NOTE TO USERS

Page(s) missing in number only; text follows. The manuscript was microfilmed as received.

30

This reproduction is the best copy available.

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

The Influence of Teachers Perceptions of School Climate, Individual Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Expectations on Collective Teacher Efficacy in Public Elementary Schools

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School

of

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Human Development and Psychoeducational Studies

by

Persephone T. Brown

Washington, D.C. May 2009

UMI Number: 3369658

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

______________________________________________________________
UMI Microform 3369658 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________
ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

HOWARD UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL STUDIES DISSERTATION COMMITTEE

____________________________________ Aaron B. Stills, Ph.D. Chairperson

____________________________________ Constance M. Ellison, Ph.D.

____________________________________ Gerunda B. Hughes, Ph.D.

____________________________________ Velma D. LaPoint, Ph.D.

____________________________________ Darren Woodruff, Ph.D. Principal Research Analyst American Institutes for Research (AIR)

____________________________________ Constance M. Ellison, Ph.D. Dissertation Advisor

Candidate: Persephone T. Brown Date of Defense: April 17, 2009

ii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Persephone LaPrince-Brown, a lifelong learner, master teacher and magnanimous soul. After GOD, she is the wind beneath my wings. I also dedicate my dissertation to my father, Robert Marion Brown, Jr. His love, words of wisdom and encouragement always uplift my spirit. I am honored and delighted to be their daughter. And, to my brother, Dr. Robert Marion Brown III, I dedicate this dissertation for his big brotherly love, keen eye and expertise, which helped propel me to a higher level of tenacity and scholarship. This work is in remembrance of my maternal grandparents, Joseph and Elizabeth LaPrince, my paternal grandparents, Robert and Delphine Brown, Aunt Hannah KatrinaNelson and Uncle Alphonso Ulysses LaPrince. This dissertation is also dedicated to Dr. Edith Irby Jones, Senator Edward Moore Kennedy, the lost and living souls of Hurricane Katrina and President Barack Hussein Obama. Their dignity, fortitude and grace, despite considerable adversity, have and continue to greatly inspire me.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Throughout this journey, GOD has always been with me every step. GODs most perfect love, countless blessings and divine intervention have guided and propelled me during this process. I am humbly grateful and thankful for HIS everlasting grace and mercy. I thank Dr. Constance Ellison my dissertation advisor. It is because of Dr. Ellison that the researchers resolve to meet the challenges associated with this process was heightened. Dr. Ellison reinforced my belief that success is the result of dedication, hard work, perseverance and diligence. I could not have finished this process without Dr. Ellisons expertise, advice and guidance. I thank Dr. Gerunda Hughes for her meticulous statistical expertise. Over time, she expanded my understanding and appreciation of quantitative research. I thank Dr. Velma LaPoint for her knowledge of theory and policy. She broadened my perspective of those domains, which was beneficial for me. I thank Dr. Rosalie Boone for taking the time to read my dissertation proposal and providing positive affirmations. Her encouraging words enhanced my motivation to conduct quality research. I thank Dr. Aaron Stills, who filled in for Dr. Boone, without hesitation, on such short notice. I am very grateful for his time, support and expertise. I thank Dr. Darren Woodruff for being my external evaluator. I greatly appreciate his time, support and input. I thank my parents and brother for their unwavering support, unconditional love and instilling in me the importance of being my own best advocate. I thank my aunt, Nancy LaPrince Fordham for being a prayer warrior on my behalf, which made a great difference for me. I am also indebted to so many others who have and continue to enrich my life.

iv

These are very special individuals who made such a tremendous difference throughout my tenure as a doctoral student with their prayers, words of wisdom, loving kindness, humor and expertise. I thank my spiritual mentor, Madame Claudette Dean for her insight, counsel and always telling me that everything is in divine order. I thank my other spiritual mentor and dear friend, Ms. Imogene Love who prayed with me, encouraged me and when I needed it, reminded me to Stand. I thank Dr. Edwin Nichols for his sage advice and insight. I am very grateful for the time that he devoted to my dissertation process. Dr. Nichols is an erudite individual in the truest sense. I thank Judge and Mrs. Gadsden and Ms. Natalie Kearns for their prayers, words of encouragement and support. You are very dear to me. I thank my special friends Dr. David Graham, Dr. Alex Lugo, Dr. Nicole Huby, Dr. Muriel Kennedy and Mr. Derrick Hull for their constant support and wonderful friendship. They are stellar examples of integrity, humanity, compassion and blessings to me. I thank Dr. Kathy Philyaw and Dr. Alana Harris for their sisterly support, pearls of wisdom, checking on me with telephone calls and special outings, which I cherished. I thank Ms. Gloria Lloyd for the tuition scholarships and for being such a wonderful person. It is such a pleasure knowing and having her in my life. Thank you, Dr. Emmanuel Sikali, for your time and statistical expertise. I thank the principals and teachers of the Prince Georges County Public Schools. Despite their very hectic schedules, they took the time to complete the survey packets for my dissertation research. Their friendly disposition, readiness to participate in my study and the words of encouragement that they provided really touched my heart. I could not have done my research without them. Finally, I give very special recognition and tribute to Ms. Melanie Caldwell and Dr. Arega Negero. If it had not been for Ms. Caldwells assiduous recruitment of schools for my

study, my dissertation research would not have been completed. I greatly appreciate her extraordinary effort and accommodation on my behalf. Ms. Caldwell, a truly lovely lady, was a godsend. I could not have completed this process without her help. Dr. Negero, from start to finish, selflessly provided me with his time, assistance and expertise. I greatly appreciate the time and effort he took on my behalf, which helped to elevate the level of scholarship of my dissertation. Dr. Negero, is an exemplary researcher and professor. And, his humanity has been a considerable source of encouragement. I thank both Ms. Caldwell and Dr. Negero for being such great blessings to me. They have truly been my angels during this entire dissertation process.

vi

ABSTRACT School climate, individual teacher efficacy, teacher expectations and collective teacher efficacy have been investigated in numerous studies. However, there is a dearth of research that has explored teachers perceptions of these school characteristics in urban public elementary schools. This study examined whether teachers perceptions of school climate, individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations significantly influenced perceived collective teacher efficacy. The study sample included third grade teachers and fifth grade teachers from a large, metropolitan, urban school district in Maryland. The stratified variables for this study were years of teaching and school type (low-income, high-income). Ten low-income schools and eight high-income schools were randomly selected from the convenience sample. Then, a random sample of third and fifth grade teachers from each strata was selected. Approximately 74 third grade teachers and 76 fifth grade teachers participated in this study. Multiple regression analysis results showed that the independent variables school climate and teacher expectations were significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy among the public elementary school teachers sampled (H1). School climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations were significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy (H4). However, multiple regression results revealed that H2, H3 were not supported. The demographic variables years of teaching experience and grade level were not significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy (H2). Years of teaching experience and grade level were also insignificant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy, (H3). In addition, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) results did not support H5. There were no significant differences between school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations, based on school type and teacher certification (H5). It is recommended that

vii

future investigators examine the relationship between school climate, individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations on collective teacher efficacy in other settings, such as non-urban public elementary schools (i.e., rural, suburban) to determine whether the results from these studies would be applicable and relevant to demographically diverse school populations.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iv ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................. 4 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................ 4 Research Questions and Hypotheses ....................................................................................... 5 Definitions of Relevant Terms ................................................................................................. 6 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ...................................................... 8 Theoretical Framework: Ecological and Social Constructionist Perspectives ................... 9 School Climate ......................................................................................................................... 12 Social Cognitive Theory and Perceived Individual Teacher Efficacy................................ 16 Teaching Experience and Grade Level Influences on Teacher Efficacy Beliefs ............... 19 Teacher Expectations.............................................................................................................. 21 Perceived Collective Teacher Efficacy .................................................................................. 23 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 28 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 31 Description of Participants..................................................................................................... 31 Data Collection Procedures .................................................................................................... 31 Instrumentation....................................................................................................................... 33

ix

Demographic Teacher Questionnaire ................................................................................... 33 Measure of School Climate and Teacher Expectations ....................................................... 33 Measure of Perceived Individual Teacher Efficacy ............................................................. 34 Measure of Perceived Collective Teacher Efficacy .............................................................. 35 Research Design ...................................................................................................................... 36 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 36 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 37 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 37 Demographic Information...................................................................................................... 37 Reliability of Instruments.... Error! Bookmark not defined.Error! Bookmark not defined. Intercorrelations and Bivariate Relationships Among Selected Variables ....................... 41 Inferential Statistics ................................................................................................................ 42 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 49 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 51 Discussion of the Studys Findings ........................................................................................ 51 Limitations of the Study ......................................................................................................... 58 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 60 Implications for Teachers....................................................................................................... 60 Implications for Administrators and School Leadership .................................................... 62 Implications for Educational Psychologists .......................................................................... 63 Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................... 64 Appendix A: Approval Letters for Data Collection................................................................. 66 Appendix B: Letter to Administrators ...................................................................................... 68

Appendix C: Principal Permission to Conduct Research Study Forms ............................ 71 Appendix D: Informed Consent Form for Teachers ........................................................... 73 Appendix E: Permission Letter for Reproduction and Distribution of Instruments ........... 77 Appendix F: Browns Teacher Demographic Questionnaire ............................................. 79 Appendix G: Sample Questions of the School Climate Index (SCI) .................................. 82 Appendix H: Sample Questions of the Teachers Sense of Efficacy School (TSES)......... 84 Appendix I: Sample Questions of the Collective Teachers Beliefs Scale (CTBS)............ 86 Appendix J: Codebook for Descriptors and Measurements of Demographic, Independent and Dependent Variables ....................................................................................................... 88 References ................................................................................................................................... 105

xi

LIST OF TABLES Page

1.

Total Years of Teaching for Public Elementary School Teachers in Sample.41 Years Taught in Prince Georges County Public Schools (PGCPS)41 Certification Status of Public Elementary School Teachers of PGCPS42 Highest Degree Obtained for Public Elementary School Teachers of PGCPS43 Correlation Matrix of Predictor Variables..45 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Individual Teacher Efficacy of Teachers...46 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Individual Teacher Efficacy of Teachers .48 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Collective Teacher Efficacy of Teachers..50 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Collective Teacher Efficacy of Teachers..51 Summary of MANOVA Analysis for Differences Between Criterion Variables, Based on Predictor Variables53

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

xii

xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Insufficient empirical research has investigated how factors other than socioeconomic demographics, including school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations affect perceived collective teacher efficacy and ultimately, educational outcomes, such as student achievement (Goddard, 2001; Goddard & Goddard, 2001). Such empirical work is critical because these factors can hinder and prevent students achievement. Moreover, the influence that teachers, school climate, individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations have on each other is a complex interrelationship (Goddard, LoGerfo & Hoy, 2004). The present study seeks to examine these variables as an explanatory system for collective teacher efficacy. This research has the potential to reveal and provide a better understanding of the consequences that can result from the interaction between teachers perceptions of these essential school characteristics in public elementary schools Some researchers, policy-makers and even educators frequently stereotype and support prevailing, negative impressions and explanations of student achievement in public elementary schools. As a consequence, these tendencies inhibit proactive change and initiatives, limiting positive educational outcomes. And, few paradigms provide methods for how teachers in public elementary schools can empower themselves and exert influence and control over student achievement (Price, 2002). For public elementary schools, triumph may be getting every student over hurdles of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, which shifted national educational policy to a calculated focus on rectifying low reading and math standardized scores and ensuring that schools make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). In the authors opinion, the latter is a tool that will continue to discredit public elementary schools and discourage their teachers by focusing almost exclusively on the deficits of teachers and dismissing the challenges

that they encounter daily. Consequently, this may negatively impact the climate of public elementary schools. The No Child Left Behind law required all teachers of core academic subjects to be highly qualified by June 2007 in order to improve teachers effectiveness and increase student achievement (McMurrer, 2007). Most school districts are reportedly in general compliance with NCLBs Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) requirements. However, many teachers have expressed skepticism that these requirements have impacted teacher effectiveness or made significant difference in raising student achievement (McMurrer, 2007). When test results are below par, the implication is that even excellent teachers are inadequate, and therefore, incapable of teaching effectively, according to the mandates of NCLB. These test results have a direct effect on teachers evaluations, salaries, funding and job security. As a result, changes in teachers perceptions about their efficacy individually and collectively, for better or worse, may also occur. Despite the best efforts of teachers, the goals set by NCLB for schools to perform at the proficient level in reading and mathematics on standardized measures are typically unrealistic and prone to demoralize, rather than inspire teachers. Nationwide, teachers are forced to teach to the standards and test, which have reduced the goals and purposes of education to the level of all things measurable - test scores (Loder, 2006). When teachers teach solely to the test, rigid methodologies tend to be used, which hinder or even prevent creative thinking. As a result, the joy of teaching is diminished considerably. How does this affect teachers perceptions of their schools, students and themselves? When student achievement of children is not steadily obtained in public elementary schools, it is imperative that the factors contributing to this are closely examined in order to devise and implement strategies that will help alleviate this

pernicious problem. The prevailing reform view of NCLB is that test scores are the most valid measure of teacher instruction, what students are learning and almost exclusive indicators of school success (Loder, 2006). Although the constant of school reforms presently are standards setting for student achievement, standards and tests alone will not improve student achievement among children in public elementary schools (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Kersting, 2003). Teaching to the test is a way of imparting learning that virtually excludes the true meaning of what education is supposed to accomplish. Instead, teaching, learning and student achievement all rest upon more profound, fundamental, human principles. This includes a sense of community within schools, efficaciousness and high expectations for achievement among teachers, both for their students as learners and of themselves as nurturers of the immeasurable potential they perceive in their students (Ohanian, 1999; Edwards, Gonsalves, & Willie, 2000; Goodman, Shannon, Goodman, & Rapoport, 2004). Statement of the Problem A plethora of literature exists that has investigated school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy, teacher expectations and perceived collective teacher efficacy independently and inclusively (Watson, Chemers, & Preiser, 2000; Chen & Bliese, 2002; Edwards, Green, & Lyons, 2002; Foster, Lewis, & Onafowora, 2003). However, few studies have explored teachers perceptions of these school characteristics in urban public elementary schools (Pajares, 1997; Goddard, 2001; Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Gray, 2004; Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler, & Shi, 2004; Klassen, 2004; Martin, 2004; Jussim & Harber, 2005). This study investigated how school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations impact teachers perceived collective teacher efficacy in urban public elementary schools.

Purpose of the Study The present study was conducted to determine whether teachers perceptions of school climate, individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations will significantly affect perceived collective teacher efficacy. This study also examined how the realities of teachers work environments and teaching experiences are conveyed, based on their obtained survey responses. Theoretical Framework The conceptual framework for this study synthesized key components of three theoretical perspectives - Banduras social cognitive theory (1977), Bronfenbrenners ecological systems theory (1979) and Vygotskys constructionist theory (1978). According to Bandura (2000), the mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion and affective states of teachers as a group are essential for the development of their collective efficacy beliefs. When teachers work together to accomplish educational goals, the effort, actions and choices that they make are motivated by the strength of their collective efficacy beliefs. Existing research (Goddard, 2001; Goddard et al., 2004; Ross et al., 2004) has revealed that the practices of teachers and student learning are impacted by perceptions of collective efficacy. When analyzing the relationship between perceived collective teacher efficacy and student achievement, it is also necessary to examine the role of school climate as part of an interactive, explanatory structure. According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), the five primary levels of the environment are microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem. Schools are complex, interactive social systems whose faculties consist primarily of teachers. In accordance with Bronfenbrenners theory, schools are organizations at the micro-level, comprising teachers working together to achieve educational goals (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). Within a school context, the relationship between the attitudes and behaviors of teachers

is crucial for student achievement, because their shared beliefs determine the social milieu of schools (Bandura, 1993; Hoy & Miskel, 1996; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). Hence, the present study acknowledged public elementary schools as structured organizations that support goal-directed outcomes, including school achievement. Given Bronfenbrenners socially interactive perspective about schools, Vygotskys contextual perspective is interdependent. Vygotsky (1978) theorized that learning and development are dynamic processes that are primarily social, cultural, historical and interrelated (Wink & Putney, 2002). Schools are a microcosm of the larger community. Teachers can mediate what and how their students come to know by relating to their social environment. This entails the utilization of pedagogical techniques like scaffolding, which is a problem-solving technique used to help children with understanding to support the process of learning and ultimately, achievement (Barab & Roth, 2006). Moreover, Vygotsky believed teaching to be an active process, where teachers guide their students to levels that surpass their current ability to problem-solve. The work of Vygotsky was vital to the present study because teachers influence and are influenced by the surrounding environment, namely, the school setting and are responsible for the provision of learning environments that foster student achievement. Research Questions and Hypotheses The present study attempted to address the following questions: 1. Are school climate and teacher expectations significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy? Are years of teaching experience and grade level significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy? Are years of teaching experience and grade level significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy?

