The construct of self-efficacy is often associated with improved performance (Schunk, 1995) and much research has been dedicated to examining the role of teacher and student efficacy on academic performance (Gore, 2006; Lorsbach & Jinks, 1999). However, while research has assessed the relationship of efficacy to numerous variables, little is known about students' perceptions of these teaching methods. Therefore, the purpose of this exploratory study was to assess students' perceptions of the frequency and effectiveness of various efficacy-enhancing techniques instructors use when teaching. Participants for this project included 309 undergraduate students from a large Southwestern university. Of reporting participants, 132 were male and 95 were female with a median age of 22 years (M = 23.37, SD = 4.92). Students completed a survey instrument adapted from Gould, Hodge, Peterson, and Giannini (1989). Students were asked to give two ratings regarding a list of instructional techniques used to increase self-efficacy in students. The first rating assessed perceived usage of the 16 efficacy-enhancing techniques through the use of a 5-point Likert scale (“How often does your instructor use this technique”: 1, never to 5, often) and had a reported Cronbach's alpha of .82. The second rating assessed students' perceived effectiveness of each technique (“How effective is this technique”: 1, not effective to 5, very effective) and had a Cronbach's alpha of .88. Descriptive analyses found that students perceived instructors to use most frequently the techniques of the instructor acting confident him/herself and the instructor encouraging questions. The lowest reported used techniques were giving difficult lectures and exams. Students reported the techniques of instructors encouraging questions and verbally persuading students of their capability to be the most effective efficacy enhancing techniques. The techniques of giving difficult lectures and pointing out similar students who have achieved success were considered to be the least effective techniques. Additional analyses were conducted to assess potential gender differences. One way MANOVAs were conducted on male and female students' perceptions, using the 16 items as dependent measures. Results were not considered significant for either frequency of use, F(16, 192) = 1.16, p > .05 or for effectiveness, F(16, 182) = 1.38, p > .05. Practical application and recommendations for future research will be discussed.