Leader support in relation to teacher self-efficacy, classroom emotional climate and students’ literacy skills in elementary school

ABSTRACT

Research has been scarce when it comes to investigating associations between leader support, teacher self-efficacy (TSE,) and student outcomes. Thus, the objective of the present study was to investigate associations between leader support teacher self-efficacy (TSE), classroom emotional climate (CEC), and literacy skills. Two aspects of TSE were included; self-efficacy to discipline and motivate students. 5810 first graders from 300 classes participated, including their respective class teachers. Analysis was conducted by applying structural equation modeling. Leader support related positively to self-efficacy to discipline and motivate students. Moreover, self-efficacy to discipline and CEC were positively related, and CEC related positively to literacy skills. A significant indirect association was found between the discipline dimension of TSE and literacy skills through CEC. School managers should support employees to increase TSE, as a strong sense of TSE can contribute to a sound CEC and improve literacy skills among children in their early school years.

KEYWORDS:

• Leader support
• teacher self-efficacy
• classroom climate
• reading
• literacy skills

Introduction

It has been claimed that researchers and policymakers for long have overestimated the significance of teachers’ personal characteristics over situational factors when trying to understand the relationship between teaching quality and student learning (Kennedy, 2010). A critical situational factor in this respect is leader support. Still, leadership and teaching quality tend to be treated as separate research areas and few studies integrate perspectives from the two (Liu et al., 2021).

One relevant aspect of teaching quality is teacher self-efficacy (TSE). Self-efficacy, when applied to teachers, can be defined as: “Individual teacher’s beliefs in their ability to plan, organize and carry out activities required to attain given educational goals” (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007, p. 612). Several decades ago, Bandura (1993) stated that a teacher’s ability to create environments that contribute to student learning rests heavily on their self-efficacy. In a review study, Zee and Koomen (2016) confirmed this claim and concluded that TSE is associated with a broad range of outcomes related to classroom processes, student learning and, teachers’ psychological well-being. Considering the value of TSE for student outcomes, Guo et al. (2012) noted that it is critical for future research to investigate factors that influence TSE.

Early studies in the field suggested that school leaders might be an important determinant of TSE (Bandura, 1997; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). This relationship has generally been confirmed in more recent studies (e.g., Fackler & Malmberg, 2016; Liu & Hallinger, 2018; Ninković & Knežević Florić, 2018; Pas et al., 2012; Sehgal et al., 2017). However, none of these studies have extended their models to include student outcomes e.g., student social-emotional skills or academic skills.

The relationship between TSE and student outcome has however been studied in a separate row of studies. Relating to this, Zee et al. (2018) recently noted that the associations between TSE and student academic outcomes have been weaker and less consistent than what has been expected by theorists. For instance, in a review by Klassen and Tze (2014), the mean correlation between TSE and academic outcomes was only .06. Moreover, when comparing correlations across studies, they were found to vary greatly, from -.25 to .70 (Klassen & Tze, 2014). The reasons for these relatively inconsistent associations between TSE and academic outcomes are still unclear (Zee et al., 2018). However, inconsistencies might indicate that the associations between TSE and children's academic gains may not be as straightforward as prior research suggests (Guo et al., 2010) and that the relation is influenced by moderators and mediators (Zee & Koomen, 2016). Following this reasoning it has been suggested to include factors related to the class environment as mediators when investigating the TSE–student achievement relationship (Guo et al., 2012; Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2005). Still, studies investigating the mediating effect of the classroom environment on the associations between TSE and academic outcomes have been scarce. This is further emphasized by Zee and Koomen (2016) who state that research on the consequences of TSE for emotionally supportive classroom processes is lacking. One essential aspect of the classroom environment is the classroom climate, which is concerned with the interactions taking place between and among both students and teachers. The quality of these social and emotional interactions in the classroom has been referred to as the classroom emotional climate (CEC) (Daniels & Shumow, 2003; Pianta et al., 2008). Thus, to investigate associations between TSE and classroom emotional climate, (CEC), in addition to how CEC might mediate the TSE – student achievement relationship, must be considered essential.

