally persuade a (2) Exhortation
person to do a task (3) Self-instruction
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

(4) Interpretative treatments

Physiological and affective states (1) Attribution

– emotional feelings about a (2) Relaxation, biofeedback
task (3) Symbolic desensitisation
(4) Symbolic exposure

(performance accomplishment) then they may choose to approach the next task and
may also persist with it if it becomes difficult and may also put more effort into their
performance of the next task. In contrast, if a person has a low level of self-efficacy,
they may choose to avoid the task or not persist or put much effort into their perfor-
mance, especially if the task becomes difficult.

TA and teacher self-efficacy

Whilst there are calls for the enhancement of TA skills and self-efficacy, direct
research into TA self-efficacy is difficult to find. It is useful, therefore, to look at the
work of those who have reviewed empirical evidence and theories relating these
issues to the teacher role (Hammett & Burton, 2005).
Teacher self-efficacy has been defined as “the extent to which teachers believe
their efforts will have a positive effect on their students’ abilities, in redirecting their
students’ behaviour and on their overall student achievement” (Tobin et al., 2006,
p. 303). Teacher self-efficacy research is a contentious area, with debate regarding
the theoretical construct of teacher self-efficacy and the validity of the numerous tea-
cher self-efficacy scales (Denzine, Cooney, & McKenzie, 2005; Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2007). However, there is broad agreement that self-efficacy can be under-
stood as being grounded predominantly in two theoretical perspectives; Bandura’s
self-efficacy theory and Rotter’s locus of control theory (Denzine et al., 2005;
Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007).

Factors influencing teacher self-efficacy

Studies have noted factors which can contribute to teacher self-efficacy. Successful
prior experience working with children with SEN (Gibb, 2007), working with
parents (Soltys, 2005; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010) and in behaviour management
 Educational Psychology in Practice 125

(Giallo & Little, 2003) are such examples. In addition, pre-service teacher training
with parents (Soltys, 2005), behaviour management and interventions (Giallo &
Little, 2003; Wade, 2003) and SEN (Gibb, 2007; Sachs, 1988) have been identified.
However, the nature of training and how teachers’ professional needs are met are
important considerations (Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Tebbs, 2001). Collaborative and
supportive training is suggested to be more likely to develop positive self-efficacy
than simple group training (Gibb, 2007). Sachs (1988) directly linked aspects of tea-
cher training programmes with Bandura’s sources of information and modes of
induction (Table 1).
Erdem and Demirel (2007) argue that often there is a “sink or swim” approach
to teacher training, detrimental to self-efficacy. This echoes Sachs’s (1988) argument
that self-efficacy should be developed during pre-service training and not as damage
control during in-service training (INSET) training. Tobin et al. (2006) make the
case for teacher self-efficacy being developed not only through individual training
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

but also through organisational initiatives. Contextual factors within an organisation

such as participation, framing and organisational climate will influence the outcome
of training and also influence a person’s self-efficacy (Quinones, 1997).
Returning to the question of TA self-efficacy, there have been several studies that
have directly focused or commented on contextual factors that influence TAs’ feelings
of job satisfaction, stress and motivation. Butt and Lance (2005) noted some decline
in TA job satisfaction but a majority (65%) were generally satisfied and motivated in
their jobs. Areas of TA dissatisfaction included conditions of services such as tempo-
rary contracts, low pay and lack of training opportunities, alongside some issues of
disorganisation and feeling unprepared (Russell et al., 2005; Clayton, 1993; Farrell
et al., 2000). Hammett and Burton (2005) surveyed TAs on different aspects of the
job. They discovered that a clear career progression, specialist roles and training
would be seen as motivating factors for TAs. However, they concluded that schools
should focus on activities that will increase TAs’ self-esteem and status, emphasising
that “people who feel that they have very little influence over their work behaviour
can experience a de-motivating lack of involvement in their work” (p. 300).
The need, then, to understand self-efficacy in TAs, and how it might potentially
be influenced through training approaches led to the study reported here. The data
reported here are one element of a comparative research project, exploring outcomes
from different TA training methods, but the wider study is not described later. Here,
the focus is primarily upon illumination of TA self-efficacy, its sources and potential
malleability in training.

Method
Objectives of the present study
The aim of the study was to explore sources of influence upon TA self-efficacy and
its susceptibility to influence through training approaches. This study formed part of
a larger piece of research exploring the impact of training on TAs’ behaviour, learn-
ing and self-efficacy (Higgins, 2009).