2.

3.

4.

Are school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy? Are there significant differences between school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations, based on school type and teacher certification?

5.

Research hypotheses for investigating research questions 1 - 5 were posited, as follows: H1: School climate and teacher expectations will be significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy. Years of teaching experience and grade level will be significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy. Years of teaching experience and grade level will be significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy. School climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations will be significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy. There will be significant differences between school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations, based on school type and teacher certification. Definitions of Relevant Terms 1. School climate - the atmosphere of a school setting experienced by teachers and students, which affects their attitudes, behaviors, and development (Haynes, Emmons, & Ben-Avie, 1997; Hoy & Sabo, 1998) 2. Perceived individual teacher efficacy the teachers perception of his/her ability to yield positive outcomes in student learning and achievement (Shaughnessy, 2004) 3. Teacher expectations the inferences that teachers make about student behavior and/or student academic performance (Trouilloud, Sarrazin, Martinek, & Guillet, 2002) 4. Perceived collective teacher efficacy- the prevailing judgement in a school that the entire teaching faculty can organize and execute a course of action which positively impacts student outcomes (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2004)

H2:

H3:

H4:

H5:

5.

School type- the socioeconomic status of a school (low-income, high-income), based on the percentage of students receiving reduced priced or free lunch, as defined by Prince Georges County Public Schools in Maryland

6.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law - the reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act implemented in 2002 that mandates all students in 3rd thru 8th grades to perform at proficient levels in reading and math on standardized tests

7.

Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) - all teachers of core academic subjects are required to have a bachelors degree, be fully certified, and demonstrate their knowledge and skills in the subjects they teach by having sufficient subject-matter coursework, passing a state test, or meeting other state criteria, according to NCLB law (McMurrer, 2007)

8.

Certified teachers have taken the required coursework, passed the Praxis exam and/or completed state requirements to become state certified

9.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) schools meet state targets of proficiency in reading and math on state standardized tests, as mandated by NCLB law (McMurrer, 2007)

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE At this time during the twenty-first century, American public education is at a crossroads. By the year 2014, all schools in the United States must meet the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements, as mandated by NCLB law. For most children in the U.S., public schools are their only viable option for obtaining an education. Hence, the fate of schools is dependent on how well their students perform on state standardized tests. This has placed tremendous pressure on teachers to teach to the standards and test and ultimately, yield test scores at levels of proficiency for every student. Furthermore, when students do not perform as well as expected, this could have a negative impact on teachers who may not feel equally efficacious for every teaching situation, because teacher efficacy is context specific (Goddard et al., 2000). Many teachers are overwhelmed, especially when students are not performing at grade level and below their potential. Determining how schools contribute to the academic achievement of students in public elementary schools is a major challenge for educators, administrators, educational psychologists and policymakers. More specifically, the quest has been to identify school properties that affect student achievement, even when controlling for socioeconomic status (Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006). For over thirty years, the conceptualization, measurement and investigation of perceptions regarding psychosocial characteristics in schools has garnered considerable attention (Fraser, 1989; Fraser & Walberg, 1991; McRobbie & Fraser, 1991). Rickards, Fisher and Fraser (1997) noted that enhancing the environment of schools by focusing on those attributes that are empirically linked to student achievement is critical for improvement in this area. School climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy, teacher expectations and perceived collective teacher efficacy are school factors that have the potential to influence this educational outcome.

This is critical, given that public awareness of differences between schools in student achievement has become quite prevalent during this era of accountability, teaching to the standards and high-stakes testing. This chapter presents an overview of the relevant literature pertaining to school climate, perceived individual and collective teacher efficacies and teacher expectations. The conceptual development and theoretical models of these domains will also be examined. Three major theoretical perspectives will serve as the foundation for understanding the interrelationship of these school factors which contribute to and impact perceived collective teacher efficacy - Urie Bronfenbrenners (1979) ecological systems theory, Lev Vygotskys (1978) constructionist theory, and Albert Banduras (1977) social cognitive theory. Particular emphasis will be given to the relationship among these variables, namely, school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy, teacher expectations and perceived collective teacher efficacy as it relates to teachers in public elementary schools, because few studies have investigated this area. Therefore, additional research is required. Theoretical Framework: Ecological and Social Constructionist Perspectives Urie Bronfenbrenners (1979) ecological systems theory, which he renamed the Bioecological System theory, is the foundation of numerous proposed ecological models for schools that have adopted a systemic focus (Roach & Kratochiwill, 2004). Furthermore, Bronfenbrenners seminal work spearheaded the research of Australians Darrell Fisher and Barry Fraser on the conceptualization and assessment of school and classroom environments. Both ecological systems theory and the assessment of school environment are pertinent to the present study, because teachers perceptions of school climate in public elementary schools will be examined.

Bronfenbrenner (1979) emphasized that the ecology of human development entails the progressive, reciprocal adaptation between an active, growing individual and the changing properties of the immediate settings inhabited by that individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). This process is affected by the relationship between these settings and the larger contexts that contain them. Hence, children develop within a complex system of relationships that are affected by several levels of the surrounding environment. This consists of a series of nested structures where children function daily, such as home, school and neighborhood settings. Bronfenbrenners structure of the environment in ecological systems theory comprises five levels-microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem. At the micro-level, relations between the developing child and the immediate environment (i.e., classroom) occur. The mesosystem encompasses connections between the childs immediate settings, including home, neighborhood and school, which foster the childs development. The exosystem pertains to social settings that do not contain the child, but still affect his/her experiences in immediate settings. This may include extended family, the Department of Education and federal government. The macro-level, which is a non-specific context, entails the values, laws, customs, and resources of a particular domain, including the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) policies, as well as school climate. Finally, the chronosystem pertains to life changes that can be imposed externally or occur internally within the individual, who selects, modifies and creates many of his/her settings and experiences. This is dependent on age, physical, intellectual and personality characteristics, along with environmental opportunities (Berk, 2007) This is pertinent to the present study because at the micro-level, public elementary school teachers are products and producers of their environments. Therefore, both teachers and their classroom environments

10

form a network of interdependent effects. Based on Bronfenbrenners ecological perspective, public school systems are nested communities where each level helps establish the school climate, teacher efficacy (individual, collective) and teacher expectations (Purkey & Smith, 1982; Shulman & Shulman, 2004). Hence, when schools and teachers give priority to quality teaching, students learning and achievement, the internal support students receive from the school environment is affected. This in turn, impacts teachers perceptions of their efficacy, their expectations of students and, ultimately, student achievement. Lev Vygotskys (1979) social constructionist theory synthesizes Bronfenbrenners environmental levels into one overarching concept- culture. From a Vygotskian perspective, teaching, learning and development are inherently related to the sociocultural context, where teachers receive messages from (Wink & Putney, 2002). This may include a myriad of ideas, assumptions and events that can potentially influence teachers perceptions and the educational outcomes of their schools. This is relevant to the present study because teachers are mediators of development, learning and achievement within a sociocultural context. Therefore, teachers possess the power to create a supportive sociocultural climate, or not for themselves and their students (Vygotsky, 1997). Consequently, this may impact teachers perceptions of their collective efficacy. Social constructionism views learning as being based on performances that are individual and collaborative efforts and are assessed continuously throughout the school year in various situations. Vygotsky believed that the reasoning of children was socially constructed, based on interaction with adults and peers. Thus, when teachers anticipate and teach to the proximal level of children or what they are beginning to understand, higher cognitive functions emerge, and

11

understanding occurs through childrens historical, social and cultural relations with others. Vygotsky referred to the differences between what a child can do independently as the zone of proximal development. This emphasizes that learning is communicative and children eventually comprehend the operations they are performing, which gradually leads to academic achievement. However, the assertion of NCLB that learning is predictable, consistent and easily mapped across grade levels has resulted in handling teaching and learning as mechanical processes that simply attach new knowledge to old knowledge regularly (Goodman et al., 2004). For teachers in the current study, has NCLB laws mandated requirements of teaching to the standards and the test become an imposition that has effected their notions of what teaching, learning and achievement are supposed to be? Vygotsky (1997) noted that childrens learning is a process that entails cultural beliefs about the world and how to function efficiently within the realm of school. Therefore, the achievement of students is dependent on the climate of schools and teachers expectations, which directly impacts the quality of education that children receive and their academic achievement, or lack thereof. Teachers in public elementary schools who are confident about their professional knowledge regarding student welfare will be more efficacious in meeting the needs of their students (Wink & Putney, 2002). Hence, when the actual needs of children are being met in public elementary schools, test outcomes and collective teacher efficacy will automatically be more positive. School Climate According to Fraser (1986), school climate refers to that set of factors which influence the feel or personality that a school exudes. Furthermore, this characteristic describes teachers collective perceptions of behavior, which affect their attitudes and behavior in school (Hoy & Miskel, 1996). Sweetland and Hoy (2000) defined school climate as consistent organizational

12

characteristics that embody the distinctive atmosphere of a school. Nationwide, schools are placing more emphasis on their climate, as well as changing climate factors to enhance their students development (Haynes, Emmons, & Woodruff, 1998). Several factors contribute to student achievement. However, research conducted by Goldring (2002) and Puacharearn and Fisher (2004) revealed school climate to be the foundation for all aspects of schools, including students academic achievement and a valuable goal for education. School climate is an ever changing and essential part of the teaching faculty in every school (Freiberg, 1998). Additionally, school climate has the capacity to dictate whether a teaching staff promotes the development of students learning and academic achievement, actively inhibits it, or is neutral (Walberg, 1976; Walberg, Fraser, & Welch, 1986; Shulman & Shulman, 2004). Therefore, an emphasis on academic achievement has the potential to greatly influence the normative and behavioral climate of schools for both teachers and students. The greater the schools academic emphasis, the greater the norms will be for student achievement, especially in math and reading (Goddard et al., 2000). Haynes, Emmons, and Ben-Avie (1997) examined school factors that influence student achievement and found school climate to critically impact this school outcome, as well as how teachers support and develop students capacity for achievement. Haynes et al. (1997) further noted that a focus on school climate, along with the quality of interactions among and between students and teachers, were explanations of student achievement. Educators and school reformers advocate positive school climate as a specific way of improving student achievement (Brandt, 1986; Hoy, 1990; Skrtic, 1991; Goldring, 2002; Strahan, 2003; National School Boards Association, 2006). Emmons, Comer, and Haynes (1996) noted that even highly qualified teachers need a supportive school climate to increase

13

student achievement. Given the prevalence of school reform, determining how teaching norms within schools influence teachers need to be considered in order to better understand how schools function (Angelides & Ainscow, 2000). From an ecological perspective, teachers are products, as well as producers of their environments. Moreover, this reciprocal relationship forms a network of interdependent effects (Sweetland & Hoy, 2000; Shulman & Shulman, 2004). Teachers contribute to the formation of school norms, practices and incentives. Therefore, in public elementary school settings, it is imperative that teachers work consistently to help create and maintain a positive school climate, which will increase their morale and self-efficacy, as well as high expectations, learning and achievement of children (Haynes et al., 1997; Kratzer, 1997). An academically effective school characterized by a positive school climate, is distinguished by attitudes, behaviors, and organizational structure, as well as values and norms that propel both teachers and students toward successful teaching, learning and achievement (Purkey & Smith, 1982; Rojewski, J. W. & Wendel, F. C., 1990; Deemer, 2004). Deemer (2004) found school climate perceptions to be correlated with the instructional approaches of teachers, along with their individual and collective teaching efficacy at elementary schools. Teachers who viewed their school environment as generally facilitative, reported higher levels of efficacy and promoted more mastery-oriented practices within their classrooms, compared to teachers who perceived their school environment as competitive and supportive only of certain teachers (Deemer, 2004). Thus, a healthy school climate is characterized by positive student, teacher and administrator interrelationships in general, but specifically, an open, collegial and professional environment that is focused on student achievement (Sweetland & Hoy, 2000). This in turn, promotes student learning and academic success. Public elementary schools are complex and dynamic organizations whose climate should

14

be enriching and supportive for students to flourish. This corresponds with Vygotskian theory, which stresses the provision of environments that meet students emotional, aesthetic, intellectual and physical needs. Teachers take the whole child into consideration, rather than just teaching to the test. Empirical work by Goddard et al.(2000), which examined the importance of a school climate characterized by high levels of academic emphasis, found school climate to be systematically related to student achievement in public elementary schools. These results proved that having a strong academic emphasis in schools has a positive effect on the achievement of poor and minority children. In contrast, an unhealthy school climate typically entails conflict and being counterproductive, which can have a dismal effect on both teachers and students (DiPaola & Hoy, 1994). ONeil (1997) stressed how difficult it is to internalize a sense of well-being and a passion for achievement when schools are dysfunctional and characterized by low expectations for students. Therefore, obtaining feedback from teachers about the climate of their schools for this study may be essential for school improvement efforts. Having insight about teachers perceptions of school climate can pinpoint problem areas that need to be addressed and rectified within public elementary school settings. Social cognitive theory suggests that school climate may impact individual self-efficacy and is positively related to teachers perceptions of their efficaciousness, as well (Henson, 2001). In a one-year study that examined the effect of participatory teacher research on teacher efficacy and empowerment, Henson (2001) found perceptions of school climate to be related to teacher efficacy. Strong self-efficacy beliefs create a positive school climate, which influences student achievement (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). Furthermore, increased levels of individual teacher efficacy have been related to the health and organizational climate of a school, such as teacher empowerment and collaboration, more effective instruction

15

and high expectations for students (Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992). Social Cognitive Theory and Perceived Individual Teacher Efficacy Teacher efficacy, which is a derivative of self-efficacy, comprises teachers beliefs about their skills and abilities to generate desirable student outcomes. Teacher efficacy, a construct that has been studied for roughly 30 years, emerged from a 1976 Rand Corporation study that evaluated teachers beliefs of whether they could control the reinforcement of their own actions, based on the effectiveness of reading programs (Armor, D., Contory-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G., 1976). Rotters (1966) locus of control theory was the foundation of this early work, which assumed that student learning and motivation were pertinent in reinforcing teaching behaviors. However, social cognitive theory, which is a unified theory of behavioral change, specifies that efficacy beliefs evolve based on individual cognitive processing that assesses the influence of efficacy-shaping information (Goddard, 2002; Goddard et al., 2004). From this, a second conceptual model evolved from the seminal research of Bandura (1977), whose concept, self-efficacy, was essential to his theoretical framework. Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy as an individuals beliefs in his or her capabilities to organize and execute actions necessary to yield given attainments. These beliefs were viewed as the primary mediators for an individuals behavior and behavioral changes (Henson, 2001). Bandura (1997) further postulated that self-efficacy beliefs were geared for perceived abilities, given certain tasks. Such efficacy beliefs are powerful predictors of behavior, such as teaching, learning and academic performance (Pajares, 1996; Henson, 2001). Teacher efficacy impacts the amount of expended effort, persistence and resilience when facing difficulties or failures, as well as stress encountered when dealing with demanding situations (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000,

16

2002; Tucker, Porter, Reinke, Herman, Ivery, Mack & Jackson, 2005). According to Bandura (1997), the four major influences on efficacy beliefs are verbal persuasion, vicarious experiences, physiological arousal and mastery experiences. Each one conveys information that influences the perceptions of teachers about school. However, mastery experiences probably have the most powerful effect on fostering efficacy because this influence determines teachers sense of competence in the classroom. Goddard, Hoy and Hoy (2004) noted that the distinction between perceived versus actual competence or performance is critical, particularly when considering efficacy among teachers. Typically referred to as teacher efficacy, this term can be misleading, based on the assumption that it is synonymous with teacher effectiveness or successful teaching. Thus, consideration of the context in which the teaching task is occurring is important, as well as the assessment of teachers strengths and weaknesses for accomplishing the task at hand (Goddard et al., 2000; Onafowora, 2004). Utilizing a term such as perceived individual teacher efficacy rather than teacher efficacy is crucial because the former connotes judgement about capabilities to accomplish tasks, according to self - referent efficacy perceptions (Goddard, et al. 2004). Empirical research on perceived individual teacher efficacy has shown that the implications of this construct are very complex. For instance, studies have shown perceived individual teacher efficacy to be consistently related to an array of positive teaching attitudes and behaviors (Henson, 2001; Onafowora; 2004; Shulman & Shulman, 2004; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). Teachers who perceive themselves as highly efficacious, are typically more enthusiastic and experience greater satisfaction in their profession, adapt well to changes and are open to new ideas (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). These teachers are typically confident, passionate and caring about their profession and foster innovative teaching and student learning.

