Evaluation of the self-efficacy of the university teacher: a systematic review of the literature

Evaluation of the self-efficacy of the university teacher: a systematic review of the literature

Evaluación de la autoeficacia del docente universitario: una revisión sistemática de la literatura

Avaliação da autoeficácia do professor universitário: uma revisão sistemática da literatura

**Cite as**
Vega Rodríguez, Y., & Vizcaíno Escobar, AE (2023). Evaluation of the self-efficacy of the university teacher: a systematic review of the literature. Mendive. Revista de Educación, 21(3), e3193. https://mendive.upr.edu.cu/index.php/MendiveUPR/article/view/3193

Teacher self-efficacy is a construct whose study has increased in recent years. Since the emergence of the category, various instruments have been designed for its evaluation. The objective of the study was oriented to determine the dimensions of teaching self-efficacy of university professors, which have been evaluated in research in the last five years. For this, a systematic review of the literature was carried out with six articles indexed in the Scielo, Redalyc, Dialnet and Redib databases, in the period 2018 to 2022. Analysis questions were raised such as: which scales have been validated for the evaluation of teaching self-efficacy in university teaching staff? what are the dimensions that they evaluate? what criteria are the basis for the selection of said dimensions? The predominant use of the self-efficacy scale of the university teaching staff of the year 2005 and its dimensions for the evaluation of the construct were identified. The findings led to determine the presence of 10 dimensions evaluated globally in the teaching self-efficacy of the university professor. In addition, the need to propose dimensions of self-efficacy of the university teacher consistent with the dynamics of Higher Education was identified, according to the changes in education in the 21st century.

Keywords: teacher self-efficacy; teacher self-efficacy dimensions; University teacher; teacher self-efficacy scale.

La autoeficacia docente es un constructo cuyo estudio se ha incrementado en los últimos años. Desde el surgimiento de la categoría se han diseñado diversos instrumentos para su evaluación. El objetivo del estudio se orientó a determinar las dimensiones de la autoeficacia docente, del profesorado universitario, que han sido evaluadas en investigaciones en los últimos cinco años. Para ello se realizó una revisión sistemática de literatura con seis artículos indexados en las bases de datos Scielo, Redalyc, Dialnet y Redib, en el período 2018 al 2022. Se plantearon interrogantes de análisis como: ¿qué escalas se han validado para la evaluación de la autoeficacia docente en el profesorado universitario?, ¿cuáles son las dimensiones que evalúan?, ¿qué criterios fundamentan la selección de dichas dimensiones? Se identificó el empleo predominante de la escala de autoeficacia del profesorado universitario del año 2005 y sus dimensiones para la evaluación del constructo. Los hallazgos condujeron a determinar la presencia de 10 dimensiones evaluadas de forma global en la autoeficacia docente del profesor universitario. Además, se identificó la necesidad de proponer dimensiones de autoeficacia del docente universitario coherentes con la dinámica de la Educación Superior, de acuerdo a los cambios de la educación en el siglo XXI.

Palabras clave: autoeficacia docente; dimensiones de autoeficacia docente; docente universitario; escala de autoeficacia docente.

A autoeficácia docente é um constructo cujo estudo tem aumentado nos últimos anos. Desde o surgimento da categoria, diversos instrumentos foram concebidos para sua avaliação. O objetivo do estudo orientou-se a determinar as dimensões da autoeficácia docente de docentes universitários, que têm sido avaliadas em pesquisas nos últimos cinco anos. Para isso, foi realizada uma revisão sistemática da literatura com seis artigos indexados nas bases de dados Scielo, Redalyc, Dialnet e Redib, no período de 2018 a 2022. Foram levantadas questões de análise como: quais escalas foram validadas para avaliação de autoeficácia docente em docentes universitários?, quais são as dimensões que avaliam?, que critérios fundamentam a seleção de tais dimensões? Identificou-se o uso predominante da escala de autoeficácia dos docentes universitários do ano de 2005 e suas dimensões para a avaliação do constructo. Os achados levaram a determinar a presença de 10 dimensões avaliadas globalmente na autoeficácia docente do professor universitário. Além disso, identificou-se a necessidade de propor dimensões de autoeficácia do professor universitário condizentes com a dinâmica do Ensino Superior, de acordo com as mudanças na educação no século XXI.