In the present study, we pull the reviewed perspectives together by integrating leadership, TSE and student outcomes in one study model. In addition to investigating direct associations, we also examine whether CEC mediates the associations between TSE and student academic outcomes. Thus, as shown in Figure 1, the first goal of our study was to integrate leadership as an antecedent of TSE with student outcomes of TSE, focusing particularly on CEC and literacy skills. Our second goal was to investigate whether CEC mediated the association between TSE and students’ literacy skills among students at the end of first grade.

Figure 1. Theoretical model of the study.

Theory and hypotheses

Leader support and TSE

The concept of self-efficacy is rooted in the social cognitive theory, which emphasizes that humans can influence their actions (Bandura, 2006). The social cognitive theory suggests that environmental influences play a significant role in establishing individual perceptions of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982). Leadership styles can be a part of such environmental influences (Sehgal et al., 2017), as the leaders’ treatment of employees can affect the inferences they make about their status and value (Takeuchi et al., 2012). Specifically, considering the social cognitive theory, leadership styles can be seen as a source of vicarious experience or verbal persuasion (Fackler & Malmberg, 2016). For instance, verbal persuasion and modeling function can stimulate employee’s self-efficacy development (Bandura, 1997), and the existing research found that verbal support from principals is one of several factors in the workplace that fosters teaching self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Research conducted by Hipp and Bredeson (1995) was one of the first to investigate the associations between leadership behavior and TSE, where a direct association between the two was demonstrated. More recent studies, including larger samples, have confirmed the existence of such a link (see, e.g., Fackler & Malmberg, 2016; Pas et al., 2012; Sehgal et al., 2017). Consequently, as shown in Figure 1, we included leader support as a predictor of TSE in our study model and proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Leader support will be positively related to TSE.

TSE as an antecedent of classroom emotional climate

As mentioned previously, the quality of these social and emotional interactions in the classroom has been referred to as the classroom emotional climate (CEC) (Daniels & Shumow, 2003; Pianta et al., 2008). Concerning the antecedents of CEC, Moos (1979) developed a conceptual model several decades ago, which was later elaborated by MacAulay (1990). More recently, the prosocial classroom model by Jennings and Greenberg (2009) became an important framework for classroom climate research (see, e.g., Friedman-Krauss et al., 2014). All these models assume that factors related to teacher characteristics are the most important determinants of CEC. TSE can be considered a personal resource that is closely related to the characteristics of the teacher. After reviewing the research on the effects of TSE, Zee and Koomen (2016) concluded that research on the consequences of TSE for emotionally supportive classroom processes is missing. To our knowledge, only one study has been conducted in elementary school (Guo et al., 2012). The study was conducted among 5th graders, and it was demonstrated that teachers with high self-efficacy were more likely to create supportive environments in the classroom compared to teachers with low self-efficacy beliefs, which were again positively related to students’ literacy skills (Guo et al., 2012). When measuring the emotional climate in the class, Guo et al. (2012) focused on the interaction between teacher and student (e.g., teacher sensitivity, feedback, instructional time). However, high levels of TSE might also be associated with the quality of social and emotional interactions between students because the quality of relations between students is also a significant aspect of classroom emotional climate (Pianta et al., 2008). Moreover, in a recent meta-analysis concerning CEC and academic performance, it was stated that aspects related to the social interaction between students need to be included when conducting studies within the educational field (Wentzel et al., 2018). Thus, we wanted to examine whether TSE relates positively to CEC, where we define CEC as the social and emotional interactions taking place between students. Accordingly, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: TSE will be positively related to students’ perceptions of CEC.

CEC and literacy skills

There is now a general agreement that in addition to promoting students’ well-being, CEC is also related to student’s academic achievement (e.g., Mashburn et al., 2008; Pianta et al., 2008). Additionally, a supportive emotional climate in the classroom has been found to relate to literacy skills (Curby et al., 2009; Curby et al., 2013; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Hamre & Pianta, 2001, 2005; Hughes et al., 2008; Rudasill et al., 2010). Moreover, positive relations between students, including friendship are related to students’ academic performance (see Wentzel et al., 2018 for a meta-study). Based on the abovementioned research, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Students’ perceptions of CEC will be positively related to literacy skills.

