iklim

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 3369658Copyright 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

ii

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

iii

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 Katrina-

Nelson 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.

iv

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.

v

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

vi

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.

vii

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

viii

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.

ix

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

x

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

xi

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

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

1. Total Years of Teaching for Public Elementary School Teachers in Sample.41

2. Years Taught in Prince Georges County Public Schools (PGCPS)41

3. Certification Status of Public Elementary School Teachers of PGCPS42

4. Highest Degree Obtained for Public Elementary School Teachers of PGCPS43

5. Correlation Matrix of Predictor Variables..45

6. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Individual Teacher Efficacy of Teachers...46

7. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Individual Teacher Efficacy of Teachers .48

8. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Collective Teacher Efficacy of Teachers..50

9. Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Collective Teacher Efficacy of Teachers..51

10. Summary of MANOVA Analysis for Differences Between Criterion Variables, Based on Predictor Variables53

xiii

1

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

2

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

3

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.

4

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

5

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?

2. Are years of teaching experience and grade level significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy?

3. Are years of teaching experience and grade level significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy?

6

4. Are school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy?

5. Are there significant differences between school climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations, based on school type and teacher certification?

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.

H2: Years of teaching experience and grade level will be significant predictors of perceived individual teacher efficacy.

H3: Years of teaching experience and grade level will be significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy.

H4: School climate, perceived individual teacher efficacy and teacher expectations will be significant predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy.

H5: 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)

7

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)

8

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.

9

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.

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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,

17

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.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

(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

23

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

24

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,

25

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

26

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; Tschannen-

Moran & 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).

27

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, Hogaboam-

Gray, & 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

28

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.

29

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.

31

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.

32

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.

33

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 Tschannen-

Moran (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

34

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 ra