Palavras-chave: autoeficácia docente; dimensões da autoeficácia docente; Professor universitário; escala de autoeficácia do professor.

The understanding of teacher self-efficacy as a construct has its genesis in two theoretical positions: the Social Learning Theory, represented by Julian Rotter, and the Social Cognitive Theory, whose representative is Albert Bandura. Both authors delimit definitions of the category based on the epistemological foundations of their theories.

Assuming the perspective of Julian Rotter, based on the locus of control, the first studies referring to teacher self-efficacy were carried out by researchers from the RAND Corporation (Research and Development), pioneers in the investigation of teacher self-efficacy (Prieto, 2002). However, Hernández and Ceniceros (2018) explain that the locus of control lacks impact in predicting and improving the various aspects of pedagogical and student functioning in educational contexts.

Within the framework of investigations from Bandura's perspective, the studies of Gibson and Dembo are located, who in the 1980s tried to reconcile Rotter's proposal and Bandura's postulates. As a result, they developed a combined conceptual framework that also allows the evaluation of the two basic aspects of teacher self-efficacy: expectations of results or general teaching self-efficacy and expectations of self-efficacy or personal teaching self-efficacy (Prieto, 2007). The instrument proposed by these authors "has been frequently used and represents the origin of a new conception of the construct, which comes to be understood as a combination of general and personal teaching self-efficacy" (Prieto, 2012, p. 123).

Under the notion of teacher self-efficacy proposed by Gibson and Dembo, various construct evaluation instruments were designed; However, almost a decade after its proposal, other researchers began to carry out studies that denoted some shortcomings in the interpretation of the construct and, therefore, in its proper measurement.

One of the proposed instruments is the teacher's sense of efficacy scale known as TSES (Teacher's Sense of effectiveness Scale) for its acronym in English. The scale consists of a long form (24 items) and a short form (12 items) that evaluate aspects related to the effectiveness of student participation, the effectiveness of instructional practices, and the effectiveness of classroom management (Tschannen -Moran and Today, 2001).

More recently, Professor Leonor Prieto Navarro stands out, who proposes an instrument with solid psychometric properties, faithful to the foundations of social cognitive theory and is considered the first researcher to carry out an in-depth study on self-efficacy beliefs. teacher of the university teaching staff (Bandura and Pajares as cited in Prieto, 2012).

In the analysis of teacher self-efficacy, it is necessary to consider that there is confusion when understanding its theoretical nature and the most suitable methodological approach for its evaluation, and that any discussion of a theoretical nature on the concept becomes an obligatory reflection on the most appropriate instruments for its evaluation. its measure (Prieto, 2012).

"The relationship between teachers' beliefs and their teaching practices represents one of the permanent concerns of educational research" (Prieto, 2002, p. 1) and currently "more and more approaches and educational models pick up on its importance and consider its transversal nature to university functions" (Sarmiento, 2020, p. 131). Therefore, teacher self-efficacy becomes the object of analysis in various studies.

The beliefs of university professors must be evaluated in a context of new demands on educational systems based on sustainable development goals; the need for changes in teaching methodologies and scenarios as a result of epidemiological situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic; the relevance of academic exchanges through mobility and professional networks; permanent improvement as an imperative. Given these emerging factors, how are teachers' beliefs in relation to their capacity for professional performance being configured and expressed?

Teacher self-efficacy refers to the beliefs that teachers have about their abilities to perform the tasks inherent to their professional practice. Its evaluation currently becomes an instrument to identify areas with better results and less favorable performance. On this basis, it is possible to propose specific actions as part of the improvement plans of the teaching departments and the individual development plans of the teachers.

