In it together - Exploring the Collective Teacher Efficacy perceptions of staff in a Leicestershire Middle-School

7/30/2019 In it together - Exploring the Collective Teacher Efficacy perceptions of staff in a Leicestershire Middle-School

1/37

Daniel C. Thomas BA (Hons)

University of Leicester

In it together? Exploring the CollectiveTeacher Efficacy perceptions of staff in a

Leicestershire Middle School

This paper explores the disparities and commonalities of perceived ability

within the staff at a Leicestershire Middle School. Drawing on a

foundation of Banduras (1977) theory of efficacy - the beliefs in ones

own capabilities to achieve desired outcomes - the research within this

paper aims to explore and understand the collective beliefs held at the

school.

In doing so, this paper endeavours to offer senior leaders of the school a

means of accessing, understanding and ultimately improving their schoolsefficiency: a number of comparatively high-profile studies within the field

of Collective Teacher Efficacy suggest that fostering CTE in schools may

indirectly lead to an increase in positive student outcomes, in addition to a

number of other potential advantages.

As such, the identification and understanding of these efficacy beliefs may

offer genuine insight and value for senior leaders and educational

academics: it is the intention of this study to potentially realise these key

assumptions.


2/37

In it together? Exploring Collective Teacher Efficacy perceptions 1

Contents:

Defining and highlighting the significance of Collective Teacher Efficacy..............................2

Defining focus and expectations................................................................................................3

Theory and practical application in context...............................................................................3

School M: Contextualising the study.........................................................................................5

Methodology: Specification and justification............................................................................6

Methodology: Data reduction....................................................................................................8

Initial findings a): Positive Collective Teacher Efficacy found in School M ...........................8

Initial findings b): Negative / Mixed Collective Teacher Efficacy found in School M...........10

Exploring the data: a breakdown of collectors......................................................................12

Defining limitations and drawing conclusions.........................................................................15

References................................................................................................................................18

Appendices...............................................................................................................................19

Appendix 1: Raw data for each statement...................................................................20

Appendix 2: Visual breakdown for each statement.....................................................26


3/37


Defining and highlighting the significance of Collective Teacher Efficacy

In understanding efficacy within schools, it is important to highlight a fundamental aspect of

working within a school system, which is that teachers operate collectively within an

interactive social system rather than as isolates (Bandura 1993: 141). Whilst this may be a

somewhat apparent statement to make, it nevertheless highlights a crucial distinction in

regards to this study: efficacy can (and has) been studied both in terms of individual and

collective notions; this paper is concerned solely with that of collective efficacy within

schools, or Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE). Tschannen-Moran & Barr help to underline

this distinction:

Collective teacher efficacy differs from teachers individual sense ofefficacy,in that [it] is a property of the school. Collective teacher efficacy is a group

attribute rather than the aggregate of individual teachers self-efficacy beliefs

(Tschannen-Moran & Barr 2004: 191).

CTE is therefore concerned with the collective belief system of staff in a given school; it

relates to the perceptions of teachers in a school that the faculty as a whole can organize and

execute the courses of action necessary to have positive effects on students (Goddard et al.

2002, cited in Cybulski et al. 2005: 441). In summary, it is concerned with identifying the

collective perception of ability within staff, and in turn attributing these shared beliefs

(positive or negative) to the student achievements made within the school.

Indeed, a varied body of research suggests that promoting CTE within schools can be

advantageous to student outcomes in several ways (for example, Ross et al. 2004; Cybulski et

al. 2005; Evans 2009). Firstly, CTE has been found to foster a normative environment of

positive expectation, in which a shared sense of responsibility consequently leads to positive

goal attainment throughout the school (Goddard et al. 2004).

Secondly, encouraging CTE has also been found to increase the overall health and

organizational climate of the school, allowing for an increase in staff and pupil morale

(Tschannen-Moran & Barr 2004). Evidence also suggests that teachers of highly efficious

schools are more likely to set challenging benchmarks for themselves, display an increased

enthusiasm for teaching, and generally own a greater sense of collective confidence in their

abilities (Leithwood et al. 2009).


4/37


However, whilst this varied body of research does suggest that promoting CTE may

indirectly lead to greater student outcomes, contextual caution must be applied; for instance,

much of the research surrounding CTE is of American origin: schooling systems in the U.K

are inherently different. Similarly, the means and methods for defining efficacy itself have

themselves evolved over time (for example, Rotter 1966; Gibson & Dembo 1985). These

combined factors may lead to a misinterpretation of the overall effect of CTE if vigilant

academic scrutiny is not applied; they warrant a greater discussion which cannot be fully

considered within the scope of this paper (for example, see Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998).

Defining focus and expectations

Based on the positive evidence found in understanding and developing CTE, the researchconducted within this study therefore explores the collective belief systems of staff within a

Leicestershire Middle School (hereafter referred to as School M); its primary aim is to

explore commonalities and disparities in group perceptions of ability. It is the hope that in

pinpointing these alternating perceptions, a greater insight into the collective dynamics of the

teaching staff, overall climate, enthusiasm and organisational aspects of the school might be

gained.