17

Furthermore, these teachers emphasize mastery instructional strategies for students, foster their cognitive development, set more challenging goals, convey high student expectations, as well as proficient instructional planning and organization. Shulman and Shulman (2004) asserted that being willing, engaged, motivated and ready to teach actively, along with learning from experience and reflection, are additional teaching characteristics that are derived from positive perceived individual teacher efficacy. Moreover, positive perceived individual teacher efficacy results in more time spent on instruction by teachers, less time on student discipline and fewer referrals of low SES students for special education (Podell & Soodak, 1993; Soodak & Podell, 1993). Goddard and Goddard (2001) noted that the relationship between perceived individual teacher efficacy and student achievement appeared to be indirect, with the former influencing the latter. However, over the past 26 years, research has established significant correlations between teacher efficacy and teacher behaviors that foster student achievement. Gibson and Dembo (1984) utilized factor analysis responses from elementary school teachers on an efficacy scale, which revealed task persistence and effective classroom management to contribute to student achievement. Ashton and Webb (1986) proved that high teacher expectations increased student achievement, based on a hierarchically organized, multidimensional model of teacher efficacy. Woolfolk and Hoy (1990), who used correlation and regression analyses to examine relationships between teacher efficacy and aspects of a healthy school climate, found that teachers efficacy perceptions increased when more emphasis was placed on academics. Furthermore, Tschannen-Moran and Barr (2004) noted teacher planning, responsibility and persistence in challenging situations to foster student achievement and reinforce efficacy beliefs among teachers. Armor et al. (1976) were the first researchers to verify this relationship in a

18

study of reading progress among students in Los Angeles schools (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). Based on reading scores obtained from the California Test of Basic Skills in 1974 and 1975, Armor et al. (1976) discovered that higher efficacy among teachers resulted in higher reading gains among their students. Since that initial study, other scholars have provided additional evidence that establishes the importance of perceived individual teacher efficacy on student achievement. This is a likely relationship because of differences in teacher behavior. The empirical work of Goddard and Goddard (2001), Henson (2001), Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001, 2002) and Taimalu and Oim (2005) are examples that support this significant finding. Moreover, in their dissemination of findings about a teacher-training program designed to promote teacher efficacy in relation to culturally diverse students, Tucker et al. (2005) demonstrated that teacher efficacy is one of the few characteristics that is consistently related to student achievement. In addition to yielding positive cognitive learning outcomes, teachers with high efficacy perceptions also enhance their students self-esteem, motivation, self-direction, as well as their pro-social and healthy attitudes about school (Taimal & Oim, 2005). Perceived individual teacher efficacy beliefs also depend on the extent of teaching experience (Taimalu & Oim, 2005). Teaching Experience and Grade Level Influences on Teacher Efficacy Beliefs According to Darling-Hammond and Sykes (2003), research has shown that teachers experience makes a vital difference in student learning. The influence of teacher experience has been examined in numerous studies (Milner, H. R. & Hoy, A. W., 2003; Hoy, A. W. & Spero, R. B., 2005; Tournaki, N. & Podell, D. M., 2005; Huang, X., Liu, M., & Shiomi, K., 2006; Huang & Liu, 2007). For instance, Huang and Liu (2005) found that perceived individual teacher efficacy levels of experienced teachers were higher than new teachers. This finding was

19

consistent with Banduras self-efficacy theory, which suggests that an individuals performance influences efficacy beliefs. As such, teachers classroom experiences tend to increase their perceptions of individual teacher efficacy, which renders differences between experienced teachers and new teachers. Research conducted by Ghaith and Shaaban (1999) revealed that beginning teachers who possessed low individual teacher efficacy were concerned about the task of teaching and their effect on students, compared to highly experienced and more efficacious teachers. Furthermore, hard-to staff schools typically experience the largest exodus of new teachers due to insufficient preparation for what they encounter in classrooms (Ingersoll, 2001). This diminishes overall education productivity, given that teacher efficacy increases considerably after the first few years in the classroom (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003). In a study conducted by Taimalu and Oim (2005), the respondents with longer teaching experience had higher individual teacher efficacy perceptions. Teachers with several years of teaching experience, ranging from 6 to 21+ years, had significantly higher levels of teacher efficacy beliefs compared to their less experienced counterparts (Taimalu & Oim, 2005). The researchers noted that the discrepancy between experienced teachers and beginning teachers may be accounted for by the latters inexperience with teaching difficulties and other problems. However, over time, more teaching experience enhanced their teacher efficacy perceptions. Along with years of teaching, grade level is another factor that determines perceived individual teacher efficacy (Taimalu & Oim, 2005). The prevalence of perceived individual teacher efficacy, based on grade level can vary. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2002) found that elementary school teachers have higher efficacy beliefs than middle school teachers. The grade level a teacher instructs significantly correlates with perceived individual teacher

20

efficacy (Lin, Gorrell & Taylor, 2002; Wertheim & Yona, 2002). Taimalu and Oim (2005) confirmed this, reporting that the individual teacher efficacy perceptions of third grade teachers was higher than fifth grade teachers. When years of teaching result in positive teacher efficacy beliefs, which are integrated with high teacher expectations and aligned with the values and attitudes of schools, student achievement is more likely to increase. Teacher Expectations Like teacher efficacy, teacher expectations of students have the capacity to render educational outcomes that are either positive or negative. Trouilloud et al. (2002) defined teacher expectations as teachers inferences regarding future behavior or academic performance of students, based on objective (e.g. previous achievement) or subjective (e.g. teachers prejudices, stereotypes) cues. In particular, the latter may be persuaded by students biologically and socially influenced characteristics, such as their physical attributes, dispositions and capacities. These attributes also affect teachers behavior, including both perceived individual and collective teacher efficacies and teacher expectations. Determining the amount of effort that teachers need to expend in order to achieve educational outcomes like student achievement is an evolving process for many in the profession. Teachers are constantly selecting diverse educational goals for students, collecting information about how to increase students mastery of tasks and how they performed on those tasks compared to other students (Tollefson, 2000). Not only do teachers have perceptions about their teaching capabilities, but they have beliefs regarding students capabilities, as well. Angelides and Ainscow (2000) observed that teachers categorize students based on perceptions of their ability to learn, in general. This may stem from how teachers define intelligence, whether it is viewed as a malleable, cultivated entity or one that is fixed and controllable

21

(Dweck, 2000). Both perspectives influence teachers interpretations and reactions to learning situations with their students. Brandt (1986) explained that in order to reach students, the climate of schools has to enable teachers to have high expectations. Educators who have low expectations of students, initially, can develop high expectations when working in a healthy and supportive environment. Teachers have described an effective school as one that is characterized by high, but reasonable expectations of students with high norms of achievement (Purkey & Smith, 1982; Goldberg, 1997; Willie, 2000; Pressley, Gaskins, Solic, & Collins, 2006). This entails opportunities for students optimal learning with clear goals related to their academic achievement. Teachers expectations of students, which tend to develop early during the school year, are typically perceived by students. When a teacher expects specific achievement from students, that teacher will behave and teach in certain ways. As a result, the level of achievement that the teacher expects from them is conveyed to students, which can affect their self-concept, achievement motivation and level of aspiration (Comer, Haynes, Joyner, & Ben-Avie, 1996). Consistent teacher behavior and instruction over time and little, if any change or resistance from students will shape their achievement. Ultimately, the achievement of students will conform increasingly to what was expected from them by the teacher. Teachers high expectations for students achievement is one of the fundamental principles of education. Empirical research on teacher expectations has a span of 36 years, which has clearly established its influence on student achievement. Research conducted by Jussim and Eccles (1992) showed that teacher expectations predicted student achievement, based on correlations between the former and standardized achievement test scores by 80%. Additionally, empirical work done by Trouilloud et al. (2002) revealed that the higher the teacher expectations

22

were of students, the higher was student achievement. Madon, Jussim and Eccles (1997) also found positive expectancy effects to be generally more powerful than negative expectancy effects, which disproportionately benefited low expectancy students. However, Price (2002) noted that teaching students with considerable challenges can be arduous for teachers year after year. When these students are also low-achieving, this may result in some teachers eventually expecting less from their students. Research, therefore, has verified that the power of beliefs (i.e., teacher expectations) to create reality (i.e., low or high student achievement) has the potential to equal or exceed the opposite-the power of reality to create teachers beliefs of students in public elementary schools. Perceived Collective Teacher Efficacy Bandura (1997) broadened his social cognitive theory to include the organizational level and group capabilities. The control groups exert, based on their actions as a whole, is powerfully influenced by the strength of their efficacy perceptions (Goddard et al., 2004). Hence, perceived collective teacher efficacy refers to teachers perceptions that the capabilities of the school faculty as a whole will have a positive impact on students academic progress (Bandura, 1997; Goddard et al., 2000; Hoy et al., 2002). Goddard, Hoy, and Woolfolk Hoy (2004) defined this construct as the judgement of teachers that, as a group, can organize and execute the necessary courses of action to positively influence student achievement. Schools are agentive because they are steadfast in pursuit of educational goals, such as student achievement. Efficacy is vital to the operation of schools, because teachers are more prone to pursue educational activities that they believe they are capable of succeeding in. As a result, the beliefs of teachers regarding their abilities to positively impact student learning as a group is another powerful construct that affects the actions and achievement of schools at varying degrees. Furthermore, the decisions made by

23

teachers, including the exertion of their personal endeavors, are greatly influenced by collective efficacy beliefs (Goddard et al., 2004). Agency pertains to action, cognitive and affective factors, as well as environmental events that operate as interacting determinants of human action. Although perceived collective teacher efficacy is also a derivative of social cognitive theory, it is conceptually distinct from perceived individual teacher efficacy (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). Perceived collective teacher efficacy is a distinct construct, theoretically, and has incomparable effects on educational decisions and student achievement (Goddard, 2001; Goddard & Goddard, 2001). Specifically, perceived collective teacher efficacy pertains to expectations regarding the effectiveness of the staff a teacher is a part of, whereas perceived individual teacher efficacy pertains to the expectations about a teachers own teaching ability. The former is equally as important for student achievement in schools. Perceived collective teacher efficacy is an emergent group-level attribute that is the product of the interactive dynamics of teachers, which essentially help create the schools normative environment (Goddard et al., 2000; Strahan, 2003). Consequently, teachers perceptions have the capacity to create an organizational climate that has either vitalizing or demoralizing effects on the perceived efficacy of teaching staff (Bandura, 1997). For example, in some instances, teachers internalize what they hear about their colleagues and other schools, based on discussions with each other regarding their work in formal and informal settings (Strahan, 2003). When this input is positive and feasible, the schools climate becomes more optimistic and encouraging. Perceived collective teacher efficacy influences the outlook and functioning of teachers in other ways as well, including improved mastery class instruction, classroom management and student motivation (Bandura, 1993, 2000). Greater collective efficacy also causes more effort and persistence, which renders better performance (Bandura,

24

2000; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). School faculties with very positive levels of perceived collective teacher efficacy have the conviction that all students can learn and achieve at high levels during instruction, as well as on state and national tests of language and mathematical proficiency (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). The opposite is true, as well. Consequently, the collective efficacy of a public school becomes a stable component of the climate, which requires considerable effort to change, whether student learning is enhanced or inhibited. Thus, the more teachers believe in their collective efficacy, the more they will exert themselves as a group with accomplishing educational goals. However, the converse is also true. The less teachers believe in their collective efficacy, the less they will persevere and work together as a group towards academic achievement. The perseverance of teachers is not the only factor that determines collective efficacy. The sources of efficacy-shaping information, namely, mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion and affective state are also critical for the development of collective efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Goddard (2001) found that mastery experience was a significant, positive predictor of differences among schools in perceived collective efficacy. This supported the socio-cognitive assumption that this construct is strongly informed by mastery experience. In addition, schools do learn vicariously (i.e., vicarious experience) about their proficiency, based on the observation and replication of other schools that are successful and whose goals, opportunities and constraints are similar. Expectations for action that are established by collective efficacy beliefs are a vital part of school socialization, along with central aspects of a schools climate and its impact on group member performance (i.e., social persuasion) (Goddard et al., 2004). Finally, effective states can influence how schools interpret and respond to the plethora of challenges that they experience. In general, cognitive processing is pivotal in the

25

interpretation of efficacy input, because collective perceptions of efficacy occur due to cognitive and meta-cognitive processing of mastery and vicarious experiences, social persuasion and affective states. Different teachers may have different efficacy beliefs about the same experiences, based on individual interpretations. Teachers perceptions of their efficacy and the academic achievement of their students are not autonomous. Empirical research indicates that there is a strong, dependent and reciprocal relationship between perceived collective teacher efficacy and students academic achievement in schools (Bandura, 1993, 1997; Hoy, Sweetland & Smith, 2002; Ross et al., 2004; TschannenMoran & Barr, 2004). According to Banduras (1997) principle of organizational agency, schools that choose to value student achievement act with the intent of reinforcing its importance among teachers, based on numerous collective efforts (Goddard et al., 2000). This is the premise of Banduras (1997) assumption of reciprocal causality - both facilitate and enhance the other. This also entails making classrooms conducive for learning, which is a primary focus. As a result, teachers will be compelled to work diligently as a group for student excellence. Several researchers (Bandura, 1993, 1997; Goddard et al., 2000; Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000; Hoy et al., 2002; Hoy et al., 2006) have identified the collective efficacy of schools as one of the few organizational properties that consistently predicts student achievement, even after controlling for socioeconomic status. In fact, TschannenMoran and Hoy (2001) found collective efficacy to be a stronger predictor of achievement than student SES. Based on empirical work examining school achievement, Hoy et al. (2002) successfully found the variable, collective efficacy, to be more significant than SES in explaining school achievement. This finding is significant, because it is easier to change the collective efficacy of a school than it is to influence the SES of a school (Hoy et al., 2002; Manthey, 2006).

26

During this era of accountability and state standards, teachers are often required to work collectively within schools, rather than independently. Student achievement, which is a primary goal for educators, has been linked with three types of efficacy-students self-efficacy judgements, teachers beliefs of their own instructional efficacy, and teachers beliefs about the collective efficacy of their school (Bandura, 1997). Empirical evidence has shown that perceived collective teacher efficacy is systematically related to teachers perceived efficacy and student achievement differences among schools (Goddard, 2001). Another significant research finding by Ross et al. (2004) was that the pattern at the collective levels was the same as the reciprocal relationship between individual teacher efficacy and student achievement. Studies have further shown the likelihood for perceived collective teacher efficacy to account for differences between schools in student achievement levels (Bandura, 1993; Goddard et al., 2002; Hoy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002; Ross et al., 2004). In a study conducted by Goddard (2001), collective efficacy explained 47 50% of between-school variance in reading and mathematics achievement. Similar results were yielded in studies by Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000), Tschannen-Moran and Goddard (2001) and Goddard, Hoy, and LoGerfo (2003) for various grades and subjects. The central argument was that collective teacher efficacy influences student achievement by creating school norms and sanctions that motivate persistence (Ross, HogaboamGray, & Gray et al., 2004). Hence, perceived collective teacher efficacy is a powerful predictor of student achievement (Ross, et al., 2004) and a promising construct for promoting understanding of how schools can foster school achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). Collectively, teachers experience school successes, as well as failures. The former empower teachers beliefs in the facultys capability, whereas the latter usually undermines group competency. Goddard et al. (2004) discussed that if success is obtained often and too

27

easily, failure will probably render discouragement. Moreover, students who are placed in low academic classes may foster low perceived efficacy among individual teachers. Consequently, perceived collective teacher efficacy may be diminished (Raudenbush, Rowen, & Cheong, 1992). However, schools which are confident in their group potential persevere in the midst of pressure and crises. When facing obstacles, teachers with high levels of collective efficacy tend to improve their momentum, develop more efficient instructional strategies for increasing student achievement and persist with problem-solving (Bandura, 2000; Goddard et al., 2000; Strahan, 2003). These teachers accept responsibility for the academic outcomes of their students. Furthermore, they do not comply with the notion that low student achievement is the result of low socioeconomic status, family background or lack of ability (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). Instead, these teachers are resilient, which enables them to overcome difficulties (Bandura, 2000; Goddard et al., 2004; Shulman & Shulman, 2004; Wheatley, 2005). Using structural equation modeling, which comprises various statistical techniques that distinguish between latent and observed variables, Goddard et al. (2004) found perceived collective teacher efficacy to be the cause of student achievement in reading, writing and social studies regardless of minority student enrollment, urban environment, SES, school size or prior achievement. Teachers are also motivated about what they decide to do together, the amount of effort they put forth, and their staying power when collective work does not always yield the results they are aiming for (Brooks & Brooks, 1999 Tschannen-Moran & Bar, 2004; Walumbwa et al., 2004). Overall, the collective efficacy of public elementary schools will determine whether or not they function in a proactive or dysfunctional manner, whatever challenges they encounter. Such reactions will result in the likelihood of success or failure for teachers and ultimately, the academic achievement or underachievement of students.