Design of the study

The design of the study was flexible, using qualitative methodology and thematic
analysis of the data gathered. In flexible designs the researcher is the key instrument
 126 H. Higgins and A. Gulliford

in the process and needs to be open and responsive to data. Analytic or theoretical
generalisation from the data is possible though inductive theory building (Robson,
2002).
Exploratory methods were selected for this question, in contrast to the majority
of studies advancing empirical insights into the concept of self-efficacy. Whilst con-
trolled designs allow for causal inferences, qualitative approaches were preferable
here because of this investigation’s focus upon the rich detail of perceptions avail-
able from participants following an intervention, and because of the small-scale
localised nature of the study.

Participants and sampling

The sample frame of TAs was drawn from three secondary schools from small rural
market towns/villages in the same geographical location. The TAs were chosen to
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

take part in the training by the special educational needs coordinator (SENCo) in the
school. The number of TAs during the majority of the training was: in School A,
three; School B, eight; School; C, six. At the stage of data collection three TAs from
School B decided not to take part. Therefore the sample was a voluntary, non-proba-
bility sample (though this cannot be known for sure due to the socio-political nature
of schools). This type of sampling method is adequate in flexible designs provided
that there is no intention to generalise to the population from the data (Cohen,
Manion, & Morrison, 2007).

Procedure
The training was negotiated between the head teacher and SENCo of the schools
and the educational psychologist (EP) author involved.

Training intervention
School A and School B both took part in six sessions of training using the coach–
consult method (Balchin et al., 2006) spread over two terms. This approach involves
principles drawing upon Bandura’s (1977) sources of information and modes of
induction, but no set format or method. Therefore the implementation of this model
in the study, later, is the researcher’s interpretation of these principles. The coach–
consult method was used in order to deliver an approach which was likely to be
highly self-efficacy supportive, and enable a comparison (not reported here) with tra-
ditional training methods. The training process outlined here was as follows:

(1) Needs assessment: enactive mastery – self-instructed performance

Through EP consultations with the TAs, training needs associated with
behaviour management skills were identified and session timetables were set
up. Therefore the training schedule was individual in each school but with
some sessions overlapping.
(2) Training methods: vicarious experiences – live modelling; verbal persuasion-
suggestion
The training methods used in the sessions emphasised practical application
and were based on constructive methods such as coaching and mentoring.
Sessions involved modelling and scaffolding of skills, role play as well as
time to practice these skills.
 Educational Psychology in Practice 127

(3) Implementation: enactive mastery – performance desensitisation; perfor-

mance exposure
The emphasis in this training approach was for the TAs to develop their
skills and knowledge, in order to empower themselves and the students they
work with. Therefore between sessions there was an expectation that TAs
would try the new skills.
(4) Recap and reflection: enactive mastery – self-instructed performance; physio-
logical arousal
Each subsequent session started with a recap of the previous session and a
reflection on the TAs’ implementation of these skills, focusing on what went
well and what they would do differently next time.
(5) Adaptive curriculum: enactive mastery – self-instructed performance
Consultations and needs assessments continued during the sessions to adapt
the curriculum to fit the changing needs of the TAs.
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

School A and B covered topics in training which were related to behaviour manage-
ment. The TAs in School C were given a one off INSET training session about the
Breakwell (1997) Assault Cycle as this was one of the topics covered in both School
A and School B during the coach–consult training sessions. The sources of informa-
tion and modes of induction used in this INSET training were vicarious experiences
– live modelling and verbal persuasion-suggestion.

Data collection
TAs took part in one of three 45-minute focus group meetings in their respective
schools, approximately two months after the completion of training. The researcher
utilised the methods discussed in Kitzinger (1995), Vaughn, Jeanne Shay Schumm,
and Sinagub (1996), Krueger and Casey (2000) alongside the research relating to
self-efficacy to produce a script for the focus group interview. Attention was paid to
issues of reliability and validity in generating focus group data. Ground rules were
used, and the researcher was sensitive to the size of group, familiarity of staff, and
the need to distribute opportunity within the discourse, through facilitation (Cohen
et al., 2007). The data were recorded, transcribed, and coded by the researcher using
inter-rater checks. Anonymity and confidentiality of the data was securely maintained
and the audio tapes were erased after their use. Ethical issues within their processing
were addressed through explanatory letters and debriefing to all relevant school staff.