In doing so, the expectations of the research are two-fold: firstly, that leaders within School

M may be able to pin-point key areas of collective strength and weakness within their school;

as such, they may be able to improve the overall ethos and collective attitude of it.

Secondly, it is hoped that in fostering these key factors, senior leaders might ultimately be

able to improve and maintain positive student outcomes of learning, as suggested within

similar CTE studies and their findings.

Theory and practical application in context

Whilst this study has endeavoured to base its rationale on sound academic theory and

practise, it is nevertheless important to highlight the value of context within this study.

Indeed, whilst factors such as the size of the school, its demographic and location (for

example) may affect the practical application of any such studyand by rote its natureit is

the construct of efficacy that is perhaps most susceptible to contextual arguments:

Teacher efficacy is context specific... even from one class period to another,teachers' level of efficacy may change. (Goddard et al. 2000: 482)


5/37


In understanding and assessing the value of the research and evidence uncovered within this

study, it is therefore imperative that the context of the school, its staff and pupils are firstly

acknowledged before any assumptions are made.

Similarly, there is evidence to suggest that personal and collective efficacy levels may also

fluctuate, depending on a range of circumstances and variables . For example, Banduras

(1993) study of CTE found that teachers collective sense of efficacy varied across grade

levels, ability groups, time of the year, and teaching longevity (Evans 2009: 72).

Although American in origin, Figure 1 nevertheless helps to highlight his contextual

argument regarding CTE:

Figure 1:

Bandura, A., 1993. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational

Psychologist, 28, pp. 142

Therefore, whilst the application of theoretical and empirical aspects of efficacy may help to

broadly outline a schools perceived collective efficacy, it would be crass to assume that the

exact same means and measurements apply directly to each school; notions of collective

efficacy should be fine-tuned to the unique circumstances in which they are measured. It is

under these guidelines that the following contextual information regarding the school has

been given.


6/37


School M: Contextualising the study

School M is an 11-14 Leicestershire middle-school of a mixed social demographic, currently

with 600+ pupils on roll (Mohammed 2009). There are over 80 members of staff in total,

including all leaders, teachers, learning assistants and support staff; of this, there are fivemembers of senior leadership (under guidance, the schools bursar has been included in this

category), 17 middle-managers (either Heads of Year or Department) and 43 teachers

(including the 17 middle-managers).

A key significance regarding the school is its current double-outstanding status: it has been

classified as outstanding by Ofsted, both in 2006 and 2009 respectively. In explaining the

rationale behind the classification given in 2009, the report asserts:

This is an outstanding school. It has an exceptionally high regard for pupils'

personal development and well-being, coupled with a strong ethos of meeting

individual needs. This is acknowledged by parents, who recognise that each

pupil is valued and supported within an ethos of a caring school community in

which all pupils thrive. (Mohammed 2009: 3)

Indeed, community and ethos are perceived to be strong elements within the school, and are

often credited as key factors in the positive student outcomes, and the success of the school as

a whole. On School Ms website, the Headmaster (hereafter referred to as MF) similarly

states:

We have a clear set of beliefs that drive our school... The great strength of our

school is the quality of relationships and the care that staff have for pupils and

pupils have for one another. No one individual is more important than anybody

else. (MF 2011)

The statement by Ofsted and MF both appear to suggest that CTE is operating at the school;

one might assume that the collective belief systems postulated by Bandura et al. are not only

present, but flourishing. Certainly, the implicit assumption from both parties is that the

success of the school is based at least in part on these collective strengths. Indeed, it is here

that the nature of the study may become more significant: is a school which holds a double-

outstanding, and clearly prides itself as being more than the sum of its parts, a highly efficious

one; does it generally hold similar perceptions of skill and ability amongst its staff?

Before further questions are raised, however, it is important to acknowledge several other


7/37


contextual elements which are similarly important to the study. Firstly, the study itself was

undertaken during the latter part of the spring term, between 02/03/11 and 08/04/11

inclusively. In relation to efficacy in context, Banduras (1993) study found that teachers

exhibited higher collective sense of efficacy earlier in the year. Using this as a guideline, it is

clear that the specific timing of a study might indeed yield differing results.

Secondly, School M is currently aiming to convert from a middle-secondary (11-14) to a full-

secondary (11-16) within two-to-three years. Clearly, this is contextually important: it held

significant influence across the school during the time of study, with its senior leaders

attending regular meetings, and members of staff being actively encouraged to discuss these

proposals. Overall, the bid was met with interest and enthusiasmthis in turn generated an

upbeat atmosphere amongst staff, who were largely buoyed by the prospects; as such, it is

certainly a possible that this may have positively impacted on the CTE research conducted at

the time.

Finally, in returning to the normative environments in schools postulated by Goddard et al.

(2004), MF has been active in the role of Headmaster at the school for over 15 years: a

substantial period, in which normative states throughout the school are likely to have been

embedded:

Once the collective efficacy of a school is established, whether it enhances

student learning or obstructs it, it becomes a stable component of the culture

that requires substantial effort to change (Tschannen-Moran & Barr 2004:

191).