28

Although the aforementioned empirical work is quite extensive, more research about teachers perceptions of school characteristics and how that impacts their perceived collective efficacy is needed. This study hopes to explicate trends and patterns of teachers perceptions of school climate, individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations in public elementary school settings. Furthermore, the nature of this study can potentially reveal some salient elements of public elementary schools in this area, thus, adding to the body of existing literature.

29

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY Overview This chapter explains the procedures that were utilized to examine the proposed research questions in Chapter 1. This includes: (1) research design, (2) variables under investigation, (3) participant description, (4) instrumentation, (5) data collection procedures, and (6) data analysis. Description of Participants The population included third grade teachers and fifth grade teachers from approximately 18 public elementary schools of a large, metropolitan, urban school district in Maryland. The stratified variables for this study were years of teaching (0 -5 years, 6 15 years) and school type (low-income, high-income). According to the Prince Georges County Public School System, school type pertains to the socioeconomic status of a school, based on the percentage of students eligible for reduced price or free lunch. Schools of each type were randomly selected from the convenience sample. Ten schools were low-income and eight schools were high-income. Then, a sample of third and fifth grade teachers from each strata was randomly selected. There were approximately 74 third grade teachers and 76 fifth grade teachers, which ensured representation of defined groups in the public elementary school teacher population. The rationale for using teachers of these grade levels was that the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law requires standardized testing in third and fifth grades. Data Collection Procedures Permission was obtained from the Director of Research & Evaluation of Prince Georges County Public Schools to collect data for the present study, as required (See Appendix A.) A synopsis of the study was provided in a permission letter to conduct the study, which included information regarding the data collection procedures that pertained to the research.

31

Once the schools participating in the study were confirmed, the principals were contacted by letter and telephone explaining in detail the study and to obtain their written permission to recruit teachers for participation. Thereafter, a formal letter was delivered to the principals and participating teachers to schedule a meeting to discuss the studys purpose and procedures, answer any questions that they might have and finalize dates and times for administration of the surveys. (See Appendices B and D.) Teachers were informed that their participation in the study would be voluntary and signed letters of consent. The researcher assured the participants that their responses and all materials would be kept strictly confidential. Additionally, the researcher assigned each participating teacher an identification number to guarantee that their anonymity was maintained. Principals, colleagues and other school personnel would not have access to the completed surveys at any time. (See Appendices F - I.) The Teacher Survey Packet consisted of three brief self-report instruments that were administered by the researcher - the School Climate Index (SCI), the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), the Collective Teacher Beliefs Scale (CTBS) and a demographic teacher questionnaire. Typically, the teacher survey packets were group administered, given the time constraints of teachers during and after the school day. The researcher supplied the survey packets, followed by reading the directions for each survey. The survey packets took teachers approximately 15 minutes to complete, and data was collected from the participating teachers at their elementary schools. For their input and time, teachers at each school had a selection of options to choose from as a group for their compensation. Upon completion of the survey packet, each teacher was given an item worth $10, such as a giftcard from Target, Staples or Starbucks, a DVD, Lindt or Ferrero Rocher chocolates or snackbags.

32

Instrumentation Four instruments were used in the present study and administered to the participating teachers- the School Climate Index (SCI), the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), the Collective Teacher Beliefs Scale (CTBS), and a demographic teacher questionnaire. Demographic Teacher Questionnaire An 11 - item measure was developed by the researcher for the purpose of obtaining information regarding teachers ethnicity, gender, age, teaching credentials and experience, as well as their students. Measure of School Climate and Teacher Expectations The School Climate Index (SCI) measured both teachers perceptions of school climate and teacher expectations of students in public elementary schools. Developed by TschannenMoran (2005), the SCI is a 28-item instrument comprising four subscales that measure the perceptions of teachers about the climate of their schools Collegial Leadership, Teacher Professionalism, Academic Press (i.e., teacher expectations), and Community Engagement. The first subscale, collegial leadership, refers to the principals behavior as being collegial and supportive, rather than perceived as overly directive or restrictive (Tschannen-Moran, Parish, & DiPaola, 2006). The second subscale, teacher professionalism, pertains to teacher relationships, as well teachers commitment to their work and willingness to work together cooperatively. Academic press (i.e., teacher expectations), the third subscale, is essentially the school-wide tone that is serious, orderly and academically focused on students performance (Tschannen-Moran et al., 2006). The final subscale in the consolidated framework, community engagement, delves into the positive relationships of schools with their communities. Each of the items of the SCI requires respondents to assess how often statements are true

33

of their schools. Overall, the alpha coefficient of the SCI is .96, and is therefore an excellent measure of perceived individual teacher efficacy. The reliability scores for the subscales are also high: Collegial Leadership (.93), Teacher Professionalism (.94), Academic Press (.92), and Community Engagement (.93). These scores confirm that the SCI is a robust instrument for measuring teachers perceptions of school climate and their expectations of students. The statements of the SCI are based on a five - point Likert scale with a range of 1 - never occurs, 2 rarely, 3 sometimes, 4 often, and 5 very frequently. Each subscale comprises seven items. The score for each subscale of the SCI is calculated as the mean of the composite items in that subscale, and the index score for each school is the mean of all 28 items (Tschannen-Moran et al., 2006). The range of the standardized scores for the subscales is 200 499 (low); 500 599 (medium); and 600 899 (high). Sample items of the SCI include: The principal puts suggestions made by the faculty into operation (Item #8); Teachers respect the professionalism and competence of their colleagues (Item #3); The school sets high standards for academic performance(Item #5); Our school makes an effort to inform the community about our goals and achievements (Item #1); and Teachers are committed to helping students (Item #13). Measure of Perceived Individual Teacher Efficacy The Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), which was developed by Megan Tschannen-Moran and Anita Woolfolk Hoy (2001), measured the construct, perceived individual teacher efficacy. The TSES has two versions - the 24 - item (long) form and the 12 - item (short) form. For the present study, the latter version was used. The TSES consists of three subscales, Efficacy in Student Engagement, Efficacy in Instructional Strategies and Efficacy in Classroom Management. Each subscale has a high reliability alpha coefficient of .87, .91 and .90

34

respectively. The overall alpha coefficient for the TSES is .94, which renders this instrument an excellent measure of perceived individual teacher efficacy. Teachers were asked to rate their actual attitudes regarding statements in these three domains. Like the SCI subscales, the range of the standardized scores for the TSES subscales is 200 499 (low); 500 599 (medium); and 600 899 (high). Sample items include: How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? (Item #3); To what extent can you craft good questions for your students? (Item #5); and How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students? (Item #8). Measure of Perceived Collective Teacher Efficacy The Collective Teacher Belief Scale (CTBS), which was developed by Megan Tschannen-Moran and Anita Woolfolk Hoy, was created as an adaptation of the TSES. This instrument consists of 12 items, whereby teachers were asked to rate the extent that they agree with statements regarding different aspects of collective efficacy among teachers. The range of the standardized scores for the CTBS subscales is the same as the SCI and the TSES subscales. The psychometric properties of the CTBS are very robust, with alpha levels of .96 and .94 for the Instructional Strategies Subscale and the Student Discipline Subscale, respectively (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). The validity and reliability scores are also sound. The 12-item CTBS-Scale has high internal consistency, with an alpha coefficient of .97, which indicates that this instrument is an excellent measure of perceived collective teacher efficacy. The 12 questions are based on a ninepoint Likert scale that ranges from none at all to a great deal. Sample items include: How much can your school do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork? (Item #2); To what extent can school personnel in your school establish rules and procedures that facilitate learning? (Item #4); How much can teachers in your school do to help students think

35

critically? (Item #9); and How much can your school do to foster student creativity? (Item #11). Research Design A cross-sectional survey design was used in this study to examine teachers perceptions of collective teacher efficacy in public elementary schools. In this developmental design, two or more age groups were measured at about the same time. Then, comparisons were made across those groups to investigate age-related behavioral changes. The researcher utilized four selfreport instruments to measure several demographic variables, three independent variables (school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations), and one dependent variable (perceived collective teacher efficacy) simultaneously in a sample of 3rd and 5th grade elementary teachers. Data Analysis After data collection was completed, all data was coded manually and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 16.0 data analysis software program. Significance for all inferential statistical analyses were tested at the .05 level. Statistical analyses entailed the use of descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations to summarize and establish patterns across several demographic variables. Multiple regression, Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient analyses were also employed.

36

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS Overview The previous chapter presented the procedures used to examine the influence of teachers perceptions of school climate, individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations on collective teacher efficacy. This chapter presents (1) demographic characteristics of the teachers sampled; (2) reliability of the instruments used in the study; and (3) results of the hypotheses testing. A summary of the research findings concludes this chapter. Demographic Information The participants of this study consisted of a stratified, random sample of third and fifth grade public elementary school teachers (N = 150), aged 20 to 60+ years (M = 31.2 years; SD = 7.97 years). Female teachers represented 71.3% (n = 107) of the sample, compared to male teachers at 28.7% (n = 43). In terms of race, 94 (62%) teachers identified themselves as Black; 41 (27.3%) as White (Non - Hispanic); 9 (6%) as Asian/Pacific Islander; 4 (2.7%) as American Indian; and 2 (1.3%) as Latino. Overall teaching experience is reported in Table 1. Results show that 47.3% (n = 71) of the sampled teachers have been teaching for 6 15 years; 31.3% (n = 47) for 0 5 years; 12.7% (n = 19) for 16 25 years; 6.7% (n = 10) for 26 35 years; and 2% (n = 3) for 36 or more years. In comparison to the results of Table 1, Table 2 shows that the converse was true for teaching experience in Prince Georges County Public Schools (PGCPS). The most prevalent duration for teaching in PGCPS was 0 - 5 years (53.3%, n = 80), followed by 6 15 years (36.7%, n = 55) for the teacher sample. Forty-eight percent (n = 72) of the participants reported teaching at the third grade level, compared to almost fifty-one percent (50.7%, n = 76) at the fifth grade level. The

37

Table 1: Total Years of Teaching for Public Elementary School Teachers in Sample

Duration

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative Percent

0 - 5 years 6 15 years 16 25 years 26 35 years 36 45+ Total

47 71 19 10 3 150

31.3 47.3 12.7 6.7 2 .0 100.0

31.3 78.7 91.3 98.0 100.0

Table 2: Years Taught in Prince Georges County Public Schools (PGCPS)

Duration

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative Percent

0 - 5 years 6 15 years 16 25 years 26 years Total

80 55 12 3 150

53.3 36.7 8.0 2.0 100.0

53.3 90.0 98.0 100.0

majority of the teacher sample taught General Education (76.7%, n = 115); followed by Special Education (10.7%, n = 16); Talented and Gifted (TAG) (6.7%, n = 10); and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) (6%, n = 9). Furthermore, 77.3% (n = 116) of teachers described their classrooms as a traditional setting, compared to 22.7% (n = 34) of teachers who categorized 38

their classrooms as non-traditional. The majority of teachers sampled identified themselves as full-time employees of PGCPS (96.7%, n = 145), and 88.7% (n = 133) of teachers were certified. Fifty-two percent (n = 78) of teachers earned the Advanced Professional Certificate (APC). However, as shown in Table 3, certification status varied among teachers. Table 4 revealed that the highest degree obtained by teachers was a masters degree (45.3%, n = 68). With respect to class size, slightly over half of teachers (56%, n = 84) reported having classrooms of 20 - 39 students. Finally, for school type, fifty-six percent were low-income schools (n = 10) and forty-four percent (n = 8) were high-income schools.

Table 3: Certification Status of Public Elementary School Teachers of PGCPS

Certification Type

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Conditional Standard Professional I Standard Professional II Advanced Professional Total

27 31 11 78 147

18.0 20.7 7.3 52.0 98.0

18.0 38.7 46.0 98.0

NOTE: 3 cases were missing from teacher sample (N = 150).

Reliability of Instruments Cronbachs alpha coefficicent was used to assess the internal consistency of each instrument used in this study. This method is more appropriate for Likert scales because it can be utilized with instruments containing items that are scored with three or more possible values

39

Table 4: Highest Degree Obtained for Public Elementary School Teachers of PGCPS

Degree

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Bachelors Masters Post Masters Doctorate Total

61 68 19 2 150

40.7 45.3 12.7 1.3 100

40.7 86.0 98.7 100.0

(Huck, 2000). The School Climate Index (SCI) was scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very frequently). For their investigation of the interplay between school climate, interpersonal relationships and student achievement, the alpha coefficient for Tschannen-Moran et al. (2006) was .96. This demonstrated excellent internal consistency for the items on the SCI, which is a reliable measure of school climate and teacher expectations. For the present study, the reliability analysis yielded a Cronbachs alpha of .89, which demonstrates that this instrument is also a reliable measure for the teachers used in this investigation. The Cronbachs alphas obtained for the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) and the Collective Teacher Beliefs Scale (CTBS) were .76 and .91, respectively. These indices for both scales were reliable measures for this studys participants. Both instruments were scored on a 5point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (none at all) to 5 (a great deal). Previous studies noted that the alpha coefficients for the TSES and the CTBS were .94 and .97, respectively (TschannenMoran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). This demonstrates that the items of these scales are internally consistent, and both scales are reliable measures of perceived

40

individual teacher efficacy and perceived collective teacher efficacy, respectively.

Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations of Predictor Variables School Climate, Perceived Individual Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Expectations Mean School Climate Individual Teacher Efficacy 523.95 253.61 Standard Deviation 119.58 41.07

Teacher Expectations 628.94 197.76 ___________________________________________________________________________

Intercorrelations and Bivariate Relationships Among Selected Variables Correlation analyses were utilized to determine the level of association among the study variables (school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy, teacher expectations). Specifically, Pearsons product moment correlation coefficient (Pearsons r) was employed. Results indicated that there were significant positive correlations between pairs of the study variables. (See Table 6.) Of the three correlations, the strongest significant relationship was between school climate and teacher expectations (r = .88, p < .01). There was a significant relationship between school climate and perceived individual teacher efficacy (r = .47, p < .01). There was also a significant relationship between perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations (r = .34, p < .01).

41

Table 6 Correlation Matrix of Predictor Variables School Climate, Perceived Individual Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Expectations 1 School Climate Individual Teacher Efficacy 1.00 .466** 1.00 2 3

Teacher Expectations .875** .343** 1.00 ______________________________________________________________________________ ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Inferential Statistics The inferential statistical methods utilized were Multiple Regression and Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). Each hypothesis was tested at the .05 level of significance.

Analysis for Hypothesis One (H1) Hypothesis One (H1): School climate and teacher expectations are significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy. Null Hypothesis (H0): School climate and teacher expectations are not significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy. Null hypothesis one was tested using multiple regression analysis. This statistical procedure was used to determine the amount of variance in perceived individual teacher efficacy that is explained by school climate and teacher expectations. The results indicated a statistically significant F-ratio [n = 149, F(2, 147) = 22.55, p < .001]. Examination of the standardized beta weights revealed information about the amount of variance in the criterion variable (perceived individual teacher efficacy) that was explained by each predictor variable, school climate or teacher expectations, after controlling for the effects of the predictor variables in the regression equation. School climate ( = .71, t = 4.74, p<.001) had a significant independent effect on

42

perceived individual teacher efficacy. However, teacher expectations ( = -.28, t = -1.85, p > .05) did not make a significant independent contribution on perceived individual teacher efficacy. The negative beta ( = -.28) indicates that for each unit increase in teacher expectations, perceived individual teacher efficacy decreased by .28 units. The coefficient R is the percent of the variance in the criterion variable, explained by the predictor variables. Overall, the two predictor variables explained 24% of the variance in the criterion variable. Therefore, the null hypothesis that school climate and teacher expectations are not significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy was not supported. Table 6 shows that school climate was a more significant predictor of perceived individual teacher efficacy compared to teacher expectations. The beta coefficients, t-score and multiple correlation coefficients (R, R2, Adjusted R2) for this regression model are provided in Table 7. Table 7 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Individual Teacher Efficacy of Teachers (N = 150)

Predictor School Climate

B .24**

SE B .051 .03

Beta .71** -.28

t 4.74 -1.85

Teacher Expectations -.06

Note. R = .49; R2 = .24; Adjusted R2 = .22 N = 150 **p < .001

Analysis for Hypothesis Two (H2) Hypothesis 2 (H2): Years of teaching experience and grade level are significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy.