Analysis of data: thematic analysis

To analyse qualitative data in this study a thematic analysis was carried out on the
transcriptions. Braun and Clarke (2006) proposed that there are many different tech-
niques of thematic analysis. They have argued that, because of this, researchers have
debated the validity of this type of analysis. To reduce validity issues of interpreta-
tion and theory and to ensure a robust analysis, steps outlined by Vaughn et al.
(1996) on how to analyse focus group interviews were used. The steps used were:

(a) Coding data

(b) Deciding on categories and inclusion criteria for these categories and placing
quotes into envelopes
 128 H. Higgins and A. Gulliford

(c) Reviewing these categories in an iterative process

(d) Developing themes from these categories
(e) A colleague completing these steps and the themes compared
(f) Final themes developed

Results and discussion: factors affecting TA self-efficacy

The thematic analysis highlighted three main influences on self-efficacy which could
be categorised as: Bandura’s (1977) theory of sources of information; outcome
expectations; and whole school support and norms (see Figure 2).
Some aspects of the sources of information theme relate to those features of the
training which impacted self-efficacy, supporting Sachs’ (1988) case that Bandura’s
(1977) model can be adopted in teacher training. Bandura (1997) argued that perfor-
mance accomplishment/enactive mastery has the greatest effect on self-efficacy. The
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

majority of TAs referred at some point to previous experience with children as

affecting their behaviour, for example. The most common response in this category
related to the relationship they had developed with children, with many stating that
if they or others had a positive relationship with children, they were more likely to
be successful.

TA 3: I should be his point of call if he needs any help.

TA 12: it’s just knowing that they can talk to you … it comes down to the rapport.

They also stated that knowledge of the child helped them to be successful.

TA 5: knowing what will work with them.

Some of the TAs’ responses indicated that the specific training approach that was
employed, coach–consult, affected their behaviour.

TA 8: the second time I did think about it and get it right eventually.

Whereas one TA in the comparison group (standard training) stated that she found
the situation false.

TA 9: putting into implementation was difficult, it was quite a false situation.

Additionally, TAs who subsequently trained or supported other TAs following the
EP training referred to helping others which they felt increased their confidence.
The TAs in School A all referred to the cascade training they provided to other TAs.

TA 1: going and showing the others how to do it … .

TA 3: doing it as an INSET helped … reinforced what we learnt.

and two TAs in school B mentioned how helping others made them feel more
confident.

TA 8: it does boost your confidence to think that you’ve helped somebody else.

Several of the TAs also referred to how learning from others, vicarious learning,
made them feel more confident to do the intervention and the TA role in general.
 Educational Psychology in Practice 129
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

Figure 2. Thematic map for factors affecting TA self-efficacy.

TA 1: yeah and we learn … from each other all of the time, well I do.
TA 4: well for me I couldn’t have done it without C’s worksheet thing today.
TA 8: I think it is because you’d seen how someone else works doing it, and every-
body learns from everyone else.

Many of the TAs mentioned how verbal persuasion from the trainer or the other
TAs had affected their confidence.

TA 2: this is what I do, this is why I do it, it helps it really does.

TA 5: working in the small group situation as well … you can hear different points
of view … someone might have done something else that you have not
thought about and you can think hang on a minute that could work for my
student.

Several also mentioned how their emotions or physiological state affected their con-
fidence with the intervention and with the work in general.

TA 1: I was terrified the first time.

TA 2: yeah it depends on how drained you are … you could have had a bad day and
you wouldn’t have been in there quite as long or a rough day when you just
need a break.

This theme did not state specifically which source of information was most powerful
for the TAs or whether all of the TAs were influenced by all four of Bandura’s
(1977) categories. However, since there was a reference to all four sources of infor-
mation there is an indication that they had some effect on the TAs’ confidence,
behaviour and self-efficacy.
 130 H. Higgins and A. Gulliford

The category outcome expectations referred to the effects the TAs believed that
the TA role could have on students. This varied between the TAs and some high-
lighted very pupil-specific factors as affecting how they viewed their effectiveness.
Some also stated that they could make a difference but that this depended on the
context, with different TAs citing different contextual factors.
One TA stated that the age of the student meant that she could not have an
effect.

TA 13: I think the older ones understand that but some of the younger ones don’t sort
of always see where they’ve gone wrong.

Whereas another TA stated that she could make a difference if the problem was due
to the home environment, but she might not be able to make a difference if the
student had autism.
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

TA 4: I think the kid with autism, it’s a lot more difficult than when their problems
are more environmental.

Some TAs stated they could make a difference if they had home support.

TA 10: I think you can contain behaviour in school to a point but you … can’t always
change someone’s core values because they are given by the parents.
TA 12: yeah I think you can at school … definitely but then they go home and their
parents are saying what a load of rubbish or you don’t have to listen to them.