CEC as a mediator of the relationship between TSE and literacy skills

As mentioned previously, the associations between TSE and student academic outcomes have been weaker and less consistent than what has been expected (Zee et al., 2018). Moreover, literacy skills are less often predicted by TSE compared to achievement in other subjects, for instance, math (Zee & Koomen, 2016). Only two previous studies demonstrated associations between TSE and students’ literacy skills in elementary school. The first study was conducted by Guo et al. (2012) among 5th graders. Although significant associations were found between TSE and literacy skills, the associations were very weak (.04). In the second study conducted by Cantrell et al. (2013), TSE was found to relate to students’ reading comprehension and overall reading achievement among 6th and 9th graders. However, an evident methodological shortcoming of Cantrell et al.’s (2013) study was the small sample of teachers, with only nine and eleven teachers, respectively. Moreover, the study focused on struggling readers, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Several other studies conducted among students and teachers in preschool failed to find direct associations between TSE and literacy outcomes (Guo et al., 2010; Reyes et al., 2012; Tournaki & Podell, 2005). Considering the inconsistent and lack of findings of direct associations between TSE and literacy skills, it has been suggested that CEC mediates the relationship between TSE and student achievement (Guo et al., 2012; Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2005). However, previous research has been limited when it comes to studying CEC as a mediator on the TSE – literacy skills relation, with only two studies so far conducted by Guo et al. (2010) and Guo et al. (2012). The former study was conducted among 4-year-old children attending preschool (Guo et al., 2010), whereas the latter was conducted with fifth graders (Guo et al., 2012). The first study conducted with preschoolers revealed an interaction between TSE, emotionally supportive relationships in the classroom, and vocabulary gains. In the second study conducted by Guo and colleagues (2012), an indirect effect was demonstrated from TSE to student literacy outcomes through classroom practices. In both studies, CEC was measured as an aspect of the teacher-student relationship. However, as we have already pointed out, the quality of social interactions between students is also a significant aspect of CEC (Pianta et al., 2008). Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, previous studies have yet not investigated whether this aspect of CEC mediates the TSE – literacy skill association. Investigating this association is in our view an important extension of previous research, and thus we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: TSE is indirectly related to literacy skills through students’ perceptions of CEC.

The present study

Figure 1 reflects the hypotheses specified and discussed above. Due to the lack of studies incorporating school leadership as an antecedent of TSE with student outcomes of TSE we examine associations between leader support and two aspects of TSE referred to as self-efficacy to motivate students and self-efficacy to keep discipline (Hypothesis 1). It has further been stated that consequences of TSE for emotional processes in the class are lacking, and studies on the association between CEC and literacy skills among children in their early schoolyears have been scarce. Thus, we examine associations between TSE and CEC (Hypothesis 2), in addition to associations between CEC and literacy skills (Hypothesis 3). Finally, it has been suggested that the direct link between TSE and student achievement, including literacy skills might be mediated by CEC. Hence, we investigate the indirect associations between TSE and literacy skills through CEC (Hypothesis 4).

We direct our attention towards two aspects of TSE, referred to as motivating students and keeping discipline. The reason for focusing on these two aspects is that we consider them to be particularly relevant in relation to CEC when measured as the social interaction between students. For instance, when teachers conceive high self-efficacy beliefs to motivate students, the motivation among students is likely to increase. Previous studies found that motivated students are more engaged and curious, and they report having higher levels of well-being (Reeve, 2009; Wigfield & Cambria, 2010), which might stimulate the socio-emotional relations between students in a positive manner. In a recent review students’ motivation was also found to associate with classroom emotional climate (see Wang et al., 2020). The second aspect of TSE we include in our study is self-efficacy to discipline, as previous research found discipline to be a significant determinant of the classroom environment. Studies have shown that discipline problems may influence the classroom environment negatively (Reyes et al., 2012), and noise in the classroom has also been reported by students to be disturbing (Skaalvik et al., 2006). Finally, teachers who have high self-efficacy to discipline have been found to report less student misbehavior (Tsouloupas et al., 2010), which again may relate positively to the socio-emotional relations between students.