On this basis, questions are raised: have new instruments been validated for the evaluation of teaching self-efficacy in university professors? What dimensions are considered relevant to evaluate to account for the self-efficacy of university professors? What theoretical criteria and/or or methodological bases the selection of the dimensions to be evaluated? Based on the above, the objective of this study is to determine the dimensions of the teaching self-efficacy of university professors that have been evaluated in research in the last five years.

The type of study that was carried out is framed within the systematic literature reviews. These are defined as a type of research that collects and provides a summary on a specific topic and is oriented to answer a research question (Aguilera, 2014). The PRISMA Declaration (Preferred reporting items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses) as a guide to plan, prepare and publish research and improve the integrity of the report that is presented (Hutton, Catalá-López and Moher, 2016). A qualitative systematic review was developed, therefore the evidence obtained is presented descriptively and without statistical analysis (Aguilera, 2014).

The search was carried out in the open access databases Scientific Electronic Library Online (Scielo), Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina y el Caribe, España y Portugal (Redalyc), Alert Service and Virtual Newspaper Library of summaries of Spanish scientific journals. (Dialnet) and the Ibero-American Network for Innovation and Scientific Knowledge (Redib). The search syntax "scale" AND "teacher self-efficacy" was used. The criteria for the selection of the records were the following.

4. The teacher self-efficacy construct is evaluated in university teaching staff.

5. Validation studies of teaching self-efficacy scales of university professors.

1. PhD theses, books, book chapters, conference proceedings or other type of publication.

2. The teaching self-efficacy of university professors is not specified as an object of analysis.

3. The teacher self-efficacy construct is evaluated in teaching levels other than Higher Education or in teachers in training.

The selection process of the records was carried out according to the following stages:

The search, selection, eligibility, and analysis of the studies were carried out in the months of April, May, and June 2022, with the selection process ending on June 15, 2022.

As a result of the Identification (1st stage) 159 records were found among the four databases consulted. Subsequently, the filtering options were applied and 48 records were obtained, 13 of them duplicates, resulting in 35 records in the Selection (2^nd stage). Eligibility (3^rd stage) was carried out, based on the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria declared for this stage and six records were obtained for analysis.

From the implementation of the search strategy, the following records were analyzed.

Table 1- Distribution of the articles included in the systematic literature review

No	Author(s)	Year	Language	database
1	Carvalho et al.	2021	English	Scielo
2	Salles et al.	2020	English	Scielo
3	Hernandez and Ashtrays	2018	Spanish	Scielo
4	Churches and Galicia	2018	Spanish	Redalyc
5	sarmiento	2020	Spanish	Dialnet
6	Gimenez and Morales	2019	Spanish	Dialnet

In the selected studies, analyzes of the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and other categories such as emotional intelligence (Giménez and Morales, 2019), teacher performance (Hernández and Ceniceros, 2018) and factors associated with teaching practice (Salles et al., 2018) were identified. (2020). In another sense, Carvalho et al. (2021) evaluated the expression of teacher self-efficacy regarding the use of new teaching methodologies in the field of medical education. For their part, Iglesias and Galicia (2018) verified in their research the positive changes in the self-efficacy of university teachers from the participation in self-observation workshops. In addition, Sarmiento (2020) proposed the design and validation of a scale to measure the self-efficacy of university teachers within the regional context; This is due to the need, from the point of view of quality in Higher Education, of having a scale that would allow the evaluation of the construct.

One of the pieces of evidence from recent studies on the construct makes it possible to identify the positive correlation between teacher self-efficacy and teacher performance (Hernández and Ceniceros, 2018). The teachers participating in the research showed favorable ways for the development of their practice, which was expressed in attitudes and ideas aimed at improving their own performance and that of their students.