However, other TAs stated that they could make a difference, though the difference
might be quite small or only happen when the student grows up.

TA 4: it will rub off, hopefully they will take it on into their adult life.
TA 5: it is going to have some kind of input into their life even if they think it is a
negative or a positive.

Finally there were some TAs who referred to making no difference.

TA 7: you can’t win unless they want to I mean if the student is not going to change
… no matter what you do or how much you bend over backwards for them.
TA 12: there are some students that no matter how hard you try, if they don’t want to,
they’re to be in the right place haven’t they.

This theme was illuminated by the literature on teacher self-efficacy (Denzine et al.,
2005; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) and Bandura’s (1977) original theory, which sug-
gested that self-efficacy is partly influenced by the outcome expectations of the indi-
vidual. Despite some similarities, outcome expectations are highly individual. TA
self-efficacy, here, appears to be influenced by what outcome expectations they
believe they can achieve. These outcome expectations, in turn, seem also to be influ-
enced by different factors. Firstly, they seem to be influenced by how much the TAs
themselves perceive they can influence change.

TA 12: yeah I think you can at school.

Or whether it is luck or determination/effort that could make a difference

 Educational Psychology in Practice 131

TA 4: it will rub off.

TA 7: you can’t win.

Similarly, TAs appear to be influenced by their values or concepts about how

children change: whether children change due to their age, maturation, home back-
ground or genetic composition or indeed whether change is possible at all. These
values and beliefs highlight TA attributions regarding children, similar to the teacher
attribution theory suggested by Miller (2003).

Whole school support and norms (such as school climate and organisational
issues)
This captured the organisational factors that influenced the TAs’ self-efficacy. Many
of these can be seen in the contextual elements referred to by Quinones (1997).
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

Here, TAs refer to the organisational climate and the value placed on TAs within the
climate of that school. There were several subthemes which referred to organisa-
tional issues that would hinder TAs’ confidence and self-efficacy. Although there
were common themes, the whole school support needs and focuses of the different
schools seemed to be quite individual and not unexpectedly reflected the individual
nature of each school organisation. TAs in all schools, however, implied that their
self-efficacy would increase if whole school norms were developed through whole
school training and development of practices.

TA 3: just keeping up to speed with it and putting on training … yes because we

had the knowledge before it started in school.
TA 5: I think looking at the behaviour in school I think the school need to look at
having people doing this kind of work with students.

This subtheme may highlight the importance of a school developing as a learning

organisation and for the TAs to be part of this (Butterfoss et al., 2008).
Some of the TAs did not feel that there were enough resources in the school for
them to successfully do their job.

TA 3: but that’s staffing isn’t it, that we need to sit down and sort that out.
TA 12: a room … you don’t want to sit in the canteen and talk with people coming in
and out. You can’t do it in the corridors obviously, the LSU [Learning Support
Unit] is often full, so where do you go?

Finally, TAs from all three focus groups referred to the time pressures that they have
within the school and how this possibly impaired their performance.

TA 3: last year … we were a bit more flexible … I had a bit more time personally
being able to do it, well this year with change of staff and such like and more
responsibilities, I haven’t done any.
TA 1: it is building and building at the minute.
TA 7: we did not have enough time.

These subthemes echo Shapiro, Schwartz, and Astin’s (1996) question of whether
developing self-efficacy is always valuable in uncontrollable situations. Arguably,
when TAs feel that the organisation has positive norms, for example sufficient
resources available, then they may feel that they can make a difference and their
 132 H. Higgins and A. Gulliford

self-efficacy will be high. However, when there are conflicting values within the
school and limitations of time and resources then they are likely to feel less able to
control the situation to make a difference, leading to low self-efficacy.
Other subthemes within the overall category of whole school support and norms
reflected how the TAs perceived they were valued within the school. Some TAs
from School A and School B referred to valuing themselves within the organisation
helped them to feel confident. Several of the TAs in School A felt that they did not
get paid comparatively well for the good job they were doing.

TA 1: [pay] doesn’t affect how I do my job but it is beginning to affect how I feel…
.
TA 2: I think it does particularly.
TA 2: the staff that earn a lot of money come and work in our … building here don’t
interact with the children at all … do they need to go on a course which
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

encourages them to work with you know the kids with the challenging behav-
iour.

The last quote could indicate that the TA values the “hands on” role of working with
children and possibly believes that higher paid staff do not value this role. Russell
et al. (2005) suggested that TAs’ job satisfaction could be influenced by factors such
as low pay.
Some TAs referred to valuing their own skills and learning within the context of
the school environment.