Method

Background

The data utilized in this study originated from the extensive Norwegian research initiative known as the Two Teachers project, encompassing 150 schools across 53 municipalities in 9 counties in Southern Norway. The Two Teachers project also included interventions at the class level related to individual and complementary effects of pupil-teacher ratio and professional development of teachers. At each of the 150 schools, two classes were randomly assigned to either an intervention or control group. The intervention classes had an additional teacher resource during the first school year, providing 8 × 45 Norwegian lessons per week, while the control classes had no extra teaching resources. Furthermore, some teachers in both intervention and control classes took part in the Language Track Program, designed to enhance their expertise in language development, reading, and writing. It's worth noting that no incentives were provided to the teachers for their participation in the project. (Jensen, 2021, 2022; Jensen et al., 2019; Jensen & Solheim, 2020). Additional details about the Two Teachers project can be found in Solheim et al. (2017). The study received approval from the Norwegian Social Science Data Service, an external ethical oversight agency in Norway. Furthermore, the project adhered to the ethical principles outlined by the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and Humanities.

Participants

The teacher sample included 300 class teachers, who at the time of the study were class teachers in first grade. The response rate for teachers in the current study was 100%. The teachers in the included sample had been teaching for an average of 14 years, and 96.7% were females. Furthermore, 2% of the teachers were under 25 years old, followed by 25-29 years old (11%), 30-39 years old (24.1%), 40-49 years old (34.4%), 50-59 years old (21.4%), and over 60 years old (7%). Approximately 6% earned master’s degrees, and 87% earned bachelor’s degrees. The sample of students comprised first graders who commenced their first-grade studies in August 2016. Initially, 6014 students were part of the study. Obtaining written parental consent from 95.2% of parents resulted in a total sample of 5830 students, distributed across 300 classes. During the first school year, 20 of the students who had given consent dropped out of the study due to a change of schools. Thus, the sample of students was reduced from 5830 to 5810. In the final sample, 47.8% were girls, and the majority of students were born in 2010 (99.5%). 0.4% was born in 2011, and 0.1% was born in 2011.

Procedures

The assessments of students and teachers were conducted at the end of first grade, in May 2017. All students who took part in the study were assessed on CEC and literacy skills. A research assistant, proficiently trained, conducted individual assessments for students within their respective schools at a private venue situated away from their classrooms. The assessments were exclusively administered using tablet computers. Teachers filled out self-report questionnaires regarding to what extent they perceived that the school leader supported them, and self-efficacy for motivating and keeping discipline in the classroom. The coding of both student and teacher identities was structured to facilitate the identification and linking of class teachers to their corresponding classes during the analysis process.

Measures

Leader support was related to teachers’ perceptions of having cognitive and emotional support from the school management. The scale consists of five items (Cronbach’s alpha = .82). A sample item is, “In educational matters, I can always seek help and advice from the school management” (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). The responses were assessed using a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

TSE was measured by two subscales from the Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy scale (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007, 2010), self-efficacy to motivate students and keep discipline. Self-efficacy to keep discipline consists of four items and is especially concerned with teachers’ capability to keep order and discipline in the classroom. Self-efficacy to motivate consists of four items and relates to teachers’ ability to motivate students to learn. Examples of items are: “How certain are you that you can wake the desire to learn even among the lowest-achieving students?” and “How certain are you that you can get all students in the classroom to work hard with their schoolwork?” (motivate students; Cronbach’s alpha = .78), “How certain are you that you can get all students to behave politely and respect the teachers?” and “How certain are you that you can get students with behavioral problems to follow classroom rules?” (keep discipline; Cronbach’s alpha = .86). Responses were measured on a 7-point scale from 1 = Not certain at all to 7 = Absolutely certain. The scales demonstrated good validity in previous studies among teachers in Norway (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010).