Giménez and Morales (2019) set out to observe through their research what levels of teaching self-efficacy are shown by university professors and if this has some type of correlation with the emotional intelligence variable. To do this, they took as their starting point "the discoveries of recent research (...) in which the influence of the perception of abilities and skills on emotions is demonstrated and, at the same time, how it affects levels of emotional intelligence to the same" (Giménez and Morales, 2019, p. 143). It should be noted that the study findings did not observe an interrelationship between teacher self-efficacy and emotional intelligence.

However, on the one hand, Giménez and Morales (2019) assessed that the ability to recognize one's own emotions decreases to the extent that people see themselves as more capable of spending time evaluating students, which could become a problem. indication of the first symptoms of burnout. On the other hand, they considered that an aspect such as the academic category, specifically tenured and assistant professors, would favor greater emotional clarity and, with it, a better organization of time. This is an interesting look at teacher self-efficacy and its different angles of analysis.

Iglesias and Galicia (2018) evaluated in their study the impact of a self-observation workshop on the self-efficacy of the university teacher. To do this, they applied the self-efficacy scale of university teachers before and after the workshop. The results evidenced the significant change in the expression of self-efficacy of the teachers who participated in the study. Some of the self-observation exercises included in the workshops were: what do I have to do and what do I not have to do, self-assessment of the image as a teacher, analysis of the teacher's evaluation issued by the students, and analysis of personal and contextual factors in planning. of a class.

In his study, Sarmiento (2020) started from the thesis that there is currently little scientific literature referring to scales for measuring teacher self-efficacy. On this basis, he carried out a non-experimental, cross-sectional study focused on psychometric aspects, with the aim of validating an instrument for the evaluation of teacher self-efficacy in the university context.

One of the studies analyzed took into account the sources of self-efficacy described by Bandura (direct experiences or performance achievements, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and states of psychological and emotional activation) and their relationship with teacher self-efficacy. Carvalho et al. (2021) identified that the factors of social persuasion and vicarious learning were the most approved and these results suggested that both sources are the ones that interfere the most in the formation of the beliefs of the research participants.

Salles et al. (2020) investigated self-efficacy profiles and factors associated with teaching practice in the Physical Education department of a Brazilian university. As a result, they identified high levels of teacher self-efficacy, both in the general field and in the specific dimensions of professional practice; in addition to strong associations between the dimensions of teacher self-efficacy.

Table 2- Instruments used to assess the self-efficacy of the university teacher

Instruments to assess teacher self-efficacy	Teaching self-efficacy scale of the university professor. Leonor Prieto Navarro	Teacher Self-efficacy Scale (TSES)	University Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (ESCADU)
Studies in which it is used	Giménez and Morales (2019) Hernández and Ceniceros (2018) Iglesias and Galicia (2018) Salles et al. (2020)	Carvalho et al. (2021)	Sarmiento (2020)

In the studies analyzed as part of the systematic review of the literature, 10 dimensions were considered globally through three scales for the evaluation of the teaching self-efficacy of the university professor.

The university professor's teaching self-efficacy scale proposed by Leonor Prieto Navarro is made up of 44 items that correspond to "four major dimensions of university teaching: teaching planning, the active involvement of students in their learning, positive interaction in the classroom and the evaluation of learning and the teaching function (self-assessment)" (Prieto, 2012, p. 174).

Each of these dimensions includes didactic strategies that "reflect the characteristic teaching activities of all university professors, so that the instrument becomes, to a certain extent, a complete guide to focus the reflection of professors on their teaching practice" (Prieto, 2012, pp. 177-178). So, this scale focuses on the evaluation of the teaching self-efficacy of the university professor considering his specific actions in the classroom; Prieto (2012) also notes that these didactic strategies are adequate to move towards a quality teaching-learning process in the university context.

Two important emergents are noted in the proposal of this scale and its analysis. On the one hand, notions regarding the quality of the teaching-learning process in Higher Education are considered, and on the other hand, teaching activities are emphasized as one of the processes managed by university professors, although it is not the only one.