TA 3: but if you were teaching a lesson you would go and do your lesson, wouldn’t
you. Maybe we (should) do that, it is what we are doing and we will do it.
Allocate that hour.
TA 2: it’s an open book really isn’t it and it’s evolving. It’s up to the individual what
they want to do, how far they would want to take it.

Many of the TAs in School B did not feel valued by the some of the teachers

TA 8: unless someone listens to us and we say … we’re not going to actually

achieve anything from this even though we feel we are doing well.
TA 7: that’s the problem we can say something and then sometimes it doesn’t make
a difference. We are undermined on a regular basis.

Whereas some of the TAs in School A referred to feeling valued and supported by
teachers and how this helped them to feel confident in their role.

TA 3: once they have sent someone out of their lesson and their lesson goes well they
will send them out again and you kind of make a rod for your own back
because if you have got work out of them then you take that back, they think
I’ve had a lovely lesson, they have got some work done, why not do that again.

As Quinones (1997) points out, when a person feels that they are not part of or val-
ued within an organisation, the outcome of any training will be affected.

Conclusions
The data here suggested that TA self-efficacy could be understood through three
themes: Bandura’s (1977) theory of sources of information, outcome expectations
 Educational Psychology in Practice 133

and whole school support and norms. The first theme, Bandura’s (1977) theory of
sources of information, highlights the importance of the processes of training and
nature of experience (Tebbs, 2001; Gibb, 2007; Hayes et al., 2011). Training can be
influenced by verbal persuasion from others, emotion or affect as well as learning
from others’ experience. Engaging in first-hand experience of an intervention, show-
ing others how to do something and having experience of working with children
also seem to be important sources of information that have a potential impact on TA
self-efficacy.
The outcome expectations themes illuminated the potential effects of individua-
lised perceptions and values that the TAs are bringing to the role. Each TA employed
in a school may have a very different view of how much influence they can have with
the children. It may be necessary for schools to explore these values and challenge
unhelpful beliefs. Whilst TAs outcome expectancies may change depending on their
experiences in their role, and indeed training, they may also be affected by their sense
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

of control and this is shown to relate to the school environment.

The final theme, whole school support and norms outlines contextual factors and
draws attention to those features of the school organisation that potentially influence
TA self-efficacy (Quinones, 1997). However, TA self-evaluation and sense of worth,
again highly individualised, was linked to previous experiences and personality
traits. This supports the Carlson, Buskis, and Martin (2000) argument that
self-efficacy models should include more emphasis on personality traits and early
developmental history.
The combination of themes about self-efficacy identified in this study may inter-
act with each and could be depicted as shown in Figure 3.

Implications of the study

The importance and development of self-efficacy in TAs
Studies reviewed earlier have highlighted the rationale for raising TA self-efficacy in
contributing ultimately to student outcomes, yet noted the need for doing so in con-
junction with attending to features of the school context which facilitate TA practice
(Cajkler et al., 2007). This parallels insights from other domains, primary health pre-
vention, for example, where the conditions for uptake of evidence-based interven-
tions have been noted to be the programme itself, the implementers, and the context
(Turner et al., 2011). The data in this study suggests a framework to support schools
in developing TAs’ self- efficacy and in turn their effectiveness and overall school
improvement. The qualitative data here provides insights into factors that contribute
to the development of TA self-efficacy in training contexts as well as within a school
environment. These factors included:

! Creating conditions during training opportunities and within the school envi-
ronment that give TAs: positive experiences, vicarious learning, verbal support
and ‘persuasion’ and positive physiological conditions
! Developing positive relationships with staff and children
! Developing whole school practices which include TAs
! Having the right amount of resources
! Helping TAs to develop a perception of the controllability of outcomes for
students
 134 H. Higgins and A. Gulliford

Values, attributions
and beliefs
Outcome Behaviour
expectancies
Organisational Sources of
factors information

Figure 3. Model combining factors influencing TA self-efficacy.

While EPs may be well placed to work directly with schools at an organisational
and school improvement level, approaches to organisational development and
change have shown that training per se cannot achieve this. This study highlights
how EPs may support the development of practices which aim to enhance TA self-
efficacy, increasing the likelihood of longitudinal change. This could be achieved
through training approaches with staff similar to the methods used in this study, or
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

consultation with senior management highlighting the school benefits of improving

staff self-efficacy levels. Where resources and funding for TAs are more centrally
controlled, EPs are also well placed within local authorities to help develop practices
that would enhance self-efficacy.

