Teacher Efficacy Discourses About Education

Teacher Efficacy

Discourses about education abound and involve various examinations of different aspects of education. Among these discourses is the concept of teacher efficacy and the manner in which it impacts students and learning environments. The following literature review will provide information about teacher efficacy. This information will focus on three primary aspects of teacher efficacy including the characteristics of the concept of teacher efficacy, the impact of teacher efficacy on student achievement and teacher efficacy and variety of instruction.

Description/characteristics of teacher efficacy

According to Tschannen-Moran et al., (1998) teacher efficacy is "the extent to which the teacher believes he or she has the capacity to affect student performance…or "teachers' belief or conviction that they can influence how well students learn, even those who may be difficult or unmotivated" (Guskey & Passaro, 1994, p. 4; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). That is, teacher efficacy, involves an educator's belief about the effectiveness of their abilities as an instructor.

Tschannen-Moran et al., (1998) also explains that the theory of teacher efficacy was developed by RAND researchers. The RAND researchers examined the degree to which educators were convinced that they had command over the reinforcement of their performance. The researchers examined if the command over reinforcement was found in the environment or in the teachers. The results of this research demonstrated that both performance and the motivations of students reinforced the teaching actions of instructors. As such, educators who possessed who had increased levels of efficacy believed that they had a great deal of control over motivating students and student achievement. This idea of teacher efficacy impacting student achievement will be discussed in more detail in a later portion of this literature review.

The article further explains that other theories of teacher efficacy also developed as a result of research. One such strand was developed by Bandura (1977) who found the teacher efficacy was actually perceived as a type of self-efficacy in which individuals form opinions about their ability to perform at a specific level. These opinions that people hold about themselves are evident in the amount of effort that people make, their persistence levels when they face adversity, the amount of stress they feel when working through difficult circumstances, and the manner in which they deal with failure. The author explains that these two different but linked conceptual theories are responsible for the lack of clarity concerning the nature of teacher efficacy (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).

Although the nature of teacher efficacy can be difficult to define, there is no doubt that the concept exists and that it can have a serious effect on the educational environment. In fact, according to Hoy & Wolfolk (1993) teacher efficacy has an impact on the health of the entire educational institution.

The authors explain that the concept of school climate has been expressed in many different ways. In some instances researchers have utilized a personality metaphor to describe the interpersonal relationships that are an aspect of the school environment. Hoy & Wolfolk (1993) choose to explain these relationships in terms of health because it is a more accurate way to describe the school environment.

The concept of school health was developed to capture the nature of student-teacher, teacher-teacher, and teacher-administrator interactions. The idea of health in an organization is not new; it calls attention to factors that both facilitate and impede the development of positive inter- personal relationships within the organization (Hoy & Forsyth, 1986; Miles, 1969). A healthy school is one in which harmony pervades relationships among students, teachers, and administrators as the organization directs its energies toward its mission.

Healthy schools appear to be high- achieving schools (Hoy et al., 1990; Hoy,

Tarter, et al., 1991; Hoy & Wolfolk,1993 pg 356).

The authors further explain that in attempting to explain the differences between effective and ineffective schools, that are some organizational features that have been found and are correlated with the achievement of students (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). These features include good relationships among co workers and high expectations for students can also determine the overall health of the school (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993).

The authors go on to explain that all social systems including schools are faced with resolving four basic issues if they want to last, prosper and improve. For schools these four basic issues involve both instrumental needs an expressive needs. The instrumental needs are adaptation and goal achievement. The expressive needs include social and normative integration. According to Hoy & Wolfolk (1993), this means that students must have the ability to handle their environments while attempting to achieve goals. This entails the meeting of instrumental needs (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). In addition, schools must also be well organized while also creating their own values and cultures (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). This entails the meeting of expressive needs (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993).

Additionally it has also been asserted that there are three levels of control through which instrumental and expressive needs are met (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). These levels are technical, managerial, and institutional. The first level, the technical level, involves the teaching-learning activity (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). The primary goal of a school is to ensure that student are learning. Resolving the issues correlated to effective teaching and learning are the responsibilities of administrators and teachers (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993).