Carvalho et al. (2021) fundamentally evaluated two dimensions: the effectiveness in class management and the effectiveness in the teacher's intentionality of action, through an adapted scale. The instrument that constituted its reference was the Ohio State teacher effectiveness Scale presented by Tschannen -Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001).

Sarmiento (2020) presented a self-efficacy scale for university teachers, based on the consideration that "teacher self-efficacy stands out as an important mediator of academic practice and the teaching-learning process in the university environment" (p. 131). Previously, reference was made to the fact that teaching activities are not per se the only activity carried out by Higher Education professors, and Sarmiento's proposal to assess the teaching self-efficacy of university professors contemplates dimensions that transcend teaching itself.

The author confers novelty to the scale proposed by the dimensions that he proposes to study and "highlights the dimension of University Social Responsibility (...) since it considers within the measurement of teacher self-efficacy a construct that is transversal to all functions of the university and from which the university teacher is no stranger" (Sarmiento, 2020, p. 140).

The University Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (ESCADU) is made up of 24 items grouped into four dimensions: academic management, educational strategies, continuous improvement, and university social responsibility. Even though Sarmiento (2020) explains that the ESCADU was designed based on an exhaustive review of the literature; The criteria from which the dimensions and their various contents were chosen are not explicitly stated.

Table 3- Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy evaluated in the five-year period 2018-2022

Instruments to assess teacher self-efficacy	Teaching self-efficacy scale of the university professor. Leonor Prieto Navarro	Teacher Self-efficacy Scale (TSES)	University Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (ESCADU)
Dimensions of the teaching self-efficacy of the university professor	Teaching planning. Student involvement. Interact with students. Evaluation of learning and the teaching function.	Effectiveness for managing the class. Intentionality of the teacher's action.	Academic management. educational strategies. continuous improvement. University social responsibility.

When considering these dimensions, it is necessary to keep in mind that the assessment of teachers' self-efficacy beliefs must be extended to measure their multifaceted nature (Bandura, 1997). This is because the teacher's sense of efficacy in teaching is not necessarily uniform across different subjects. This being the case, Bandura (1997) explained that teachers who judge themselves highly effective in teaching mathematics and science may be much less sure of their effectiveness in teaching language and vice versa.

This approach leads us to reflect on: what are the tasks that university professors currently assume? Do these tasks refer only to the field of teaching? In what contexts do university professors work? What modifications do they imply or do these contexts condition the self-efficacy of the teacher in Higher Education?

The transformations of today's society require high levels of quality and professional and personal competitiveness of university teachers. For this reason, it is necessary that the teachers of the XXI century university update themselves systematically and develop the skills and abilities required for the performance of their profession (Arias et al., 2018).

During the III Regional Conference on Higher Education in 2018, "(...) teachers were considered as key actors in efficiently directing the Sustainable Development Goals (...)" (Henríquez, 2018, p. 75). It is in relation to this important task that Henríquez (2018) highlights the need for teachers to receive guarantees of skills training for effective professional performance and as researchers.

The current socio-educational context has determined the transition towards understanding the teaching practice in terms of professional teaching skills; the need for permanent professional development that guarantees the updating of the teacher according to the changes that occur from the international, national and local sphere; and the recognition of the investigative work as part of the profile of the university professor.

When taking a panoramic view of the dimensions that evaluate the teaching self-efficacy of the university professor in the studies analyzed, it is noted that those aspects focused on the didactics of the teaching-learning process predominate. However, the conception of what should characterize the being and know-how of university teachers today has been modified. Therefore, it is pertinent to consider other indicators or variables regarding teacher self-efficacy, which allow a more adjusted measure to the current practice of the profession.

It is no longer a question of focusing the self-efficacy of the university teacher solely on teaching and learning with the various processes that it implies. It should also be assessed what new skills, values, knowledge teachers require in their performance. This is based on responding to the demands of promoting lifelong learning in students and the contribution to sustainable development, from their professional role.