Classroom emotional climate (CEC) was assessed by seven items (Cronbach’s alpha = .71 at the student level). It was derived from a modified version of the Social Integration Classroom Climate and Self-Concept of School Readiness originally developed by Rauer and Schuck (2003). The items aim to capture students’ emotional and social experiences in the class. The scale demonstrated satisfactory reliability in previous studies (Holen et al., 2013; Jensen, 2021; Jensen & Solheim, 2020). The items were altered from statements to questions to reduce cognitive response bias (Bentler et al., 1971). Sample questions were, “Is everybody in the class good friends? Do you stick together and look after each other in the class?” Before introducing the task, the research assistant ensured the students that their answers were anonymous. Each item was read aloud by the research assistant. The students conveyed their responses by selecting one of four smileys on the tablet, aligning with a 4-point scale ranging from 1 = many are not good friends/many don’t look after each other in the class to 4 = everybody is good friends/everybody looks after each other in the class. The least cheerful smiley represented the most negative response, while the most joyful smiley indicated the most positive response.

Literacy skills were measured by total scores on two tests related to reading accuracy and reading fluency (Cronbach’s alpha = .70 at the student level). Reading accuracy was assessed by having students read 36 familiar words presented one at a time on the tablet. The word selection was sourced from Seymour et al. (2003). The word list comprised commonly used high-frequency words initially drawn from reading materials employed in the initial phases of primary education. The test included content words (principally imaginable nouns) and function words (grammatical morphemes) of varying morphological complexity, including diacritics, multi-letter graphemes, and irregularities. The results from pilot testing revealed that students were unlikely to succeed on the test after six subsequent errors. Hence, after six subsequent errors, the test was terminated. The raw sum scores for the 36 items (maximum score: 36) were calculated. To assess word reading fluency, students were given a Norwegian version of the Test of Word Reading Efficacy (TOWRE) (Torgesen et al., 1999). TOWRE contains two subtests, and in the current study, we applied Scheme A from The Sight-Word Efficiency subtest. Specifically, the test estimates the child’s ability to read as many words as possible in 45 s. A list of words was presented to the children on a paper sheet, and the research assistant registered the number of correctly read words on the tablet.

Statistical analysis

The intraclass correlation, referred to as ICC(1) measures the degree to which class belongingness affects students’ ratings (Lüdtke et al., 2009). Thus, we calculated the ICC(1) for student-reported CEC and literacy skills using Mplus version 8.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012), in order to determine whether it could be justified to aggregate the student reported data to the class level. Second, to establish model fit, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation was applied using AMOS version 26 (Arbuckle, 2017). Third, Construct reliability was assessed using Composite Reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha, with values expected to surpass .70 (Hair et al., 2010). Convergent validity relied on Average Variance Explained (AVE > .50). Discriminant validity was evaluated through Maximum Shared Variance (MSV), adhering to the criterion that the square root of AVE should exceed inter-construct correlations (MSV < AVE). Fourth, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to examine the structural model of the relationships among leader support, TSE, CEC, and literacy skills. Fifth, to test the significance of the indirect association of TSE on literacy skills through CEC, we applied the bias-corrected bootstrap mediation in AMOS using version 26.0. The bias-corrected bootstrap method has been recommended as the most effective approach, as it addresses skewness in the population (MacKinnon et al., 2004), and 1000 bootstraps and 95% confidence intervals were applied. Finally, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26 was applied to calculate the means, standard deviations, and correlations of measures.