As it pertains to the managerial level it is controlled by the administrative operations that are internal to the organization (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). In this sense principals serve as the main administrators in a school setting (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). As administrators principles are responsible for distributing resources and ensuring that teachers are performing the designated tasks. Administrators are also responsible for controlling the clime of a school as it pertains to the development of trust, enthusiasm, and allegiance (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). Principal must also have the capacity to influence leaders who hold higher positions and are responsible for the distribution of resources for the schools (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993).

Lastly, the institutional dynamic involves the relationship that the school has with the surrounding environment. Schools must have the support of the community in order to operate effectively (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). This support is need because teachers and administrators alike must have assistance if they are to carry out the tasks associated with their job s (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). To this end the manner in which a school interacts with its community should be amicable and not consist of unreasonable pressure (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). These three levels are instrumental in describing the measures that are needed in a healthy school (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). The authors further explain,

"a healthy school is one in which the technical, managerial, and institutional levels are in harmony and the school is meeting both its instrumental and expressive needs as it successfully copes with disruptive external forces and directs its energies toward its mission. Six dimensions of organizational health-institutional integrity, principal influence, consideration, resource support, morale, and academic emphasis-have been identified to describe the health of a school. These critical aspects of organizational life meet the instrumental and expressive needs of the school social system and fall into Parsons's three levels of responsibility and control within the school (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993)."

Understanding these levels is essential to understanding how school health influences teacher efficacy and vice versa. These health of schools and teacher efficacy are dependent upon one another.

In their study Hoy & Wolfolk,(1993) 179 elementary school teachers were randomly selected from a total of 37 New Jersey elementary schools. The sample was heterogeneous composed of schools from different geographic area and The socioeconomic levels. However the authors report that of the 37 participating schools more that half (27) were from districts with above average wealth (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). As such the sample is partial toward more advantaged schools (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). This should be taken into consideration when examining the results of the study. There were a total of five teachers that participated in the study from each of the 37 schools (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). Of these teachers 97% completed usable questionnaires. The average numbers of years of experience was 14.43 years and the mean age was 42. Eighty three percent of the participants were women and 80% of the participants had tenure. Additionally participants had an average class size was 21 (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993).

The findings of the study demonstrate that the personal characteristics of teachers and their opinions of their school are paramount in the forming of teacher efficacy. The study found that the surroundings of the teacher effected their sense of efficacy as it pertained to motivating students . The findings also found a reciprocal relationship between efficacy and the school. This means that teacher efficacy affect the school environment and the school environment affect teacher efficacy. The research also found that

Two aspects of organizational life predicted personal teaching efficacy-principal influence and academic emphasis. Not only were the zero-order correlations significant, but the beta coefficients in the regression analysis demonstrated that both variables were significantly related to a sense of personal teaching efficacy after controlling for the influence of all the other personal and organizational characteristics in the study (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993)."

The study also found that the promotion of personal teaching efficacy was most evident in schools when other teachers and administrators set goals that were high but achievable, the school climate was organized and serious, and when academic excellence was highly regarded (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993). In addition, teacher efficacy had a great deal to do with the perception that principals could influence their superiors. That is the influence of administrators led to greater efficacy of teachers. These findings are consistent with previous research (Hoy & Wolfolk,1993).

According to Goddard et al. (2004) collective efficacy is also an important aspect of teaching efficacy as it pertains to student achievement. The authors assert that The connections between collective efficacy beliefs and student outcomes depend in part on the reciprocal relationships among these collective efficacy beliefs, teachers' personal sense of efficacy, teachers' professional practice, and teacher's influence over instructionally relevant school decisions (Goddard et al., 2004) ."

The authors also points out that collective efficacy is not limited to education as it pertains to positive outcomes. The researchers explain that collective efficacy is important in other organizations including businesses. In fact the authors point out that the positive outcomes that are realized from collective efficacy in other domains only serve to reiterate the need for collective efficacy in the realm of education (Goddard et al., 2004) .