Several authors have referred to the notion of professional competencies of the university teacher (Varcárcel, 2003; Zabalza, 2003 and Perrenoud, 2004; as cited in Arias et al., 2018). Based on the considerations they exposed, competencies related to teaching and others of a more global nature referring to the quality of teaching itself and the performance of the university professor in a general sense are identified.

Among the competencies related to teaching are: knowledge of the student's learning process in academic and natural contexts; selection and preparation of disciplinary contents; offer information, understandable and well-organized explanations; design of the methodology, use of relevant teaching methods and techniques, and organization of activities; the management of didactic interaction and relations with students; and the evaluation, control and regulation of teaching and learning itself ( Varcárcel , 2003; Zabalza, 2003 and Perrenoud, 2004; as cited in Arias et al. , 2018).

Competencies related to the management of Information and Communication Technologies, reflection, research, teamwork, identification with the institution and participation in its management, managing their own professional development as a teacher and organizing their continuous training (Varcárcel, 2003; Zabalza, 2003 and Perrenoud, 2004 as cited in Arias et al., 2018).

Grosso modo it is identified that the spheres in which university teachers must perform are diverse, and thus also the goals that they must achieve. Considering that perceived self-efficacy refers to people's beliefs in their ability to produce certain achievements (Bandura, 1997), it is necessary to analyze how the beliefs of university professors are configured in their competencies for the exercise of the profession.

In this way, the singularity of self-efficacy as a construct, applied to the field of the exercise of the teaching role, allows us to identify the existence of self-efficacy beliefs linked to professional competences understood as fields of operation. For this reason, there may be, for example, teachers with high levels of efficiency for managing the teaching-learning process, but with low levels of efficiency for managing research and teamwork.

This particularity of teacher self-efficacy was verified in the study by Hernández and Ceniceros (2018), who identified a lower self-efficacy value to develop and apply didactic strategies to assess learning in university teachers. Even within each of the dimensions analyzed, self-assessed aspects were identified in a more positive way and others with a less positive assessment (Hernández and Ceniceros, 2018).

Regarding the evaluation of teacher self-efficacy, Bandura (1997), as cited in Tschannen -Moran and Hoy, 2001), recommends including various levels of task demands, so that respondents indicate the strength of their efficacy beliefs. in light of a variety of impediments or obstacles and providing a wide range of response options. For this reason, when conceiving the evaluation of the teaching self-efficacy of the university professor, it is imperative to include in the scales designed all those fields, terrains and/or domains of operation (assuming here the categories used by Bandura), which are present in the actions of the teacher. Only in this way will it be possible to obtain a measure closer to self-efficacy regarding professional practice, considering, as explained by Tschannen -Moran and Hoy (2001), that the greatest challenge has to do with finding the optimal level of specificity for the measurement.

An analysis of the professional competences of the university professor would allow an approximation to the proposal of possible dimensions to be evaluated in the self-efficacy of the university professor. This analysis would have to consider teaching as a domain of operation and the understanding of its performance from the perspective of professional skills.

The systematic review of the literature made it possible to determine that in the evaluation of the teaching self-efficacy of the university professor in the last five years (2018-2022) 10 dimensions have been considered in a general way.

In the records analyzed, the predominance in the use of the Self-efficacy Scale of University Professors proposed by Leonor Prieto Navarro in her doctoral thesis in 2005 was identified. This instrument is used in four of the six records studied and evaluates planning as dimensions. of teaching, active involvement in learning, interaction in the classroom and evaluation of learning and the teaching function. Other dimensions such as the effectiveness of class management and the effectiveness of the intentionality of the teacher's action are evaluated in the Teacher Self Efficacy Scale. In addition, dimensions such as academic management, educational strategies, continuous improvement, and social and university responsibility are analyzed through a scale designed and validated in 2020.

The analysis and evaluation of the teaching self-efficacy of the university professor has been carried out in the last five years with a focus mainly oriented to the management of the teaching-learning process. Thus, the evaluation of the beliefs held by university professors about their abilities to guide, conduct, and evaluate student learning has prevailed. However, it was identified that the aspects related to continuous improvement from the self-assessment of the teaching function also have relevance in two of the three scales analyzed.