Different training approaches and self-efficacy

Although the aim of this paper was not to compare the two training approaches used
in the overall study, the coach–consult method appears to contain more elements of
Bandura’s sources of information and modes of induction than regular INSET train-
ing (see Table 2). Sachs linked aspects of teacher training programmes to Bandura’s
theories related to self-efficacy. It is possible to link aspects of the coach–consult
model and of INSET training to Bandura’s modes of induction and sources of infor-
mation. TAs alluded to all of Bandura’s sources of information as having an influ-
ence on their self-efficacy, suggesting that methods which address vicarious learning
models, verbal “persuasion” coaching, and implementation models, could have a
more powerful influence on TA self-efficacy than regular INSET training. Bandura
(1997) argues that performance accomplishment/enactive mastery has the greatest
impact on self-efficacy and there are several elements built within the coach–consult
method such as the needs assessment, implementation, recap and reflection and
adaptive curriculum stages that may give TAs opportunities to develop enactive
mastery and specifically have the chance to practice and reflect on the interventions
discussed during the direct training. This hypothesis would benefit from further
research, to guide EPs and other practitioners to appropriate models of “consultative
training” and to explore the specific features of such models associated with self-
efficacy enhancement, and changes in practice. However, this study would suggest
that EPs should consider reviewing their current training approaches and ensure that
they are not only improving staff’s knowledge of a topic but also their self-efficacy.

Developing a TA self-efficacy scale

Finally, to support further research into TA self-efficacy, a domain specific TA self-
efficacy scale would be helpful (Brouwers & Tomic, 2001). The scale might be
based solely on the three themes, Bandura’s sources of information, outcome expec-
tations and whole school norms and support. However, the emphasis shown by TAs
 Educational Psychology in Practice 135

Table 2. Sources of information and modes of induction for the coach–consult method and
the INSET training approach.
Training methods and Sources of
elements of training information Modes of induction
Coach–Consult Needs assessment Enactive mastery Self instructed performance
method Training Vicarious Live modelling
experience
Verbal persuasion Suggestion
Implementation Enactive mastery Performance desensitisation
Performance exposure
Recap and Enactive mastery Self-instructed performance
reflection Physiological
arousal
Adaptive Enactive mastery Self-instructed performance
curriculum
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

INSET Training Training Vicarious Live modelling

experience
Verbal persuasion Suggestion

with regards to their relationships and knowledge of students and the organisational
factors and norms that impinged on their feelings of self-efficacy indicates consider-
ation of these contextual elements. This study might suggest a TA scale based on a
similar model to Cherniss’s (1993) three-factor teacher scale, the Teacher Interper-
sonal Self-efficacy Scale, which specifically considered teacher self-efficacy with
regards to:

(1) Interpersonal domain

(2) Task domain
(3) Organisation domain

In this way, the contextualised nature of feelings of self-efficacy for practitioners

shown in this data would be acknowledged. EPs conducting research could assist
with the development of self-efficacy scales and the reviewed different models and
approaches in this topic. EPs are well placed to ensure that evaluation of training
methods assesses whether self-efficacy is being enhanced during and after the
training process as well as through practices within schools.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Nick Durbin, Craig Bridge and Nicki
Hammill in the early phases of this work.

References
Alborz, A., Pearson, D., Farrell, P., & Howes, A. (2009). The impact of adult support staff
on pupils and mainstream schools. Technical Report. In Research evidence in education
library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education,
University of London.
Balchin, N., Randall, L., & Turner, S. (2006). The Coach Consult Method: A model for
sustainable change in schools. Educational Psychology in Practice, 22(3), 237–254.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
 136 H. Higgins and A. Gulliford

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: Towards a unified theory of behavioural change. Psycho-

logical Review, 84, 191–215.
Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., & Brown, P. (2005). Teachers’ and Pupils’ behaviour in large and
small classes: A systematic observation study of pupils aged 10 and 11 years. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97(3), 454–467.
Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Martin, C., Russell, A., & Webster, R. (2009). The
deployment and impact of support staff project. Research summary. Short summary of the
main findings, conclusions and recommendations from the DISS project. London: Insti-
tute of Education and DCSF.
Blatchford, P., Martin, C., Moriaty, V., Bassett, P., & Goldstein, H. (2002). Pupil adult ratio
differences and educational progress over Reception and Key Stage 1. DfES Research
Report no. 335. Norwich: DfES.
Blatchford, P., Russell, A., Bassett, P., Brown, P., & Martin, C. (2007). The role and effects
of teaching assistants in English primary schools (Years 4–6) 2000–2003. Results from
Class Size and Pupil-Adult Rations (CSPAR) Key Stage 2 project. British Educational
Research Journal, 33(1), 5–26.
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