From the standpoint of the education environment, the author asserts that collective efficacy focuses on the idea that teachers cannot only possess self-efficacy but also certain opinions about the capacity of the school to meet the needs of the students. The authors point out that the group reference opinion within organizations is described as the perceived collective efficacy (Goddard et al., 2004). As it pertains to organizations the perceived collective efficacy is the opinions of members of the organization as it pertains to the performance abilities of the entire unit. In the context of the school environment collective efficacy is defined as the "judgment of teachers in a school that the faculty as a whole can organize and execute the courses of action required to have a positive effect on students (Goddard et al., 2004)."

The authors further posit that the concept of collective efficacy is so important because research has suggested that it is essential to succeeding as it pertains to group goals. As it pertains specifically to education the research has found a substantive correlation between perceived collective efficacy and the differences in student achievement among various schools (Bandura, 1993; Goddard, 2001; Goddard et al., 2000; Goddard et al., 2004). In fact, Bandura found that the effect of perceived collective efficacy on student achievement was greater than the correlation between SES and student achievement (Goddard et al., 2004). Goddard also discovered that, even after controlling for race/ethnicity, gender, prior achievement, and SES, perceived collective efficacy had a more substantial impact on student achievement than did race or SES (Goddard et al., 2004). In addition, teachers held varying beliefs concerning the collective ability of schools and teacher perceptions had a definite impact upon the achievement of students (Goddard et al., 2004).

The authors also explain that in addition to the positive relationship between perceived collective efficacy and student achievement, perceived collective efficacy also assist in the process of any type of goal attainment. Researchers have found that a greater sense of collective efficacy in city neighborhoods results in lower levels of violence within the neighborhood. Also,

Neighborhoods in which residents reported a strong sense of collective efficacy were also ones in which citizens felt an expectation for action that predisposed them to intervene to decrease violent activity. Such social sanctions serve as deterrents to those who might otherwise violate group expectations. In addition,

Little and Madigan (1997) have shown that perceived collective efficacy is a strong positive predictor of work group effectiveness. They observe that a group's sense of collective efficacy has "a mediating, or facilitating effect on team

performance (Goddard et al., 2004)."

The authors go on to state that the reason why perceived collective efficacy is so influential is that it represents the expectations for actions. These expectations are diffused via collective efficacy perceptions (Sampson, Morenoff, & Earls, 2000; Goddard et al., 2004). Sampson et al. (2000) also asserted that collective efficacy perceptions are essential as it pertains to the manner in which groups operate because they illuminate the manner in which the abilities of the organization are out to use to reach a stated goal (Goddard et al., 2004). In some cases the perceived collective efficacy has an affect upon the persistence associated with the pursuing of goals within an organization (Goddard et al., 2004). With these things understood, collective efficacy can be viewed as a powerful way of describing the standards and behavioral influences associate with the culture of an organization (Goddard et al., 2004). This type of understanding concerning collective efficacy is essential to understanding the impact that the culture of a school has on teachers an the manner in which this influence shapes student achievement (Goddard et al., 2004).

Finally, the author explains that as teachers and administrators attempt to improve the level of academic achievement amongst students, schools must investigate the power that the have to develop an environment that is conducive to learning. The connection between group outcomes and perceived collective efficacy can be explained by the resiliency with which the efficacious pursue given goals (Goddard et al., 2004). Similarly, to self-efficacy beliefs, collective efficacy is correlated to tasks, degree of effort, persistence, communal thoughts, stress levels, and achievement amongst group members. In the same way that personal teachers efficacy is partially responsible for influence of teachers on student achievement, from an organizational standpoint, a faculty's sense of collective efficacy provides insight into the varying effects that school cultures has on both teachers and students (Goddard et al., 2004).

Because this is the case it is apparent that some school environment positively influence teachers while others have a negative impact on teachers. For instance, some teachers work in schools where the academic standards and goals are low and as such they have poor perception of collective efficacy (Goddard et al., 2004). On the other hand there are teachers who work in schools that have high standards and where there is confidence associated with the collective abilities of the schools faculty (Goddard et al., 2004). The beliefs concerning collective efficacy within the educational environment can affect teacher performance and student learning (Goddard et al., 2004).

Teacher efficacy is basically a theory involving teachers opinions about their competence. How teachers feel about their performance as educators is important and can serve as a predictor for the overall health of an organization. The greater the amount of teacher efficacy that exist in the school environment, the more likely the school is to be a healthy organization. In addition the research suggest that collective efficacy is also an emerging area of interest that provides important understanding of the impact of the school environment in motivating teachers and students. When teachers and administrators have high levels of perceived collective efficacy group goals and achievements are more likely to be realized.