Null Hypothesis (H0): Years of teaching experience and grade level are not significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy.

43

Null hypothesis two was tested using multiple regression analysis. This statistical procedure was used to determine the amount of variance in perceived individual teacher efficacy that is explained by years of teaching experience and grade level. The predictor variable years of teaching experience was entered into the multiple regression equation as an ordinal variable with codes 1 5. The larger the code, the more years of teaching experience for each teacher sampled. In order to control for the predictor qualitative variable, grade level in the regression analysis, the variable was coded as a quantitative dummy variable. The grade levels were 3rd grade and 5th grade. The results indicated a statistically insignificant F-ratio [n = 149, F(2, 147) = .24, p = .79]. Examination of the standardized beta weights revealed information about the amount of variance in perceived individual teacher efficacy that was explained by the predictor variables, years of teaching experience and grade level, after controlling for the effects of the predictor variables in the regression equation. Years of teaching experience ( = .05, t = .57, p > .05) had an insignificant independent effect on perceived individual teacher efficacy. Grade level ( = .03, t = .36, p > .05) did not have a significant independent contribution on perceived individual teacher efficacy. The coefficient R2is the percent of the variance in the criterion variable, explained by the predictor variables. Overall, the predictor variables explained .3% of the variance in the criterion variable. Therefore, the null hypothesis that years of teaching experience and grade level are not significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy was supported. The beta coefficients, t-score and multiple correlation coefficients (R, R2, Adjusted R2) for this regression model are provided in Table 8.

44

Table 8 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Individual Teacher Efficacy of Teachers (N = 150)

Predictor

SE B .43 6 .77

Beta .05 .03

t .57 .36

Total Years Teaching .24 Current Grade Level 2.41

Note. R = .06; R2 = .003; Adjusted R2 = .010 N = 150

Analysis for Hypothesis Three (H3) Hypothesis 3 (H3): Years of teaching experience and grade level are significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy.

Null Hypothesis (H0): Years of teaching experience and grade level are not significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy. Null hypothesis three was tested using multiple regression analysis. This statistical procedure was used to determine the amount of variance in perceived collective teacher efficacy that is explained by years of teaching experience and grade level. The predictor variable years of teaching experience, was entered into the multiple regression equation as an ordinal variable with codes 1 5. The larger the code, the more years of teaching experience for each teacher sampled. In order to control for the predictor qualitative variable, grade level in the regression analysis, the variable was coded as a quantitative dummy variable. The grade levels were 3rd grade and 5th grade. The results indicated a statistically insignificant F-ratio [n = 149, F(2, 147) = .71, p = .49]. In addition, examination of the standardized beta weights revealed information about the amount of variance in perceived collective teacher efficacy that was explained by the predictor variables, years of teaching experience and grade level, after controlling for the effects of the predictor

45

variables in the regression equation. Years of teaching experience ( = .098, t = 1.19, p > .05) had an insignificant independent effect on perceived collective teacher efficacy. Grade level ( = -.02, t = -.22, p > .05) also had an insignificant independent effect on perceived collective teacher efficacy. The coefficient R is the percent of the variance in the criterion variable, explained by the predictor variables. Overall, the predictor variables explained only 1% of the variance in the criterion variable. Therefore, the null hypothesis that years of teaching experience and grade level are not significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy was supported. The beta coefficients, t-score and multiple correlation coefficients (R, R2, Adjusted R2) for this regression model are provided in Table 9. Table 9 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Collective Teacher Efficacy of Teachers (N = 150)

Predictor Years Teaching Experience Grade Level

Note. R = .098; R2 = .01; Adjusted R2 = .004 N = 150

B 2.71 -8.06

SE B 2.29 36.35

Beta .098 -.02

t 1.19 -.22

Analysis for Hypothesis Four (H4) Hypothesis 4 (H4): School climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations are significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy.

Null Hypothesis (H0): School climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations are not significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy. Null hypothesis four was tested using multiple regression analysis. This statistical

46

procedure was used to determine the amount of variance in perceived collective teacher efficacy that is explained by school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations. The results indicated a statistically significant F-ratio [n = 149, F(3, 146) = 81.91, p = .001]. In addition, examination of the standardized beta weights revealed information about the amount of variance in the criterion variable (perceived collective teacher efficacy) that was explained by the predictor variables (school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy, teacher expectations), after controlling for the effects of the predictor variables in the regression equation. School climate ( = .23, t = 2.08, p < .05) and perceived individual teacher efficacy ( = .63, t = 10.82, p < .001) had significant independent effects on perceived collective teacher efficacy. However, teacher expectations ( = .05, t = .51, p > .05) had an insignificant independent effect on perceived collective teacher efficacy. The coefficient R is the percent of the variance in the criterion variable, explained by the predictor variables. Overall, the three predictor variables explained 63% of the variance in the criterion variable. Therefore, the null hypothesis that school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations are not significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy was not supported. The beta coefficients, t-score and multiple correlation coefficients (R, R2, Adjusted R2) for this regression model are provided in Table 10.

Analysis for Hypothesis Five (H5) Hypothesis 5 (H5): There are significant differences between school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations, based on school type and teacher certification.

Null Hypothesis (H0): There are not significant differences between school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations, based on school type and teacher certification.

47

Table 10 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Collective Teacher Efficacy of Teachers (N = 150)

Predictor School Climate Teacher Efficacy Teacher Expectations

Note.

B .43* 3.37** .06

SE B .21 .31 .12

Beta .23* .63** .05

t 2.08 10.82 .51

R = .79; R2 = .63; Adjusted R2 = .62 N = 150 **p < .001 *p < .05

A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to examine differences between school climate, individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations, based on school type and teacher certification. The standardized score range for the dependent variables school climate, individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations was 200 499 (low); 500 599 (medium); and 600 899 (high). MANOVA analysis indicated statistically insignificant multivariate effects for the dependent variables school climate (F = .003, p = .953, M = 528.47; SD = 121.26), individual teacher efficacy (F = .060, p = .806, M = 250.78, SD = 42.38) and teacher expectations (F = .180, p = .672, M = 639.38, SD = 181.44) with the independent variable school type. There were also statistically insignificant multivariate effects for the dependent variables school climate (F = .829, p = .364, M = 492.26, SD = 141.32), individual teacher efficacy (F = .001, p = .993, M = 272.22, SD = 48.45) and teacher expectations (F = .178, p = .674, M = 606.01, SD = 280.66) with the independent variable teacher certification. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there are not significant differences between

48

school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations, based on school type and teacher certification was supported. Table 11 shows the results of the MANOVA.

Table 11 Summary of MANOVA Analysis for Differences Between Criterion Variables, Based on Predictor Variables (N = 150)

Predictor Variable

Criterion Variable

Significance

School Type

School Climate

.003

.953 .806 .672

Individual Teacher Efficacy .060 Teacher Expectations .180

Teacher Certification

School Climate Teacher Efficacy Teacher Expectations

.829 .001 .178

.364 .993 .674

Summary The findings of this study showed that the null hypotheses for H1 and H4 were not supported. Based on the results, it appeared that the independent variables school climate and teacher expectations were significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy among the public elementary school teachers sampled (H1). School climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations were significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy (H4). However, the null hypotheses for H2, H3 and H5 were supported. The demographic variables years of teaching experience and grade level were not significant predictors of

49

perceived individual teacher efficacy or perceived collective teacher efficacy (H2, H3). There were no significant differences between school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations, based on school type and teacher certification (H5).

50

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine whether teachers perceptions of school climate, individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations will significantly affect perceived collective teacher efficacy. This chapter will present a summary of the studys results as they relate to significant literature and the theoretical framework. Implications from this research for the areas of teaching, administration, school leadership and educational research will also be discussed. Discussion of the Studys Findings Significant positive correlations between pairs of the study variables were found. Specifically, there was a significant relationship between school climate and teacher expectations. The more positive the atmosphere of a school setting was as experienced by teachers and students, the more positive the expectations that teachers have about student behavior and/or student academic performance. This corresponds with Vygotskys constructionist theory (1979) because teachers assume a fundamental role in creating positive school environments that encourage active, self-motivated learning among students. Within the classroom context, achievement can often be supported by teachers expectations of students and the climate of schools. School climate is complex because it reflects the individual perspectives of teachers. This has the potential, as Shulman and Shuman (2004) noted, to either enhance, actively inhibit or neutralize accomplishments of students. In addition, a significant relationship existed between school climate and perceived individual teacher efficacy. Specifically, the more positive the atmosphere of a school setting, the more positive teachers individual perceptions were of their ability to yield positive outcomes in student learning and achievement. According to Banduras social cognitive theory, teachers

51

perceptions of schools are instrumental in the development of perceived individual teacher efficacy because they have to contend with school climates as they strive to accomplish educational goals. Whether teachers have high or low perceptions of their individual teacher efficacy, this helps to shape their visions, motivations, understandings and capacities for teaching. Several researchers have found that school climates that promote high, but achievable objectives, create classroom environments that are both orderly and resolved about student achievement and advocate academic excellence, promote perceived individual teacher efficacy and enhance mastery-oriented methods in classrooms (Hoy and Woolfolk, 1993; Angelides & Ainscow, 2000; Skrla & Goddard, 2002; Deemer, 2004). Perceived individual teacher efficacy was also significantly correlated with teacher expectations. The more teachers perceived themselves as influencing student learning, the higher their expectations of student performance. As Bandura (1986) demonstrated, high individual teacher efficacy perceptions foster high student expectations. As a result, more positive student learning and achievement outcomes occur. In order to further explain these findings, a multiple regression analysis was performed on the study variables (school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy, teacher expectations, perceived collective teacher efficacy). Specifically, it was hypothesized that school climate and teacher expectations would be significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy (H1). The analysis revealed that both school climate and teacher expectations were significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy. These results are supported by Vygotskys social constructionist theory, which asserts that as mediators of learning and achievement, teachers have the capacity to create supportive sociocultural environments within their schools that directly impact their perceptions of individual teacher efficacy. And, according

52

to Bronfenbrenners ecological systems theory, when teachers prioritize students learning and achievement, the internal support students obtain from the school climate is affected. As both products and producers of their school environment, this also impacts teachers perceptions of their individual efficacy. Further explanation for this studys findings is the reciprocal relationship between school climate and perceived individual teacher efficacy. Onafowora (2004) and Karaca (2008) both noted that school environments that motivate and promote learning influence individual teacher efficacy and visa versa. In addition, previous studies by Goldring (2002) and Puacharearn and Fisher (2004) revealed that this impacts the degree of academic progress students achieve. Positive school climates can help to produce a sense of empowerment in teachers that propels them to produce classroom settings that are conducive to the cognitive and aesthetic needs of students, intellectually stimulating and promote creativity. This may explain why school climate in the present investigation could have been a stronger predictor of perceived individual teacher efficacy. These types of conditions can be very rewarding for both teachers and their students, which further enhances perceived individual teacher efficacy. Moreover, teachers who have high levels of individual teacher efficacy may not necessarily view school climate as an overwhelming influence on their instructional efforts, which is within their control. Instead, teachers who are confident about their teaching abilities may look for school climate to reinforce these internal beliefs. The present study also coincides with Angelides and Ainscow (2000), who noted that teachers generally categorize students according to perceptions of their capacity to learn. In addition, Tollefson (2000) observed that teachers generate outcome expectations and efficacy expectations over the course of their teaching careers. In other words, teachers develop beliefs

53

regarding students abilities to learn material taught in their classrooms or disciplines, as well as beliefs pertaining to their personal ability to help children from diverse backgrounds achieve the schools academic standards. Such expectations (outcome, efficacy) from teachers exert considerable influence on their classroom interactions with students, along with their willingness to put forth the effort to work with students who have different abilities and levels of interest in school tasks (Tollefson, 2000). Given the mandates of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, the ability to promote high levels of achievement among diverse groups of children in public elementary schools can be a daunting task for teachers. The willingness of teachers to modify their teaching practices is related to their expectations of being able to effectively incorporate new instructional strategies in their classrooms, being rewarded for their efforts and valuing the rewards they receive. Whether teachers are willing to do this additional, hard work that is required to ensure and maintain optimal teaching and learning is related to their perceived individual teacher efficacy. And, teachers personal goals that accentuate high levels of achievement for every student, according to Banduras efficacy theory, are highly related to their expectations of students. Banduras social cognitive theory postulates that mastery experiences are the most powerful source of efficacy development by providing information about an individuals capabilities as a teacher, as well as the complexity of the teaching task at hand. In many instances, more years of teaching contribute to mastery experiences because even the most difficult and challenging instructional tasks can be mastered, over time. However, based on findings from the present study, this was not the case. Specifically, it was hypothesized that years of teaching experience and grade level would be significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy (H2). Multiple regression results showed that this hypothesis was not supported.

54

These findings did not support Banduras contention that more years of teaching experience yields more efficacious development (Singham, 2003). Instead, these results correspond with the studies of Cheung (2006) and Karaca (2008). Neither study found a significant relationship between teachers perceived individual teacher efficacy and years of teaching experience. Contrary to the findings of Darling-Hammond and Sykes (2003), which stated that years of teaching experience is essential for student achievement, Jacob (2007) noted that beyond the first three years, teaching experience does not appear to be particularly important for enhancing teacher efficacy. This may be the result of teachers with less experience having a passion for teaching, being determined about accomplishing positive educational goals and enthusiastic about their students learning and achievement. Such characteristics among less experienced teachers may occasionally trump veteran teachers who are ineffective. Therefore, a teacher does not necessarily have to be experienced to feel efficacious about teaching ability. Based on his research findings, Bandura (1986, 1997) revealed that the most fundamental source of efficacy-shaping information is mastery experience. Typically, mastery experience emerges due to years of teaching experience. Bandura (1997) further noted that it is critical to the development of collective teacher efficacy beliefs when working in pursuit of educational goals. In order to test this, the present study looked at whether years of teaching experience and grade level would be significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy (H3). Multiple regression analysis did not obtain significant findings. However, further research needs to be conducted that looks at teacher mastery and perceived collective teacher efficacy. Given the high-stakes system of mandated state testing and accountability of the NCLB law, teachers can utilize their years of teaching experience advantageously by developing and incorporating productive instructional strategies for all grade levels to help rectify educational

55

outcomes at their schools. This would potentially maximize perceived collective teacher efficacy and school achievement, overall. When investigating school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations as predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy (H4), it was found in the present study that each of these variables was a significant predictor of perceived collective teacher efficacy. The strongest predictor was perceived individual teacher efficacy. According to Bronfenbrenners (1979) ecological systems theory, from a micro-systems level, teachers in their classroom environments work together as a group to achieve educational goals by forming an interactive social system. From this, perceived collective teacher efficacy emerges as a grouplevel attribute which essentially helps create the schools normative environment (Goddard et al., 2000; Strahan, 2003). As a result, teachers perceptions create a school climate that has either positive or negative effects on their collective teacher efficacy perceptions (Bandura, 1997). In addition, Bandura (1979) stated that perceived individual teacher efficacy may be a significant predictor of perceived collective teacher efficacy among public elementary school teachers. Bandura further stipulated that efficacy-shaping information is derived from mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion and affective state, which are the essential components for the development of collective efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986, 1997). However, different teachers may experience different efficacy-shaping perceptions regarding the same experiences, based on individual interpretations. Different perceptual differences are often determined by the teachers gender, level of education and the extent of teaching experience (Taimalu & Oim, 2005). The majority of the teacher sample for this study was female, and almost half possessed teaching experience of six or more years with Masters degrees. This was notable because research has proven that perceived

56

individual teacher efficacy is higher among female teachers and the amount of teaching experience positively affects individual efficacy beliefs (Labone, 2004). Regardless of what a schools climate is, individual teacher efficacy is related to several meaningful educational outcomes. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk (2002) described teachers who are enthusiastic, innovative, committed and persistent as typically yielding positive student outcomes, such as student achievement. Individual teacher efficacy influences the effort teachers invest in teaching, the objectives they establish for themselves and their students, their level of aspiration and the likelihood of remaining in the teaching profession (Hoy, 2001). Finally, it was hypothesized that there would be significant differences between school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations, based on school type and teacher certification (H5). The results obtained did not support this hypothesis. One explanation for this might be that teacher expectations was not a separate construct from the School Climate Index (SCI). As a subscale of this instrument, rather than a separate measure, the potential influence of teacher expectations may not have been revealed. In order to enhance the efficaciousness of teachers, the NCLB law requires all teachers to be highly qualified, which entails being fully certified (McMurrer, 2007). As noted, slightly over half of the teachers employed in the present investigation identified themselves as fully certified. The intention of this teacher quality requirement is to improve teacher efficacy in the classroom, as well as student achievement. This is relevant to school type because high-income and low-minority enrollment schools tend to have more experienced, qualified teachers. In contrast, low-income and high-minority enrollment schools tend to have more inexperienced, unqualified, out-of-field teachers. This inequitable distribution of proficient teachers can substantially affect school characteristics, whether in high-income or low-income schools. Although both school type and