Blatchford, P., Russell, A., & Webster, R. (2012a). Reassessing the impact of teaching assis-
tants: How research challenges practice and policy. Abingdon: Routledge.
Blatchford, P., Webster, R., & Russell, A. (2012). Challenging the role and deployment of
teaching assistants in mainstream schools: The impact on schools. Final report on
findings from the Effective Deployment of Teaching Assistants (EDTA) project. London:
Institute of Education.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Breakwell, G. M. (1997). Coping with aggressive behaviour. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2001). The factorial validity of scores on the Teacher Interper-
sonal Self-efficacy Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 433–445.
Brown, J., & Harris, A. (2009). Increased expenditure on Associate Staff in schools and
changes in student attainment. London: TDA and SSAT, Institute of Education.
Butt, G., & Lance, A. (2005). Modernizing the role of support staff in primary schools:
Changing focus, changing function. Educational Review, 57(2), 139–149.
Butt, R., & Lowe, K. (2012). Teaching assistant and class teachers: differing perspectives,
role confusion and the benefits of skill-based training. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 16(2), 207–219.
Butterfoss, F. D., Kegler, M. C., & Francisco, V. T. (2008). Mobilizing organizations for
health promotion: Theories of organizational change. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K.
Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research and practice
(4th ed., pp. 335–361). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cajkler, W., Tennant, G., Tiknaz, Y., & Sage, R. (2007). A systematic review on how training
and professional development activities impact on teaching assistants’ classroom practice
(1988–2006). In Research evidence in education library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social
Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Carlson, N. R., Buskis, W., & Martin, G. N. (2000). Psychology: The science of behaviour.
London: Allyn and Bacon.
Central Advisory Council for Education (England). (1967). Children and their primary
schools [The Plowden Report]. London: HMSO.
Cherniss, C. (1993). Role of professional self-efficacy in the etiology and amelioration of
burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout:
Recent developments in theory and research. Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.
Clayton, T. (1990). The training needs of special welfare assistants: What do heads, class
teachers and the assistants themselves regard as important? Educational and Child Psy-
chology, 7(1), 44–51.
Clayton, T. (1993). Welfare assistants in the classroom – problems and solutions. Educational
Psychology in Practice, 8(4), 191–197.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Abingdon:
Routledge.
 Educational Psychology in Practice 137

Denzine, G. M., Cooney, J. B., & McKenzie, R. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
Teacher Efficacy Scale for prospective teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 75, 699–708.
Department for Education (DfE). (2013a). School workforce in England: November 2012.
SFR15.2013. London: DfE.
Department for Education (DfE). (2013b) Improving the quality of teaching and leadership.
Retrieved from [Link]
ing-and-leadership
Edwards, E., & Clemson, D. (1997). Reflections on the comparative roles of the NNEB
Diploma in Nursery Nursing and the Specialist Teacher Assistant Certificate. Paper pre-
sented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of
York, 11–14 September.
Enderlin-Lampe, S. (2002). Empowerment: Teacher perception, aspirations and efficacy.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(3), 139–146.
Erdem, E., & Demirel, O. (2007). Teacher self-efficacy belief. Social Behavior and Personal-
ity, 35(5), 573–586.
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