From the methodological point of view, the studies analyzed adhere to the more general guidelines that guide the study of self-efficacy from sociocognitive theory. That is, the analysis of different dimensions that account for the subject's self-efficacy in a given domain of functioning is considered. However, at the theoretical level, more well-founded analyzes are required to identify the singularities of the activity domain being evaluated. This is because the predominance of an approach oriented towards the strategies used in the teaching-learning process is identified in the evaluation of the teacher's self-efficacy.

At present, the exercise of teaching is referred to from a conception of professional competences. This vision is coherent with the current socio-educational conditions and the demands that they imply for Higher Education institutions. The need to carry out designs and validation of teaching self-efficacy scales of the university professor that contemplate competences that transcend the teaching process itself, and that gain relevance in the profile of the 21st century teacher: research, teamwork, identity with the university, continuing education.

For this reason, it is necessary to clarify what profile of university professor is currently considered, what model of university it responds to, what are the tasks that distinguish the exercise of the role, what competences must be considered as part of the profession. All this must be assessed prior to the evaluation of teacher self-efficacy, so that a measure of the construct can be obtained that is more adjusted to reality and that becomes an indicator for the professional development of teachers, according to their context of performance. The results obtained would perfect improvement plans for the sake of permanent professional development and the quality of Higher Education institutions.

Aguilera-Eguía, R. (2014). ¿Revisión sistemática, revisión narrativa o metaanálisis? Revista de la Sociedad Española del Dolor, 21, 359-360. https://doi.org/10.4321/S1134-80462014000600010

Arias Gómez, M. de L., Arias Gómez, E., Arias Gómez, J., Ortiz Molina, M. M. & Garza García, M. G. del C. (2018). Perfil y competencias del docente universitario recomendados por la UNESCO y la OCDE. Atlante Cuadernos de Educación y Desarrollo. https://www.eumed.net/rev/atlante/2018/06/competencias-docente-universitario.html

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (pp. ix, 604). W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.

Carvalho Bressa, R., Santina Murgo, C. & Soares Sena, B. C. (2021). Associations between teacher self-efficacy and the use of Objective Structured Clinical Examination in medical education. Revista Brasileira de Educação Médica, 45. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5271v45.1-20200130.ING

Giménez-Lozano, J. M. & Morales-Rodríguez, F. M. (2019). Relación entre las creencias de autoeficacia y los niveles de inteligencia emocional en docentes universitarios. Revista INFAD de Psicología. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology., 1(1), Art. 1. https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2019.n1.v1.1399

Hernández Jácquez, L. F. & Ceniceros Cázares, D. I. (2018). Autoeficacia docente y desempeño docente, ¿una relación entre variables? Innovación Educativa, 18(78), 171-192.

Hutton, B., Catalá-López, F. & Moher, D. (2016). La extensión de la declaración PRISMA para revisiones sistemáticas que incorporan metaanálisis en red: PRISMA-NMA. Medicina Clínica, 147(6), 262-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2016.02.025

Iglesias Marrero, J. & Galicia Moyeda, I. X. (2018). El Impacto de la Auto-Observación en la Autoeficacia del Docente Universitario. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 32(3), 113-126.

Prieto Navarro, L. (2002). El análisis de las creencias de autoeficacia: Un avance hacia el desarrollo profesional del docente. Miscelánea Comillas: Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, 60(117), 591-612.

Salles, W., Folle, A., Farias, G. & Vieira, J. (2020). Teaching self-efficacy and factors associated with the teaching practice of physical education faculty. Journal of Physical Education, 31. https://doi.org/10.4025/jphyseduc.v31i1.3116

Sarmiento Peralta, G. G. (2020). Diseño y validación de una escala de autoeficacia del docente universitario. REDU Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 18(2), 131-142.

The authors participated in the design and writing of the work, and analysis of the documents.