Several statistical tests were applied to determine the model fit to the data. In the current study, we applied the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker Lewis index (TLI) root means square error of approximation (RMSEA). CFI and TLI values of .90 or greater and RMSEA values of .06 or less, indicate acceptable model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Results

Preliminary analyses

Conducting analyses at the class level was considered to be the most expedient from a theoretical viewpoint. However, it has been argued that not only should the level of analysis be established theoretically, but also psychometrically (Lüdtke et al., 2009). Thus, we calculated the ICC(1) for student-reported CEC and literacy skills in each of the 300 classes. The ICC(1) for student-reported CEC was .14 and .08 for literacy skills. These values indicate that 14% of the variance in students’ ratings of CEC and 8% of the variance in literacy skills could be attributed to the fact that students were nested in different classes. Considering classroom belongingness to some degree determined student responses on CEC and scores on literacy skills, we concluded that it would be appropriate to apply the class mean as the unit of analysis on both CEC and literacy skills.

Confirmatory factor analysis, and reliability and validity of constructs

The means, standard deviations, correlations of constructs and Cronbach’s alpha are presented in Table 1. The reliability of constructs, Cronbach’s alpha, was found to be acceptable, all exceeding a cut-off value of .70. To test whether our data fit our hypothesized study model, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. All concepts were regarded as latent factors that explain the variances in their associated, manifest variables. Results revealed high modification indices between two error terms in the CEC construct (MI = 52.701). Modification indices can be applied to determine misfit (Jøreskog & Sørbom, 1988). Moreover, correlating error terms within the same construct is acceptable (Hooper et al., 2008). Thus, we conducted a new CFA where we included a correlation between the two error terms with high modification indices in the CEC construct. Further, we conducted a chi-square difference test to evaluate whether the inclusion of the correlation significantly improved model fit, and we found that adding the additional correlation significantly improved model fit (χ² difference = 59.586, df = 2, p < .001). The final model demonstrated good fit to the data (χ² = 339.034, df = 198, RMSEA = .049, CFI = .961; TLI = .951).

Table 1. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), correlations and reliability (Cronbach’s α on the diagonal) for the study variables.

Variable	n	M	SD	CR	AVE	MSV	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.
1.Leader support	293	3.84	0.79	.909	.667	.073	(.82)
2.SE to motivate	291	3.25	0.65	.862	.610	.331	.24**	(.78)
3.SE to discipline	291	4.81	0.94	.922	.747	.331	.20**	.53**	(.86)
4.CEC	300	3.37	0.20	.878	.508	.084	.06	.01	.13*	(.71)
5.Literacy skills	300	17.82	2.94	.849	.744	.084	.06	.06	.07	.25**	(.70)

** p < .01, * p < .05 CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance explained, MSV = maximum shared variance, LS = leader support,

SE Motivate = self- efficacy to motivate, SE Discipline = self-efficacy to discipline, CEC = classroom emotional climate

Testing of structural relationships

Given that the measurement model exhibited a satisfactory fit to the data, we proceeded to construct a structural model. The results indicated that the suggested structural model fit the data well (χ² = 420.166; df = 203; RMSEA = .060, CFI = .941, TLI = .926). As shown in Figure 2, the analysis revealed positive relationships between leader support and teachers’ self-efficacy to discipline (β = .28 p < .001), and teachers’ self-efficacy to motivate (β = .23, p < .001), where teachers’ self-efficacy to motivate students demonstrated the strongest association. Hence, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Further, we found a significant association between teachers’ self-efficacy to discipline and CEC (β = .19, p < .001), whereas the association between teachers’ self-efficacy to motivate and CEC was non-significant (β = -.10). Hence, Hypothesis 2 was only partially supported. As expected, CEC was positively associated with literacy skills (β = .28, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 3. Finally, we also wanted to examine whether CEC mediated the relationship between TSE and literacy skills. A small but significant indirect association emerged between the discipline dimension of TSE and literacy skills through CEC (β = .06 p < .05, 95% [CI, .02, .11]). Conclusively, Hypothesis 4 was partially supported.

Figure 2. Associations among leader support, teacher self-efficacy, classroom emotional climate and literacy skills (χ² = 420.166; df = 203; RMSEA = .060, CFI = .941, TLI = .926) * p < .05 ** p < .01, ***p < .001. Dotted lines are non-significant.