Farrell, P., Balshaw, M., & Polat, F. (1999). The management, role and training of learning
support assistants, DFEE Research Report No 161. Norwich: DFEE.
Farrell, P., Balshaw, M., & Polat, F. (2000). The work of learning support assistants in main-
stream schools: Implications for educational psychologists. Educational and Child Psy-
chology, 17(2), 66–76.
Giallo, R., & Little, E. (2003). Classroom behaviour problems: The relationship between pre-
paredness, classroom experiences and self-efficacy in graduate and student teachers. Aus-
tralian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 3, 21–34.
Gibb, S. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of efficacy: Beliefs that may support inclusion or seg-
regation. Educational and Child Psychology, 24(3), 47–52.
Green, S. (2013). An Evaluation of a FRIENDS for Life Programme in a mainstream second-
ary school and its impact on emotional distress, anxiety, and coping skills (Unpublished
DAppEdPsy thesis). Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
Groom, B. (2006). Building relationships for learning: The developing role of the teaching
assistant. Support for Learning, 21(4), 199–203.
Gunter, H., Rayner, S., Thomas, H., Fielding, A., Butt, G., & Lance, A. (2005). Teachers,
time and work: Findings from the Evaluation of the Transforming the School Workforce
Pathfinder Project. School Leadership and Management, 25(5), 441–454.
Hammett, N., & Burton, N. (2005). Motivation, stress and learning support assistants: An
examination of staff perceptions at a rural secondary school. School Leadership and Man-
agement, 25(3), 299–310.
Hayes, B., Richardson, S., Hindle, S., & Grayson, K. (2011). Developing teaching assistants’
skills in positive behaviour management: An application of Video Interaction Guidance
in a secondary school. Educational Psychology in Practice, 27(3), 255–269.
Higgins, H. (2009). A study exploring the influences of training on teaching assistants’ learn-
ing, behaviour and self-efficacy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nottingham: Univer-
sity of Nottingham.
Hutchings, M. (1997). The impact of a specialist teacher assistant training programme on the
development of classroom assistants. Early Years, 18, 35–39.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Education and debate qualitative research: Introducing focus groups.
British Medical Journal, 311, 299–302.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
research. London: Sage Publications.
Lacey, P. (2001). The role of learning support assistants in the inclusive learning of pupils
with severe and profound learning difficulties. Educational Review, 53(2), 157–167.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, A. (2003). Teachers, parents and classroom behaviour. A psychosocial approach.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Moran, A., & Abbott, L. (2002). Developing inclusive schools. The pivotal role of teaching
assistants in promoting inclusion in special and mainstream in Northern Ireland. Euro-
pean Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 161–173.
 138 H. Higgins and A. Gulliford

Morris, E. (2001). Professionalism and trust: A speech by the Rt Hon Estelle Morris MP Sec-
retary of State for Education and Skills to the Social Market Foundation. London:
HMSO.
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2003). Student background and teacher effects on achievement
and attainment in mathematics: A longitudinal study. Educational Research and Evalua-
tion, 9(3), 289–314.
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of
Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407.
Penrose, A., Perry, C., & Ball, I. (2007). Emotional intelligence and teacher self-efficacy:
The contribution of teacher status and length of experience. Issues in Educational
Research, 17(1), 107–126.
Quinones, M. A. (1997). Contextual influences on training effectiveness. In M. A. Quinones,
& A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of
psychological research. London: American Psychological Association.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of rein-
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 03:50 21 July 2015

forcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28.

Russell, A., Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., & Martin, C. (2005). The views of teaching
assistants in English Key Stage 2 class on their role, training and job satisfaction. Educa-
tional Research, 47(2), 175–189.
Sachs, J. (1988). Teacher preparation, teacher self-efficacy and the regular education initia-
tive. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 2(4), 237–332.
Shapiro, D. H., Schwartz, C. E., & Astin, J. A. (1996). Controlling ourselves, controlling our
world: Psychology’s role in understanding positive and negative consequences of seeking
and gaining control. American Psychologist, 51, 1213–1230.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations
with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy and teacher burnout. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of
relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059–1069.
Soltys, L. K. (2005). A study of the relationship between teacher self-efficacy, the tendency
to blame parents for child problems and parent–teacher collaboration activities in elemen-
tary schools. Dissertation Abstract International Section A. Humanities and Social Sci-
ence, 65(10-A), 3695.
Swann, W., & Loxley, A. (1998). The impact of school-based training on classroom assis-
tants in primary schools. Research Papers in Education, 13, 141–160.
Taylor, V., & Gulliford, A. (2011) Parental perspectives on nurture groups: The potential for
engagement. British Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 73–82.
Tebbs, T. J. (2001). Assessing teachers’ self-efficacy towards teaching thinking skills. Disser-
tation Abstracts International Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 61(12-A),
4666.
Tobin, T. T., Muller, R. O., & Turner, L. M. (2006). Organisational learning and climate as
predictors of self-efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 9, 301–319.
Turner, K. M. T., Nicholson, J. M., & Sanders, M. R. (2011). The role of practitioner self-
efficacy, training, program and workplace factors on the implementation of an evidence-
based parenting intervention in primary care. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 32(2),
95–112.
Vaughn, S., Jeanne Shay Schumm, J., & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in edu-
cation and psychology. London: Sage.
Wade, K. K. (2003). Preservice and inservice teachers’ knowledge and use of functional
behavior assessment and intervention for problem behaviors. Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 64(6-A), 1989.
The Warnock Report (1978). Special educational needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry
into the education of handicapped children and young people. London: HMSO.
Webster, R., Blatchford, P., & Russell, A. (2012). Challenging and changing how schools use
teaching assistants: Findings from the Effective Deployment of Teaching Assistants pro-
ject. School Leadership and Management, 33(1), 78–96.

View publication stats