How teacher efficacy impacts learning/student achievement

Teacher efficacy can have a profound impact upon the achievement of students. When teachers do not feel adequate as instructors students are less likely to excel. On the other hand if teachers do feel that they are adequate as teachers, their confidence spills over into their classrooms and student achievement is the result. There have been several studies conducted involving the impact of teacher efficacy on student achievement.

According to Ross (1992) explains that prior research the efficacy of teachers can influence the development of innovative programs and student achievement. For instance, McLaughlin and Marsh (1978) used a single questionnaire item for each of two dimensions of teacher efficacy, Rand 1 (general teaching efficacy) and Rand 2 (personal teaching efficacy. The questionnaire found "an extended causal chain-from teacher efficacy to teacher behavior to student efficacy to student behavior to student achievement." In addition, Ashton and Webb (1986) used identical measures and discovered that finding that Rand 1 was associated to student math scores and that Rand 2 was correlated to language performance. In both instances measures were associated with the instructional tendencies of teachers. That is correlations could be made to the creation of a positive emotional climate in the classroom and the avoidance of seatwork (Ross 1992).

Smylie (1988) asserts that there are three measurement tools that can be used to determine personal teacher efficacy that have a positive correlation to implementation of an interactive teaching program. In addition Stein and Wang (1988) measures of teacher efficacy involved having teachers appraise how well they felt they could put into operation each of the 22 elements contained in a mainstreaming program (Ross, 1992). The research concluded that scores were positively correlated to the implementation. Additionally, in their study Anderson, Greene, and Loewen (1988) utilized the Gibson and Dembo instruments and discovered that personal teaching efficacy was an indicator of student achievement in the areas of reading, language, and math in third graders (Ross, 1992).

Other past research has also found that teacher efficacy served as a mediator between teacher practice and teacher collaborations (Ross, 1992). In fact, in their study Poole and Okeafor (1989) discovered that when teachers have significant levels of general teaching efficacy were more likely to implement new programs if they collaborated more with other teachers. On the other hand the researchers found that teachers who possessed significant levels of personal teaching efficacy were more likely to utilize the curriculum guides of the district if they worked less with other teachers. (Ross, 1992)

As it relates to the study performed by Ross (1992), the purpose of the study was to examine teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student Achievement.

the sample size was 18 history teachers. The teachers were from rural Ontario and had a heterogeneous range as it pertained to experience, educational qualifications, types pf assignments, age and sex. Cumulatively the participating teachers had 36 classes and were supported by a total of 6 coaches that were chosen because they were viewed as confident and motivated as it pertained to history instruction (Ross, 1992). Additionally the coaches were different as it pertained to demographic and organizational variables (Ross, 1992). For the purposes of the study, Coaches were paired with teachers based on geography (Ross, 1992). The study tasked the teachers with carrying out a new history curriculum guideline and were presented with three different types of resources to meet the goals of the guideline (Ross, 1992).

The first resource was the curriculum materials. This constitute the guideline and instruction materials (Ross, 1992). It also included texts, nonprint and print materials. Workshops were the second resource that was provided. These workshops took place over a three day period through the duration of the school year (Ross, 1992). According to the author

"Each workshop emphasized specific strategies for meeting the cognitive skill expectations of the history program. The instructional procedures recommended to teachers in these workshops, elaborated in Robinson, Ross, and White (1985),

had positive effects on problem-solving achievement in previous studies (see, for example, the meta-analyses in Ross, 1988b; Ross & Maynes, 1983) and there is evidence these effects endure over time (Ross & Maynes, 1985). The workshops followed a demonstration, practice, feedback format in which specific teaching strategies were demonstrated in a large group setting; practice activities were completed in small groups led by coaches; and, after feedback, in-class

implementation schedules were developed (Ross, 1992)."