57

teacher certification can either help foster or hinder the climate, individual teacher efficacy perceptions and teacher expectations within school settings, findings from this study did not support this. Despite these persistent conditions, the researcher is not suggesting that teachers at low-income, high-minority enrollment schools do not possess the expertise and qualifications necessary for instruction and are therefore incapable of rendering positive student achievement outcomes. On the contrary, many teachers at these schools are exemplary in their profession and produce students who are active, scholastic learners and achievers. It is important to note that this study found that 52% of the participating teachers were fully certified. Furthermore, these teachers reported high levels of perceived individual teacher efficacy. Nevertheless, the challenges that some school systems face in ensuring that highly qualified (certified) teachers are equitably distributed in both high and low-income schools continues. Limitations of the Study The first limitation in the present study was that the sample of teachers was obtained from only one school district in Maryland versus several school districts within the state. Prince Georges County is a large school district, but may not be representative of the entire state of Maryland or the nation at-large. Therefore, a stratified sample of third and fifth grade public elementary teachers from several school districts would more likely be representative of Maryland public elementary schools, overall. Although statistical control was established by sampling only public elementary schools within a single urban school district, this also probably rendered more homogeneity with school type (high-income, low-income) and minority concentration than would be found in the general population. Consequently, the results reported may not adequately explain between-school variation in school climate, perceived individual

58

teacher efficacy and teacher expectations, as well as their impact on perceived collective teacher efficacy. A second limitation was using the Teacher Expectations subscale of the School Climate Index (SCI) in conjunction with the latter measure. Statistical analysis consistently showed that the Teacher Expectations subscale yielded insignificant results. Consequently, this study may not have shown the actual influence of this construct on the criterion variables (perceived individual teacher efficacy, perceived collective teacher efficacy). Utilization of another instrument that solely measures teacher expectations may have proven otherwise. Although the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) and the Collective Teacher Beliefs Scale (CTBS) appear to be well designed, a third limitation is that the majority of items of each instrument do not entail clear obstacles typically encountered by teachers (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Furthermore, the constructs individual teacher efficacy and collective teacher efficacy are minimized to dimensions that do not encompass many of the responsibilities and challenges of teachers. The TSES has only four dimensions, whereas the CTBS has only two dimensions. However, a myriad of demands and tasks are placed upon teachers to meet daily. Therefore, in the researchers view, a multidimensional scale that comprises more subscales is needed. This would permit researchers to explore which dimensions of the aforementioned constructs cause elementary teachers to feel more or less efficacious. In addition, survey methods, such as the quantitative ones used for this study, lack the ability to rigorously test the relationship between the predictor variables (school climate, individual teacher efficacy, teacher expectations) on the criterion variable (collective teacher efficacy), as well as their impact. The utilization of qualitative methods in conjunction with quantitative methods could potentially provide (1) greater awareness of teachers perspectives of what school factors influence

59

perceived collective teacher efficacy; (2) understanding of the dynamic developments within schools; (3) awareness of time and history within each school setting; (4) special sensitivity to contextual influence in classrooms; (5) open access to enter schools without preconceptions or prepared instruments in order to learn what is happening; and (6) generally flexible perspectives (Powell, 2006). Conclusion For public elementary school teachers in urban school systems, the imposition of the No Child Left Behind law (NCLB) has suppressed the traditional ethos and relational approaches to learning within the educational, cultural and social experience, none of which takes place in a vacuum. Teaching and learning is a complex process that cannot be reduced to merely one curriculum that attempts to place every child at the same level simultaneously. Therefore, the schooling experience should not be limited into utilizing an instructional framework of one-sizefits-all for teachers and their students. Teaching should guide and support student development, and testing needs to focus on what a child is able to do. Furthermore, the spontaneous and personal interaction that exists between teachers and students not only helps both experience the joy of meaningful teaching, learning and achievement, but enhances the quality of education, overall. Multiple realities exist for teachers which this study sought to provide a clearer understanding. Moreover, teachers help to prepare students for the inevitable realities that they will encounter beyond school walls. This helps to create and maintain a caring and supportive environment. This is critical for the public elementary school climate, which fosters teachers perceptions of collective efficacy. Implications for Teachers The emphasis on measuring student learning continues to increase. As a result, the focus

60

has shifted from holding schools accountable to holding teachers accountable for student learning and achievement ((Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Allen, Coulter, Dwyer, Goe, Immerwahr, Jackson, Johnson, Olover, Ott, Reschly, Rochkind, Rowland, & Smartt, 2007). Whether a teacher is efficacious or not is now virtually determined by students standardized test scores. Ultimately, the success of the education system has been placed on the shoulders of teachers and is primarily dependent on their individual and collective efficacies. Therefore, the relationship between attitudes and behaviors of teachers in school settings is essential for increasing teacher efficacy (individual, collective), teacher expectations and student achievement. Although not a foci of the present investigation, studies have examined teacher efficacy for working with children of diverse backgrounds (Tucker & Herman, 2002; Tucker, Zayco, Herman, Reinke, Trujillo & Carraway, 2002; Garcia, 2004), particularly Caucasian teachers with children of color. Yet, there has not been a voluminous amount of research on teacher efficacy (individual, collective) as it pertains to working with diverse student populations. Therefore, research that examines teaching a culturally relevant pedagogy is needed and particularly critical for all teachers who work with culturally, linguistically, racially and economically diverse student populations in urban school settings. Teachers can also collaborate to develop school communities that will encourage children to expend effort on schoolwork and value achievement (Tollefson, 2000). However, for this to occur, the climate and structure of schools may also need to change to encourage and facilitate teachers professional development. Karaca (2008) stressed that teacher efficacy is essential for facilitating teaching and learning, determining teacher criteria, understanding teaching as a profession, as well as its duties and responsibilities, enhancing teacher performance and increasing training of teachers who are suitable for the profession. Two essential aspects in efficacy development, as noted

61

earlier, are direct positive experiences (mastery) and vicarious experiences (modeling) (Hoy et al., 2002). Teachers develop beliefs in their own capabilities to succeed when they experience success, as well as observe their colleagues accomplishments and the achievements of other schools in their districts. Another strategy for enhancing teachers sense of efficacy is verbal persuasion. When combined with successful models and positive, direct experience, verbal persuasion can become a powerful change agent and influence teacher efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). Further research needs to look at verbal persuasion as it relates to individual and collective efficacies. Henson (2002) noted consistent evidence that efficacy beliefs are most malleable in pre-service teachers. Yet, for experienced teachers, efficacy beliefs are prone to resist change. This is the result of internally held beliefs that teachers have about themselves which solidifies with experience and time. Consequently, positively impacting teachers perceived individual and collective efficacy beliefs may not readily occur. However, if teachers receive long-term professional development that compels them to think critically about their schools and classrooms, as well as behave actively in instructional improvement, their sense of efficacy (individual, collective) will have the potential to be reformed. Implications for Administrators and School Leadership The results of this study indicate that the role of administrators, particularly principals, is paramount because they have tremendous capacity to set the tone for the academic expectations of students in their schools, whether positive or negative. From this, teachers may or may not gauge their assumptions about students learning and achievement capabilities. Consequently, the affective state of a school influences how challenges are interpreted and handled (Hoy et al., 2002). Given the tendency for principals behavior to impact those interpretations either

62

positively or negatively, it is imperative that principals nurture a positive school climate, individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations, which impact collective teacher efficacy in public elementary schools. Principals can help reform public elementary schools further by implementing methods that would make school climate more conducive for teachers. Specifically, the leadership of principals needs to promote mastery experiences for public elementary school teachers that entail creating conditions where teachers can succeed with students (Bandura, 1997). Current research suggests that perceived teacher efficacy (individual, collective) is malleable (Henson, 2002). In general, a cohesive teacher faculty is more prone to be persuaded as a group to change. Principals can facilitate this by engaging discussions, as well as meaningful workshops, professional development opportunities and input regarding progress and achievement (Hoy et al., 2002; Vail, 2006). These activities should also entail teachers critical examination of their classrooms and instruction, curricula development, implementation of educational interventions and evaluation of intervention effectiveness (Knight & Boudah, 1998). Implications for Educational Psychologists The majority of teacher efficacy research has been self-report, survey and correlational (Henson, 2002). However, many aspects of teacher efficacy beliefs (individual, collective) remain unknown (Taimalu & Oim, 2005). Given the current and potential educational value of collective teacher efficacy, efforts to impact changes in this construct would be pivotal in the advancement of educational research in this area. Therefore, experimental studies and longitudinal designs, which are virtually absent in the literature, are warranted. Both would render more insight on the development and complex interplay between school characteristics, including school climate, teacher efficacy (individual, collective) and teacher expectations. Such

63

research also needs to entail assessing the sources and affects of these variables by using direct observation instead of relying on teachers self-reports (Henson, 2001; Pajares, 1997). Moreover, teacher research initiatives that emphasize critical thought and human agency would enable teachers to actively participate in the development of practical knowledge about teaching by pinpointing problem areas that need to be addressed and rectified within the urban public elementary school setting. As a result, this could potentially assist teachers, principals, school reformers and policymakers in the development of strategies for improving the quality of teaching, learning and achievement in urban public elementary school settings. This would also help narrow the literature gap regarding the influence of school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations on perceived collective teacher efficacy in urban, public elementary schools. Recommendations for Future Research It is vitally important that researchers continue to investigate teachers efficacious behavior (individual, collective) and how that relates to and/or impacts their expectations of student achievement outcomes in the classroom context. Findings from the present study also render a closer examination of those factors which contribute to positive efficacious beliefs among less experienced teachers. Such insight could be beneficial for developing strategies to reduce attrition among novice teachers and enhance their abilities in the classroom. Furthermore, the progression of perceived teacher efficacy research needs to be cultivated by empirical evaluation of collective teacher efficacy and methods that impact efficacy change in teachers (Henson, 2002). Therefore, the utilization of additional instruments for evaluating efficacy that surpass what traditional questionnaires measure is pertinent. In addition, teacher expectations needs to be measured as a separate construct from school climate, which would probably reveal

64

more insight about its actual influence on collective teacher efficacy. Teachers judgments are based on context, which is quite relevant to the study of teacher efficacy, but not captured adequately by Likert-scale instruments. Qualitative studies could potentially render more insight about the contextual dynamics that may affect perceived collective teacher efficacy. While quantitative methods entail predetermined school characteristics, qualitative research would highlight more salient aspects of school characteristics that emerge during the studies (Tobin & Fraser, 1998). As a result, the highly complex nature of a study whereby teaching, learning and student achievement occur would be maintained and data would not be lost. When looking at constructs, such as school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy, teacher expectations and perceived collective teacher efficacy, qualitative data sources including ethnographic data, which entails written responses to open-ended questions and transcripts from focus group discussions could be utilized. This would ultimately impact perceived collective teacher efficacy among teachers because data from qualitative methods would also better explicate trends and patterns of these school characteristics that arise from quantitative methods. Finally, future investigators may want to examine the relationship between school climate, individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations on collective teacher efficacy in other settings, such as non-urban public elementary schools (i.e., rural, suburban) to surmise whether the results from these studies are applicable to demographically diverse school populations.

65

Appendix A: Approval Letters for Data Collection

66

67

68

Appendix B: Letter to Administrators

69

Date Dr./Mr./Ms./Mrs. __________, Principal _______________________ Elementary _________________________________ _________________________________ Dear Principals Name: I am a doctoral student in the Educational Psychology program at Howard University. I have obtained official approval to collect data for my research from Dr. Sunmonu, Director of Research & Evaluation for Prince Georges County Public Schools. I am writing to request your permission to collect this data at your school, _______________ Elementary. I am interested in examining teachers perceptions of school characteristics and their influence on perceived collective teacher efficacy in public elementary schools. Perceived teacher efficacy pertains to teachers perceptions about their ability to foster students learning and positively impact student outcomes. The study will focus on 3rd and 5th grade teachers. In addition, I am interested in determining whether differences about these school characteristics exist among teachers of these grade levels. Teachers who volunteer for this research will receive a brief teacher survey that will require a maximum of 25 minutes to complete. Upon completion of the survey, each teacher will receive a giftcard as compensation. All data will be kept confidential, and the names of the elementary schools, principals and teachers will not be revealed at any time. Howard Universitys Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the researcher will retain a copy of the studys results as collectively analyzed. An executive summary of the research and one copy of the final research report, which will be forwarded to the Division of Accountability of Prince Georges County Public Schools, will be available for your review. In general, the anticipated value of this research will be the provision of better insight regarding teachers perceptions. This research will also provide information that will enhance and broaden the type and quality of staff development, which has the potential to improve student learning and achievement, as well as teacher performance. For every participating elementary school, this research will yield relevant and pertinent information that could be utilized on a school/city/district-wide level to further develop teacher training through staff development, graduate courses, workshops and dialogue/collaboration between and within schools, with the ultimate goal of improving teaching and learning. Your granted permission to conduct this valuable research will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, I may be reached by e-mail at ptbedpsych@hotmail.com or at (703) 401-5983. Thank you for your support and time concerning this matter.

Yours truly,

Persephone T. Brown Doctoral Student Howard University

70

Appendix C: Principal Permission to Conduct Research Study Forms

71

72

Appendix D: Informed Consent Form for Teachers

73

IRB #: 08-GSAS-07 Page 1 of 3 CONSENT FOR INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES HOWARD UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON, DC 20059
1. The following tests and/or procedures are needed for the project entitled: The Influence of Teachers Perceptions of School Climate, Individual Efficacy and Teacher Expectations on Collective Teacher Efficacy in Public Elementary Schools

Tests and/or Procedures to be Performed

Four instruments will be used in this study and administered to the participating teachers: the School Climate Index (SCI), the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), the Collective Teacher Beliefs Scale (CTBS) and Browns Teacher Demographic Questionnaire. The first three instruments used in this study will consist of questions based on a Likert scale format. The School Climate Index (SCI) will measure both teachers perceptions of school climate and teacher expectations; the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) will measure individual teacher efficacy; and the Collective Teacher Beliefs Scale (CTBS) will measure different aspects of collective efficacy among teachers. The Browns Teacher Demographic Questionnaire is an 11-item measure that will obtain information regarding teachers ethnicity, gender, age, as well as teaching credentials and experience.

2.

Explanation to the Participant:

Teachers participation in this study will be voluntary and your responses, as well as all materials will be kept strictly confidential. Additionally, each participating teacher will be assigned an identification number to guarantee that her/his anonymity is maintained. Principals and other school personnel will not have access to information that can possibly identify any teachers in the schools, relative to the teacher survey packets at any time.

74

IRB #: 08-GSAS-07 Page 2of 3

The teacher survey packets will be group administered by the student investigator, Ms. Persephone T. Brown, given the time constraints of teachers during and after the school day. After the teacher survey packets have been distributed to the teachers, the student researcher will read the directions for each survey. The survey packets will take teachers approximately 25 minutes to complete. Data will be collected from the participating teachers at their respective elementary schools. As compensation for their input and time, a giftcard worth $10 will be provided for each participating teacher, upon completion of the survey packet. Although this study will require teachers to provide information about yourselves, you will not be required to provide personal information (i.e., name, address, etc.), thus, minimizing any risk to confidentiality. Furthermore, risks to confidentiality will be minimized, based on the use of a numerical coding system for the teacher surveys. Should any anxiety be evident during the completion of the teacher survey packets, teachers will be reminded that your participation is voluntary and assured that your responses will remain confidential. Additionally, given that your names will not be written on any of the surveys, each participating teacher will be assigned a numerical ID to further ensure that their anonymity of maintained. However, teachers will be free to withdraw from the study at any time. All reasonable precautions have and will be taken to reduce risk(s) and provide for your care. You are free to withdraw this consent and discontinue participation in this project at any time without affecting your on-going relationship with Howard University, Howard University Hospital or your school. The Howard University Institutional Review Board will have access to the records of this project. Some of the test(s) or procedure(s) described may be novel or experimental, but they do not involve any risk(s) other than those described above. School administrators will not have access to the names and/or associated code lists. Teachers will be instructed to refrain from providing any demographic information that would reveal their identities. As a result, teachers will feel more comfortable responding honestly to the questionnaires, instead of feeling pressured to respond in particular ways. The student investigator will be present during data collection. Teachers may respond to surveys in their classroom or comparable area within the school setting, if necessary. Hence, teachers will not encounter any physical danger above and beyond that experienced in a typical school day. However, in the event of injury resulting from the research test(s) or procedures(s), emergency medical treatment will be provided at Howard University Hospital, but financial compensation will not be available.