Ad hoc assessments were conducted to control for the potential influence of each treatment condition on the outcome variable literacy skills. We created three dichotomous variables reflecting each experiment condition: Condition 0 (0 = one teacher 1 = two teachers); Condition 1 (0 = one teacher and participation in language track program, 1 = two teachers and participation in language track program) Condition 2 (0 = one teacher and participation in language track program, 1 = two teachers, participation in language track program and instructions on how to use the extra teacher resource). Thereafter, each of these conditions was regressed on literacy skills. Results revealed very little disturbance from the three experiment conditions and none of the conditions had any significant relations with literacy skills: Condition 0 (β = − 0.01, n.s.); Condition 1 (β = .10, n.s.); Condition 2 (β = 0.09, n.s.).

Discussion

Leader support as an antecedent of TSE

In the current study, we examined associations between leader support and TSE, in addition to direct and indirect relations between TSE, CEC, and literacy skills. In line with our suggested hypotheses, we found significant associations between leader support and the two dimensions of TSE included in our study, motivating students and keeping discipline. These findings are consistent with previous research that demonstrated associations between TSE and leader support (Fackler & Malmberg, 2016; Pas et al., 2012; Sehgal et al., 2017). Moreover, the relation between leader support and TSE is in line with Bandura’s (1982) theory, highlighting the importance of environmental factors in an individual’s perceptions of self-efficacy. The results revealed that leader support related most strongly to self-efficacy to motivate students, which is an interesting finding. A supportive environment created by supervisors has been found to predict intrinsic motivation among employees (Chen et al., 2016; Van Yperen & Hagedoorn, 2003). Perhaps the positive association found between leader support and self-efficacy to motivate suggests that teachers who experience support from their leaders are more motivated in their job, which might influence their self-efficacy to motivate students. Educational research has been criticized for giving too much attention to teachers’ personal characteristics in the search for understanding associations between the quality of teaching and student outcomes (Kennedy, 2010). Generally, our findings highlight the importance of also including organizational antecedents related to school leadership when investigating TSE and its associations with student outcomes.

Direct associations between TSE and CEC

The second part of our study aimed to investigate the direct and indirect relations between TSE, CEC, and literacy skills. Consistent with expectations, the results revealed significant associations between self-efficacy to discipline and CEC, which indicates that higher self-efficacy of teachers to maintain order and discipline in the classroom is associated with improved student-reported CEC. As previously noted, research on the associations between TSE and student-reported CEC is lacking. However, the teachers’ feelings of competence to preserve order in the classroom are an important dimension of a healthy classroom environment (Marzano et al., 2003). Moreover, it is well established that discipline problems have negative effects on school climate (Barnes et al., 2006; Mitchell et al., 2010) and interactions at the classroom level (Reyes et al., 2012), which is in line with the significant relationship found between the discipline dimension of TSE and student-reported CEC in our study. Motivated students have higher levels of well-being and are more engaged and curious (Reeve, 2009; Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). Thus, we hypothesized that teachers’ self-efficacy for motivating students would result in higher levels of well-being among students that might stimulate the socio-emotional relations between students positively. However, contrary to expectations, the second self-efficacy dimension included in our study, motivating students, was not significantly related to student-reported CEC. One explanation for this finding could perhaps relate to the measurement of CEC applied in our study. In previous studies where associations between CEC and aspects of TSE were found, the focus of CEC was primarily on teacher-student relations (Guo et al., 2012), rather than interactions between students. Our findings suggest that although previous studies found teacher self-efficacy for motivation to be a significant determinant for positive teacher-student relations, it is not necessarily a significant determinant for the socio-emotional relations between students. Another explanation might relate to differences in students’ age and grade levels. For instance, the two studies of Guo and colleagues were conducted on 4-year-olds in preschool (Guo et al., 2010) and on students in fifth grade (Guo et al., 2012), whereas our study was conducted on 7-year-olds in first grade. Self-efficacy to motivate and manage the classroom has been shown to vary across specific education levels, where teachers in kindergarten perceived higher self-efficacy compared to teachers in elementary school (Klassen & Chiu, 2010). Thus, one might expect that education levels also could influence associations between TSE and CEC. However, more studies are necessary before concluding on this matter.