The final resource involved collaboration with coaches (Ross, 1992). The author that the amount of contact between coaches and teachers differed and ranged from one face-to-face and one telephone contact throughout the year to dozens of each kind. Either party could start the contacts. The approach was derived for the In-School Resource Coaching Model developed in 1987(Ross, 1992). Using this model teachers are expected to utilize a procedure of examining program expectations, observing classroom procedures, developing changes, and providing feedback related to implementation (Ross, 1992). The coaching utilized for the purposes of this study were different from the In-source model in that "the relationship was less reciprocal in that the coaches were relative "experts" in the history program, and there was virtually no classroom observation component (Ross, 1992)." None of the teachers had coaches sitting in their classrooms for observation (Ross, 1992).

There were two hypothesis associated with the study. The first hypothesis asserted that classrooms in which teacher interacted more with coaches there would be higher student achievement (Ross, 1992). This hypothesis was correct. However, the author explains that

"it is reasonable to infer that coaching practices contributed to higher achievement, it is possible that teachers who were enjoying greater success in the classroom might have sought out their coaches and/or coaches might have responded more enthusiastically to success stories. Although the direction of causality in a correlational study cannot be determined with absolute confidence, the study adds to the growing evidence that coaching may positively affect student achievement (Ross, 1992)."

The assertion of the second hypothesis was that student achievement would be positively effected by teachers with higher levels of teacher efficacy. This hypothesis was also correct. The study found that personal teaching efficacy was the predictor of student achievement and not general teaching efficacy (Ross, 1992). The author explains that this particular study is one of the few that have researched the issue of the impact of teacher efficacy on student achievement. The author also explains that the efficacy of the teachers involved in the study was only measured once which is consistent with the manner in which teacher efficacy is usually measured. However there are some researchers that believe that a more accurate way of observing teacher efficacy is to treat it as a variable state instead of a trait (Ross, 1992). This approach is consistent with the way self-efficacy is measured in other disciplines.

The author also explains that people who have examined teacher efficacy over time periods identical to the current study have determined that there are changes that occur, particularly when the study involves preservice teachers (Ross, 1992). According to the author, Stein and Wang (1988) found that the confidence in teachers often increases as it relates to their capacity to apply certain innovations in their classrooms. In addition Hoy and Woolfolk (1990) discovered that general teaching efficacy tended to decrease while personal teaching efficacy increased once preservice teachers had been allowed to gain some experience practice teaching.

Additionally Housego (1990) observed that practice teaching had a significant impact on the confidence of preservice teachers. For instance the scores on an measuring beliefs about preparedness to teach grew. In fact the other reports that very few studies have reflected any changes in teacher efficacy when using the same measures as the current study. This occurred with Anderson, Greene, and Loewen (1988), when the researchers found that teacher efficacy was greater at the end of the year than it was in the beginning of the year.

So then the research indicates that teachers who have greater levels of efficacy have more confidence. This confidence allows them to try new and innovative ways of teaching. There willingness to attempt the implementation of new teaching methods can lead to higher levels of academic achievement amongst students. It is also important to note that other factors such as high standards of academic excellence play a role in both teacher efficacy and student achievement. Additionally, teacher who have mentors (coaches) tend to have higher levels of efficacy and their students are higher achievers. The coaches presented in this study also had high levels of teacher efficacy and a great deal of experience in the subjects that they were teaching.

Teacher efficacy and variety of instruction

There are a variety subjects in which teacher efficacy plays a particularly important role. These subjects are important because they can impact the future academic endeavors of students. The implementation of variety instruction is therefore needed and encouraged. One such subject is literacy instruction.

According to Cantrell and Callaway (2008) national assessment in recent years have shown that many students are not prepared for post secondary education. In addition the reading abilities of students have decreased. As a result of these assessments the issue of adolescent literacy has been a topic of debate amongst educators and the federal government has even offered to fund programs geared toward adolescent literacy (Cantrell and Callaway, 2008). The author reports that past research has presented the need to implement literacy instruction into both the high school and middle school curriculum (Cantrell and Callaway, 2008). Although precious attempts at such implementation have not been successful. In many cases teachers are not prepared to put into action content literacy approaches in addition to the practices linked to content literacy instruction that are often inconsistent with the conventional cultures and traditions found in middle schools and high schools (Cantrell and Callaway, 2008).