75

IRB #: 08-GSAS-07 Page 3 of 3

Upon completion of the study, the surveys completed by the teachers will be placed in an envelope, sealed and stored in a secure area by the student investigator. Dr. Constance M. Ellison, principal investigator of this study, can be reached in her office at (202) 806-6015 or by cellphone at (202) 368-797 in the event you have any questions regarding your participation in this project. If you have questions at any time that you would like to discuss with someone other than the investigators on this project, you are free to contact the Howard University Institutional Review Board at (202) 806-4759 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. You may also contact Dr. Ellison (principal investigator) at any time for answers to pertinent questions about this research and your research-related rights. You should contact her in the event of a research-related injury. 3. I have read the above description of the research project and anything I did not understand was explained to me by Ms. Persephone T. Brown and my questions were answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in the above-referenced project. I acknowledge that I have received a personal copy of this consent form. ____________________________________ Participants Signature 4. __________________ Date

I, the undersigned, have defined and fully explained the test(s) or procedure(s) involved in this investigation to the above participant or parent or guardian.

______________________________________________ Investigators Signature

___________ Date

76

Appendix E: Permission Letter for Reproduction and Distribution of Instruments

77

78

Appendix F: Browns Teacher Demographic Questionnaire

79

BROWNS TEACHER DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose of this survey is to obtain demographic information about public elementary school teachers. Please complete this survey, and write clearly for items as required. Your responses are strictly confidential. Thank you for participating in this study. 1. Ethnicity (Check only one.) 2. Gender Male Female

African American or Black Latino White (Non-Hispanic) Asian or Pacific Islander Native American Other (specify) 3. Age 20-29 yrs. 30-39 yrs. 40-49 yrs. 50-59 yrs. 60+ yrs. 4. Years teaching a. b. 5.

_____

_____ _____

What year did you start teaching?

How many years have you been teaching since you started?

How many years have you taught in Prince Georges County Public Schools? _____

80

6.

What grade level are you currently teaching? Please indicate any specific subject(s) or specialty that you teach. 3rd

5th

(Check only one.) Specialty _______________

Subject(s) _______________ 7.

Employment School Status (Check only one.) Full-time

Part-time Yes

No

Substitute

8. 9.

Are you certified?

Certification (Check only one.) Conditional Certificate (COND)

Issued only at the request of a local school system superintendent to an applicant employed in a local school system who does not meet all certification requirements.

Standard Professional Certificate I (SPC I)

Issued to a teacher who meets all certification requirements and is employed by a Maryland local school system or an accredited nonpublic school.

Standard Professional Certificate II (SPC II)

Issued to a teacher who completes SPC I, is employed by a Maryland local school system or an accredited nonpublic school and submits 1- verification of 3 years of satisfactory professional experience; 2- 6 semester hours of acceptable credit; and 3- a professional development plan for the Advanced Professional Certificate (APC).

Advanced Professional Certificate (APC)

Issued to an applicant who submits 1- verification of 3 years of full-time professional school-related experience; 2- 6 semester hours of acceptable credit; and 3- a masters degree or a minimum of 36 semester hours of post-baccalaureate coursework which must include at least 21 semester hours of graduate credits.

10.

Highest Academic Degree Obtained Bachelors

Masters

Post-Masters

Doctorate

11.

Number of total students in your class

___

81

Appendix G: Sample Questions of the School Climate Index (SCI)

82

Sample Questions of the School Climate Index (SCI)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Our school is able to marshal community support when needed. Parents and other community members are included on planning committees. The principal is friendly and approachable. Teachers help and support each other. Teachers in this school exercise professional judgment. Teachers go the extra mile with their students. The learning environment is orderly and serious. The principal is willing to make changes. The principal maintains definite standards of performance. Community members attend meetings to stay informed about our school. School people are responsive to the needs and concerns expressed by community members.

83

Appendix H: Sample Questions of the Teachers Sense of Efficacy School (TSES)

84

Sample Questions of the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? How much can you do to help your students value learning? How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies? To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused?

85

Appendix I: Sample Questions of the Collective Teachers Beliefs Scale (CTBS)

86

Sample Questions of the Collective Teacher Beliefs Scale (CTBS)

1. 2.

How much can teachers in your school do to produce meaningful student learning? How much can your school do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork? How much can teachers in your school do to help students master complex content? How much can teachers in your school do to promote deep understanding of academic concepts? How much can school personnel in your school do to control disruptive behavior? How well can adults in your school get students to follow school rules?

3. 4.

5. 6.

87

Appendix J: Codebook for Descriptors and Measurements of Demographic, Independent and Dependent Variable

88

DESCRIPTORS AND MEASUREMENTS OF THE INFLUENCE OF TEACHERS PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL CLIMATE, INDIVIDUAL TEACHER EFFICACY AND TEACHER EXPECTATIONS ON COLLECTIVE TEACHER EFFICACY IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Persephone T. Brown Doctoral Candidate Howard University June 2008

89

DATA COLLECTION DESCRIPTION

Persephone T. Brown DESCRIPTORS AND MEASUREMENTS OF THE INFLUENCE OF TEACHERS PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL CLIMATE, INDIVIDUAL TEACHER EFFICACY AND TEACHER EXPECTATIONS ON COLLECTIVE TEACHER EFFICACY IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SUMMARY: The purpose of this data collection is to provide data about the influence of teachers perceptions of four school characteristics in public elementary schools of Prince Georges County, Maryland. Data were obtained from the surveyed responses of third and fifth grade teachers. There are several demographic variables (ethnicity, age, years teaching, years taught in Prince Georges County Public Schools, grade level, subject/specialty being taught, employment school status, certification, certification status, highest academic degree obtained, number of total students in class, as well as three independent variables (school climate, individual teacher efficacy, teacher expectations) and one dependent variable (collective teacher efficacy). Part 1: Teachers Perceptions Demographics File Structure: Rectangular Cases: 150 Variables: 12 Part 3: Teachers Perceptions Teacher Expectations File Structure: Rectangular Cases: 150 Variables: 6 Part 5: Teachers Perceptions Collective Teacher Efficacy File Structure: Rectangular Cases: 150 Variables: 12 Part 2: Teachers Perceptions School Climate File Structure: Rectangular Cases: 150 Variables: 21 Part 4: Teachers Perceptions Individual Teacher Efficacy File Structure: Rectangular Cases: 150 Variables: 12

90

CODEBOOK FOR TEACHER SURVEY PACKET DESCRIPTORS

Browns Teacher Demographic QuestionnaireSPSS Variable Name and Positions TID ETH 1-3 4 Variable Teacher ID Ethnicity Values 001 - 150 1 = Black 2 = Latino 3 = White 4 = Asian or Pacific Islander 5 = Native American 6 = Other (specify) 1 = Female 2 = Male 1 = 20-29 yrs. 2 = 30-39 yrs. 3 = 40-49 yrs. 4 = 50-59 yrs. 5 = 60+ yrs. 1 = 1950-1959 2 = 1960-1969 3 = 1970-1979 4 = 1980-1989 5 = 1990-1999 6 = 2000-2008 1 = less than a yr. 5 yrs. 2 = 6-17 yrs. 3 = 18-29 yrs. 4 = 30-41 yrs. 5 = 42+ yrs. 1 = less than a yr. - 5 yrs. 2 = 6-17 yrs. 3 = 18-29 yrs. 4 = 30-41 yrs. 5 = 42+ yrs. 1 = 3rd grade 2 = 5th grade 1 = General Education 2 = Special Education 3 = Talented and Gifted (TAG) 4 = English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) 1 = Traditional 2 = Non-traditional

GENDER

Gender

AGE

Age

YRSTCH

Year Started Teaching

NYRSTCH

Years Teaching Since Started

YTPGCPS

Years Taught in PGCPS

GLCT

10

Grade Level Currently Teaching Specific Subject/ Specialty Teaching

SSSTCH

11

TYPCLASS

12

Type of Classroom

91

Browns Teacher Demographic Questionnaire (Contd.)SPSS Variable Name and Positions ESS 13 Variable Employment School Status Values 1 = Full-time 2 = Part-time 3 = Substitute 1 = Yes 2 = No 1 = Conditional Certificate (COND) 2 = Standard Professional Certificate I (SPC I) 3 = Standard Professional Certificate II (SPC II) 4 = Advanced Professional Certificate (APC) 1 = Bachelors 2 = Masters 3 = Post-Masters 4 = Doctorate 1 = 0-19 2 = 20-39 3 = 40-59 4 = 60+ 1 = High Income 2 = Low Income

CERT

14

Certification

CERTSTAT

15

Certification Status

HADO

16

Highest Academic Degree Obtained

NTSTUD

17

Number of Total Students in Class

SCHLTYPE

18

School Type

92

School Climate IndexSPSS Variable Name and Positions SCI 12 19 Variable School Goals and Achievement Values 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently

SCI 13

20

School/Community Support

SCI 14

21

Faculty Members Interactions

SCI 15

22

Teachers Competence

SCITEXP 16

23

School Standards for Academic Performance

SCITEXP 17

24

Students Respect for Good Grades

SCI 18

25

Principles Behavior

SCI 19

26

Principles Use of Faculty 1 = Never Suggestions 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently

93

School Climate Index (Contd.)SPSS Variable Name and Positions SCI 20 27 Variable Parent/Community Members Inclusion Values 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently

SCI 21

28

Community Members Responsiveness for Participation

SCI 22

29

Teacher Help and Support

SCI 23

30

Teachers Professional Judgment

SCI 24

31

Teachers Commitment to Students

SCITEXP 25

32

Academic Achievement Recognition

SCITEXP 26

33

Students Work Effort

SCI 27

34

Principals Objectivity

94

School Climate Index (Contd.)SPSS Variable Name and Positions SCI 28 35 Variable Principals Rapport w/ Faculty Members Values 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently

SCI 29

36

Teachers Attitudes of Accomplishment

SCI 30

37

Teachers Extra Help w/ Students

SCI 31

38

Teachers Support for Colleagues

SCITEXP 32

39

Learning Environment

SCITEXP 33

40

Students Extra Work

SCI 34

41

Principals Willingness

SCI 35

42

Principals Expectations of Teachers

95

School Climate Index (Contd.)SPSS Variable Name and Positions SCI 36 43 Variable Principals Performance Standards Values 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently

SCI 37

42

Community Members Meeting Attendance

SCI 38

43

Organized Community Groups Meetings

SCI 39

44

School Personnels Responsiveness to Community Members

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TSCI Total SCI Score 1 = High 2 = Medium 3 = Low 1 = High 2 = Medium 3 = Low

TCL

Collegial Leadership Subscale Score

TTP

Teacher Professionalism 1 = High Subscale Score 2 = Medium 3 = Low Academic Press Subscale Score 1 = High 2 = Medium 3 = Low

TAP

TCE

Community Engagement 1 = High Subscale Score 2 = Medium 3 = Low

96

School Climate Index

Directions: The following are statements about your school. Please indicate the extent to which each occurs, from Never (1) to Very Frequently (5). SCI 12. Our school makes an effort to inform the community about our goals and achievements. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 13. Our school is able to marshal community support when needed. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 14. The interactions between faculty members are cooperative. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 15. Teachers respect the professional competence of their colleagues. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCITEXP 16. The school sets high standards for academic performance. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCITEXP 17. Students respect others who get good grades. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 18. The principal is friendly and approachable. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 19. The principal puts suggestions made by the faculty into operation. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 20. Parents and other community members are included on planning committees. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 21. Community members are responsive to requests for participation. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 22. Teachers help and support each other. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 23. Teachers in this school exercise professional judgment. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 24. Teachers are committed to helping students. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCITEXP 25. Academic achievement is recognized and acknowledged by the school. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCITEXP 26. Students try hard to improve on previous work. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 27. The principal explores all sides of topics and admits that other opinions exist. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 28. The principal treats all faculty members as his or her equal. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently

97

School Climate Index (Contd.)

SCI 29. Teachers accomplish their jobs with enthusiasm. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 30. Teachers go the extra mile with their students. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 31. Teachers provide strong social support for colleagues. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCITEXP 32. The learning environment is orderly and serious. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCITEXP 33. Students seek extra work so they can get good grades. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 34. The principal is willing to make changes. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 35. The principal lets faculty know what is expected of them. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 36. The principal maintains definite standards of performance. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 37. Community members attend meetings to stay informed about our school. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 38. Organized community groups (e.g., PTA, PTO) meet regularly to discuss school issues. 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently SCI 39. School people are responsive to the needs and concerns expressed by community members 1 = Never 2 = Rarely 3 = Sometimes 4 = Often 5 = Very Frequently

98

Teacher Beliefs ScaleSPSS Variable Name and Positions TB 40 47 Variable Control Disruptive Classroom Behavior Values 1 = Not at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = Not at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = Not at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = Not at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = Not at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal

TB 41

48

Motivate Students Interest

TB 42

49

Calm Disruptive/ Noisy Student

TB 43

50

Help Students Value Learning

TB 44

51

Craft Good Questions for Students

TB 45

52

Follow Classroom Rules 1 = Not at all by Students 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal Influence Students Beliefs in Their Academic Ability 1 = Not at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = Not at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal

TB 46

53

TB 47

54

Establish Classroom Management System

99

Teacher Beliefs Scale (Contd.)SPSS Variable Name and Positions TB 48 55 Variable Utilization of Various Assessment Strategies Value 1 = Not at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = Not at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = Not at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = Not at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal

TB 49

56

Provision of Alternative Explanation/Example for Students

TB 50

57

Assist Families w/ Their Children

TB 51

58

Implement Alternative Teaching Strategies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TTB Total Teacher Beliefs Score 1 = High 2 = Medium 3 = Low 1 = High 2 = Medium 3 = Low 1 = High 2 = Medium 3 = Low 1 = High 2 = Medium 3 = Low

TB ESE

Efficacy in Student Engagement Subscale Score Efficacy in Instructional Strategies Subscale Score Efficacy in Classroom Management Subscale Score

TB EIS

TB ECM

NOTE: The original Likert-scale responses for the Teacher Beliefs Scale- 1=Not at all, 2, 3=Very Little, 4, 5=Some Degree, 6, 7=Quite a Bit, 8 and 9=A Great Deal were merged as shown above.

100

Teacher Beliefs
Directions: Please indicate your opinion about each of the questions below by marking any one of the nine responses in the columns on the right side, ranging from (1) None at all to (9) A Great Deal as each represents a degree on the continuum. Please respond to each of the questions by considering the combination of your current ability, resources, and opportunity to do each of the following in your present position. TB 40. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? 1=Not at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit

9=A Great Deal

TB 41. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work? 1=Not at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 9=A Great Deal TB 42. How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? 1=Not at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit TB 43. How much can you do to help your students value learning? 1=Not at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit TB 44. To what extent can you craft good questions for your students? 1=Not at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit TB 45. How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? 1=Not at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit

9=A Great Deal

9=A Great Deal

9=A Great Deal

9=A Great Deal

TB 46. How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work? 1=Not at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 9=A Great Deal TB 47. How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students? 1=Not at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 9=A Great Deal TB 48. To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies? 1=Not at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit

9=A Great Deal

TB 49. To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused? 1=Not at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 9=A Great Deal TB 50. How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school? 1=Not at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 9=A Great Deal TB 51. How well can you implement alternative teaching strategies in your classroom? 1=Not at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 9=A Great Deal

101

Collective Teacher Beliefs ScaleSPSS Variable Name and Positions CTB 52 59 Variable Teachers Production of Meaningful Student Learning Values 1 = None at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = None at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = None at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = None at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = None at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = None at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = None at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = None at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal

CTB 53

60

Influence Students Beliefs in Their Academic Achievement

CTB 54

61

Teachers Clear Expectations of Student Behavior

CTB 55

62

Establish Rules and Procedures That Facilitate Learning

CTB 56

63

Help Students Master Complex Content

CTB 57

64

Promote Deep Understanding of Academic Concepts

CTB 58

65

Teachers Responses to Defiant Students

CTB 59

66

Ability to Control Disruptive Behavior

102

Collective Teacher Beliefs Scale (Contd.)SPSS Variable Name and Positions CTB 60 67 Variable Ability to Help Students Think Critically Values 1 = None at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = None at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = None at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal 1 = None at all 2 = Very Little 3 = Some Degree 4 = Quite a Bit 5 = A Great Deal

CTB 61

68

Ability to Get Students to Follow Rules

CTB 62

69

Ability to Foster Student Creativity

CTB 63

70

Ability to Help Students Feel Safe at School

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TCTB Total Collective Teacher 1 = High Belief Score 2 = Medium 3 = Low Instructional Strategies Subscale Score 1 = High 2 = Medium 3 = Low 1 = High 2 = Medium 3 = Low

CTB IS

CTB SD

Student Discipline Subscale Score

NOTE: The original Likert-scale responses for the Collective Teacher Beliefs Scale- 1=None at all, 2, 3=Very Little, 4, 5=Some Degree, 6, 7=Quite a Bit, 8 and 9=A Great Deal were merged as shown above.