Is CEC a mediator of the relationship between TSE and literacy skills?

Generally, TSE failed to predict literacy outcomes in previous studies (Zee & Koomen, 2016). Still, higher levels of TSE have been suggested to have a positive relationship with student outcomes, potentially through its association with higher levels of classroom quality (Guo et al., 2010). Thus, we investigated the indirect association between TSE and literacy skills through CEC. According to expectations, our findings demonstrated that the discipline dimension of self-efficacy was indirectly related to students’ literacy skills through CEC. This finding implies that although self-efficacy to discipline does not relate directly to students’ literacy skills, it may still play an important role in students’ literacy skills through its positive associations with CEC. This is an interesting finding, which suggests that when teachers believe they can prevent noise and disturbances in the classroom, students perceive the emotional interactions between them to be better, which again relates positively to students’ overall literacy skills. However, it must be noted that the indirect association was not very large in our study. Still, our finding supports Zee and Koomen’s (2016) conclusion, implying that the association between TSE and students’ literacy skills is more complex than suggested by previous research and that including mediators when investigating the TSE – literacy skills relationship is valuable.

Conclusions and implications

Teachers who experience support from their leaders tend to have higher TSE. Further, teachers’ self-efficacy to discipline was positively related to CEC, which again was positively related to students’ literacy skills. Finally, self-efficacy to discipline was related to students’ literacy skills indirectly through CEC. Our findings contribute to the research field in at least three ways. First, our study contributes to research on management factors as antecedents of TSE, which is important considering research on this topic has been scarce (Klassen et al., 2011). Second, research on the relation between TSE and CEC has been lacking (Zee & Koomen, 2016), and evidence regarding indirect links between TSE, classroom processes, and student achievement has been missing (Zee & Koomen, 2016). In the current study, we addressed both limitations. Third, to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the association between TSE and CEC on students at such a young age, in addition to applying students’ perceptions when measuring CEC.

This study has several implications. First, school managers must be aware of the importance of supporting their teachers to enhance TSE related to keeping discipline in the classroom and motivating students. We urge school managers to focus on creating a work environment where teachers find it natural to seek advice if they experience difficulties with student misbehavior and student motivation. Creating mutual trust and respect with the teachers must be considered important in this regard. School management should keep in mind that strengthening teachers’ sense of efficacy related to discipline seems to be especially important. Finally, both school management and teachers need to focus on establishing a warm classroom environment that facilitates interpersonal relationships between students, as this will be beneficial for students’ literacy skills.

Limitations, strengths, and future research

The present study has at least three limitations that should be mentioned. First, the study was cross-sectional, meaning we are unable to draw causal inferences concerning the studied relationships. For instance, concerning the association between leader support and TSE, an alternative explanation could be that teachers who report having a strong sense of self-efficacy perceive leaders to be more supportive. Furthermore, a sound CEC might contribute to a stronger sense of self-efficacy to discipline. Thus, it would be valuable for future research to examine reversed and reciprocal associations between these variables to make more substantial conclusions about their relationship. Second, the data related to leader support, TSE, and CEC applied in our study was derived from self-reports, which can increase problems related to common method variance. Still, obtaining independent and dependent variables from different sources may have reduced problems related to common method variance (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). In the current study, CEC was derived from student reports. However, in future studies, it would be interesting to see whether similar results were obtained with observational data on CEC. Third, caution should be taken when generalizing the results, considering the study was conducted with teachers and students in a Norwegian school context, where schools participated voluntarily in the research project. However, the large sample strengthens the generalizability of our findings. Nonetheless, we urge that future research examine similar associations also in different contexts, and at different grade levels, as such contextual factors might have implications for our results.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the schools, students, and teachers for participating in this research project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Norwegian Research Council [grant no 256197].