103

Collective Teacher Beliefs

Directions: Please indicate your opinion about each of the questions below by marking any one of the nine responses in the columns on the right side, ranging from (1) None at all to (9) A Great Deal as each represents a degree on the continuum. Please respond to each of the questions by considering the current ability, resources, and opportunity of the teaching staff in your school to do each of the following. CTB 52. How much can teachers in your school do to produce meaningful student learning? 1=None at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 9=A Great Deal CTB 53. How much can your school do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork? 1=None at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 9=A Great Deal CTB 54. To what extent can teachers in your school make expectations clear about appropriate student behavior? 1=None at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 9=A Great Deal CTB 55. To what extent can school personnel in your school establish rules and procedures that facilitate learning? 1=None at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 9=A Great Deal CTB 56. How much can teachers in your school do to help students master complex content? 1=None at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 9=A Great Deal CTB 57. How much can teachers in your school do to promote deep understanding of academic concepts? 1=None at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 9=A Great Deal CTB 58. How well can teachers in your school respond to defiant students? 1=None at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit

9=A Great Deal

CTB 59. How much can school personnel in your school do to control disruptive behavior? 1=None at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 9=A Great Deal CTB 60. How much can teachers in your school do to help students think critically? 1=None at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 CTB 61. How well can adults in your school get students to follow school rules? 1=None at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 CTB 62. How much can your school do to foster student creativity? 1=None at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit

9=A Great Deal

9=A Great Deal

9=A Great Deal

CTB 63. How much can your school do to help students feel safe while they are at school? 1=None at all 2 3=Very Little 4 5=Some Degree 6 7=Quite A Bit 8 9=A Great Deal

104

References Allen, M., Coulter, T., Dwyer, C. A., Goe, L., Immerwahr, J., Jackson, A., Johnson, J., Oliver, R. M., Ott, A., Reschly, D. J., Rochkind, J., Rowland, C., & Smartt, S. M. (2007). Americas challenge: Effective teachers for at-risk schools and students. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Angelides, P. & Ainscow, M. (2000). Making sense of the role of culture in school improvement. School effectiveness and school improvement, 11(2), 145 163. Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., Zimmerman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools (Rep. No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Ashton, P. T. & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers sense of efficacy and student achievement. In W. Hoy, S. Sweetland & P. Smith, Toward an organizational model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quaterly, 38(1), 77 93. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191 215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. In R. Goddard, W. Hoy, & A. Woolfolk Hoy, Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3 13. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. In W. Hoy, S. Sweetland, & P. Smith, Toward an organizational model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quaterly, 38(1), 77 93. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. In W. Hoy, S. Sweetland, & P. Smith, Toward an organizational model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 77 93. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75 78. Barab, S. A. & Roth, W-M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an ecological perspective. Educational Reseacher, 35(5), 3 13.

105

Berk, L. E. (2007). History, Theory, and Research Strategies, 23 27. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Brandt, R. S. (1986). On improving achievement of minority children: A conversation with James Comer. Educational Leadership, 13 17. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of development: Experiments in nature and design. In A. Roach & T. Kratochwill, Evaluating school climate and school culture, 16, 1 10. Brooks, M. G. & Brooks, J. G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 18 24. Chen, G. & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 549 556. Cheung, H. (2006). The measurement of teacher efficacy: Hong Kong primary in-service teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(4), 435 451. Comer, J. P., Haynes, N. M., Joyner, E. T., & Ben-Avie, M. (1996). Rallying the whole village. New York: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). New standards and old inequalities: School reform and the Education of African American students. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 263 287. Darling-Hammond, L. & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the Highly Qualified Teacher challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Deemer, S. A. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research, 46(1), 73 90. DiPaola, M. F. & Hoy, W. K. (1994). Teacher militancy: A professional check on bureaucracy. In S. Sweetland, & W. Hoy, School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools, 36(5), 703 729. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. In S. Deemer, Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments, 46(1), 73 90.

106

Edwards, J. L., Green, K. E., & Lyons, C. A. (2002). Personal empowerment, efficacy, and environmental characteristics. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1), 67 86. Edwards, R., Gonsalves, L. M., & Willie, C. V. (2000). The school reform movement and the education of African American youth. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 252 254. Emmons, C. L., Comer, J. P., & Haynes, N. M. (1996). Translating theory into practice: Comers theory of school reform. In J. P. Comer, N. M. Haynes, E. T. Joyner, & M. Ben-Avie (eds.) Rallying the whole village: The Comer process for reforming education, 27 41. New York: Teachers College Press. Ford, D. Y. (1992). The American achievement ideology and achievement differentials among preadolescent gifted and nongifted African American males and females. The Journal of Negro Education, 61(1), 45 64. Foster, M., Lewis, J., & Onafowora, L. (2003). Anthropology, culture, and research on Teaching and learning: Applying what we have learned to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 105(2), 261 277. Fraser, B. J. (1986). Classroom Environment. Croom Helm, London. Fraser, B. J. (1989). Twenty years on classroom environment work: Progress and prospect. In C. McRobbie & B. Fraser, Associations between student outcomes and psychosocial science environment. Journal of Educational Research, 87(21), 78 85. Fraser, B. J. & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.) (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents, and consequences. In C. McRobbie & b. Fraser, Associations between student outcomes and psychosocial science environment. Journal of Educational Research, 87(21), 78 85. Freiberg, H. J. (1998). Measuring school climate: Let me count the ways. Educational Leadership, 22 26. Garcia, D. C. (2004). Exploring connections between the construct of teacher efficacy and family involvement practices. Urban Education, 39, 290 315. Ghaith, G. & Shaaban, K. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of teaching concerns, teacher efficacy, and selected teacher characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 487 496.

107

Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. In W. Hoy, S. Sweetland, & P. Smith, Toward an organizational model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 77 93. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479 508. Goddard, R. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and student achievement in middle schools: A multilevel analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 683 702. Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 467 476. Goddard, R. D. & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 807 -818. Goddard, R.D. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(1), 97 110. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2003). Collective teacher efficacy and student achievement in public high schools: A path analysis. In J. Ross, A. Hogaboam, & P. Gray, Prior student achievement, collaborative school processes, and collective teacher efficacy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 163 188. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & LoGerfo, L. (2003). Collective teacher efficacy and student achievement in public high schools: A path analysis. In J. Ross, A. Hogaboam, & P. Gray, Prior student achievement, collaborative school Processes, and collective teacher efficacy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 163 188. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3 13. Goddard, R. G., LoGerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). High school accountability: The role of collective efficacy. Educational Policy, 18, 403 425. Goldberg, M. F. (1997). Maintaining a focus on child development: An interview with James Comer. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(7), 557 - 559.

108

Goldring, L. (2002). The power of school culture. Leadership, 32 35. Goodman, K., Shannon, P., Goodman, Y., & Rapoport, R. (Eds.). (2004). Saving our schools: The case for public education, saying to no to No Child Left Behind . Berkeley, CA: RDR Books. Haynes, N. M., Emmons, C., & Ben-Avie, M. (1997). School climate as a factor in student adjustment and achievement. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 8(3), 321 329. Haynes, N. M., Emmons, C. L., & Woodruff, D. W. (1998). School development program effects: Linking implementation to outcomes. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 3(1), 71 86. Henson, R. K. (2001). The effects of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 819 -836. Henson, R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 137 -150. Hoy, A. W. & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teachers during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343 356. Hoy, W. (1990). Organizational climate and culture: A conceptual analysis of the school Workplace. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(2), 149 168. Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. (1996). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. In S. Sweetland, & W. Hoy, School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward an organizational model of student achievement in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 703 729. Hoy, W. K. & Sabo, D. J. (1998). Quality of middle schools: Open and healthy. In A. Roach & T. Kratochwill, Evaluating school climate and school culture, 16, 1 10. Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 77 93. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

109

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 425 446. Hoy, W. K. & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993).Teachers sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. In M. Tschannen-Moran & M. Barr, Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189 209. Huang, X., Liu, M., & Shiomi, K. (2006). The relationship between the teacher efficacy and social support and coping style. The Journal of Studies of Educational Practice, 35 42. Huang, X. & Liu, M. (2007). An analysis of the relationships between teacher efficacy, teacher self-esteem and orientations to seeking help. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(5), 707 716. Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research. University of Tennessee: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499 534. Jacob, B. A. (2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. The Future of Children, 17(1), 129 153. Jussim, L. & Eccles, J. S. (1992). Teacher expectations II: Construction and reflection of Student achievement Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 947 961. Jussim, L. & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(2), 131 155. Karaca, E. (2008). An investigation of primary and high school teachers perception levels of efficacy of measurement and evaluation in education in Turkey. Social Behavior and Personality, 36(8), 1111 1122. Kersting, K. (2003). Pondering high-stakes tests. Monitor on Psychology, 34(8), 62 63. Klassen, R. M. (2004). Optimism and realism: A review of self-efficacy from a cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 39(3), 205 230.

110

Knight, S. & Boudah, D. J. (1998, April). Participatory research and development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego. Kratzer, C. C. (1997). Roscoe Elementary School: Cultivating a caring community in an urban elementary school. Journal of education for students placed at risk, 2(4), 345- 375. Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: Maturing the construct through research in alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 341 359. Lin, H. Gorrell, J., & Taylor, J. (2002). Influence of culture and education on U.S. and Taiwan pre-service teachers efficacy beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 37 46. Loder, T. L. (2006). Why we cant leave public schools behind: The inseparable legacy of public education and American democracy. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 30 35. Madon, S. J., Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. (1997). In search of the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. In L. Jussim & K. D. Harber, Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(2), 131 155. Manthey, G. (2006). Collective efficacy: Explaining school achievement. Leadership, 23 36. Martin, J. (2004). Self-regulated learning, social cognitive theory, and agency. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 135 145. McMurrer, J. (2007). Implementing the no child left behind teacher requirements. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. McRobbie, C. J. & Fraser, B. J. (1991). Associations between student outcomes and psychosocial science environment. Journal of Educational Research, 87(21), 78 85. Milner, H. R. & Hoy, A. W. (2003). A case study of an African American teachers self-efficacy, stereotype threat, and persistence. Teacher and Teaching Education, 19, 263 276. Moore, W. & Esselman, M. (1992). Teacher efficacy, power, school climate and achievement: A desegregating districts experience. In M. Tschannen-Moran & M. Barr, Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189 209.

111

National School Boards Association (2006). Frankly, your schools could use a little Sunshine. American School Board Journal, 12 13. Ohanian, S. (1999). One size fits few. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Onafowora, L. L. (2004). Teacher efficacy issues in the practice of novice teachers. Educational Research Quarterly, 28(4), 34 43. ONeil, J. (1997). Building schools as communities: A conversation with James Comer. Educational Leadership, 6 10. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. In R. Henson, From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 137 150. Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In R. Goddard, W. Hoy, & A. Woolfolk Hoy, Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479 507. Podell, D., & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals. In R. Henson, From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 137 150. Powell, R. R. (2006). Evaluation research: An overview. Library Trends, 55(1), 102 120. Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., Solic, K., & Collins, S. (2006). A portrait of Benchmark school: How a school produces high achievement in students who previously failed. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 282 -306. Price, H. B. (2002). Achievement matters: Getting your child the best education possible. New York, NY: Kensington Publishing Corporation. Puacharearn, P. & Fisher, D. (2004). The effectiveness of cooperative learning integrated with constructivist teaching on improving learning environments in Thai secondary school science classrooms. Paper presented at the IASCE Conference, Signapore. Purkey, S. C. & Smith, M. S. (1982). Too soon to cheer? Synthesis of research on effective schools. Educational Leadership, 64 69.

112

Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. In R. Henson, From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 137 150. Rickards, T. W., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1997). Teacher-student interpersonal behavior, cultural background and gender in science classes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL Roach, A. T. & Kratochwill, T. R. (2004). Evaluating school climate and school culture. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16, 1 10. Rojewski, J. W. & Wendel, F. C. (1990). Individualizing school-climate surveys. Clearing House, 63(5), 1 6. Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. In M. Tschannen-Moran & M. Barr, Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189 209. Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Gray, P. (2004). Prior student achievement, collaborative school processes, and collective teacher efficacy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 163 188. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1 28. Shaughnessy, M. F. (2004). An interview with Anita Woolfolk: The educational psychology of teacher efficacy. Educational Psychology Review, 16(2), 153 176. Shulman, L. S. & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Fostering communities of teachers as learners: Disciplinary perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 135 140. Shulman, L. S. & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting Perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257 271. Singham, M. (2003). The achievement gap: Myths and reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 586 591. 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.

113

Skrla, L. & Goddard, R. D. (2002, November). Accountability, equity, and collective efficacy in an urban school district: A mixed methods study. Paper presented at the annual conference of the University Council for Educational Administration, Pittsburgh, PA. Skrtic, T. M. (1991). Behind special education. In P. Angelides & M. Ainscow, Making sense of the role of culture in school improvement, 11(2), 145 163. Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problems as factors in special education referral. In R. Henson, From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 137 150. Strahan, D. (2003). Promoting a collaborative professional culture in three elementary schools that have beaten the odds. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 127 146. Sweetland, S. R. & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 703 729. Taimalu, M. & Oim, O. (2005). Estonian teachers beliefs on teacher efficacy and influencing factors. Trames, 2, 177 191. Tobin, K. & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning environments. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 623 640). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Tollefson, N. (2000). Classroom applications of cognitive theorists of motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 63 83. Tournaki, N. & Podell, D. M. (2005). The impact of student characteristics and teacher efficacy on teachers predictions of student success. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 299 314. Trouilloud, D. O., Sarrazin, P. G., Martinek, T. J., & Guillet, E. (2002). The influence of teacher expectations on student achievement in physical education classes: Pygmalion revisited. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 591 607. Tschannen-Moran, M. & Goddard, R. (2001). Collective efficacy and faculty trust in students and parents in urban schools. In J. Ross, A. Hogaboam-Gray, & P. Gray, Prior student achievement, collaborative school processes, and collective teacher efficacy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 163 188.

114

Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783 805. Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2002). The influence of resources and support on teachers efficacy beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Tschannen-Moran, M. & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189 - 209. Tschannen-Moran, M., Parish, J., & DiPaola, M. (2006). School climate: The interplay between interpersonal relationships and student achievement. Journal of School Leadership, 16, 386 415. Tucker, C. M. & Herman, K. C. (2002). Using culturally sensitive theories and research to meet the academic needs of low-income African American children. American Psychologist, 57, 762 773. Tucker, C. M., Zayco, R. A., Herman, K. C., Reinke, W. R., Trujillo, M., & Carraway, K. (2002). Teacher and child variables as predictors of academic engagement among African American children. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 477 488. Tucker, C. M., Porter, T., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., Ivery, P. D., Mack, C. E., & Jackson, E. S. (2005). Promoting teacher efficacy for working with culturally diverse students. Preventing School Failure, 50(1), 29 34. Walberg, H. J. (1986). Psychology of learning environments: Behavioral, structural, or perceptual? Review of Research in Education, vol. 4, pp. 142 148. Walberg, H. J., Fraser, B. J., & Welch, W. W. (1986). A test model of educational productivity among senior high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 133 -139. Walumbwa, F. O., Wand, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2004). The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 515 530. Watson, C. B., Chemers, M. M., & Preiser, N. (2001). Collective Efficacy: A multilevel analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 1057 1068. Wertheim, C. & Yona, L. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 54 63.

115

Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 5 22. Willie, C. V. (2000). Confidence, trust and respect: The preeminent goals of educational reform. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 255 262. Wink, J. & Putney, L. (2002). A vision of Vygotsky. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Woolfolk, A. E. & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. In W. Hoy, S. Sweetland, & P. Smith, Toward an organizational model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 77 93. Vail, K. (2005). Create great school climate. American School Board Journal, 192, 4 11. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational psychology (R. Silverman, Trans.) Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie.

116