As such, the influence of a comparatively long-standing Headmaster is likely to be a

significant one in relation to the studys results: a long period of stability under one leader

may again positively (or, indeed, negatively) affect CTE results.

Methodology: Specification and justification

In concurrence with key educational studies conducted since the understanding and

development of efficacy meanings and measures (for example, Rotter 1966, Bandura 1977,

Gibson & Dembo 1985, Hoy & Woolfolk 1993, Tschannen-Moran & Barr 2004) this studys

findings have similarly been amassed though the use of a Likert-scale questionnaire,


8/37


comprised of 21 positive and negative statements in total. These were placed in staff pigeon-

holes on 02/03/11 and asked to be completed and returned within the month.

It was felt that although other methods such as interviewing or surveying have been justified

as legitimate techniques in many forms of empirical research (for example, Robson 2002)

that these would be inappropriate and unconducive for the expectations outlined within this

study.

Whilst interviewing might allow for a greater detail of information to be given, being a

versatile method of gaining data... [allowing] researchers to address a wide range of goals

and purposes (Hobson & Townsend 2010: 227), practical factors must also be considered: in

assessing CTE perceptions in School M, it was felt that as many members of staff as possible

should participate in the study in order to maximise the collective basis of the inquiry, and

thus its empirical validity. Therefore, a six-point Likert-scale questionnaire was selected, in

order to maximise the practicality and scope of the study. Figure 2:

The selection of the exact Likert-scale was comparatively straightforward: Goddards (et al.,

2000) model of 21 statements, developed from Gibson & Dembos (1985) 30-point model -

at the time one of the most commonly used and well-researched instruments for assessing

teacher efficacy (Goddard et al. 2000: 487) was drawn from the retrospection of 30 years

of previous efficacy research and analysis.

Importantly, however, Goddard et al. (2000) also adapted Gibson & Dembos Likert-scale

questionnaire in order to assess CTE as its primary focus; in contrast to assessing individual

teacher efficacy, to which the scale had previously been utilised.

As such, individual statements under Gibson & Dembos (1985) model were subsequently

refocused to assess the collective beliefs within schools; thus, a statement such as I am able

to get through to the most difficult students was translated into Teachers in this school can

get through to the most difficult students. In this way, participants of the study were forced

into collective modes of thinking, rather than purely considering their own individual

confidence and efficacy perceptions: a fundamental component of this study.


9/37


Methodology: Data reduction

Goddards (et al. 2000) Likert-scale model contains 21 statements in total, each within a six-

point-scale. All staff were asked to complete the questionnaire: of this, a total of 50 members

of staff participated. Each member of staff was subsequently labelled under one of six

categories: Senior Leader, Middle-Manager, Teacher, Learning Support Assistant, or Support

Staff. The rationale behind this distinction was to locate areas of collective and mixed

perceptions within key areas of staff; in this way, senior leaders within School M might be

able to pin-point and develop these particular cohorts, maximising efficiency.

Clearly, including all data within the body of this study would have been impractical within

the confines of this paper: as such, six key findings have been selected as a basis for

discussion; three illustrations which suggest positive CTE within the school, and three which

suggest negative and / or mixed perceptions. A full outline of the findings can be located

within the appendices.

Initial findings a): Positive Collective Teacher Efficacy found in School M

For the purposes of this study, positive results are defined as those in which a clear 60% or

above demonstrated a commonality of perception as a collective. Within this specification,

11 of the 21 statements returned positive results.

It is important to note that there is a mix of positively and negatively-phrased statements

throughout the questionnaire, in accordance with Goddards (2000) model:

Figure 3:


10/37


Above, Statement 6 demonstrates high CTE perceptions in regard to teachers perseverance

within the school; 42 out of 50 either Strongly Disagree or Disagree with this negatively-

phrased statement.

Figure 4:

Similarly, Statement 9 supports the positive CTE perceptions regarding the skill-set of

teachers within School M; here it is important to note that a combined 84% of the entire staff

surveyed either Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed with this statement.

Figure 5:

Equally, although comparatively more varied to previous statements, Statement 21 again

demonstrates an overall positive CTE perception in relation to whole-school discipline issues.


11/37


Initial findings b): Negative / Mixed Collective Teacher Efficacy found in School M

For the purposes of this study, negative results are defined as those in which a clear 60% or

more of the collective were in disparity of perception. Mixed results are defined as those in

which the results were evidently spread across all, or most (5/6th) of the 6-point Likert-scale.

It is important to highlight that in this study, none of the results yielded a negative response

under this stipulation: 10 of the 21 can be defined as having mixed CTE responses,

however:

Figure 6:

Although Statement 7 does demonstrate marginally more positive-to-negative responses,

there is nevertheless a certain level of disparity amongst staff, yielding an overall mixed CTE

response to the need for training; further, it may perhaps be considered to be at odds with the

positive response to Statement 21.


12/37


Figure 7:

Similarly, whilst Statement 8 does reveal some unity in response, there is nevertheless a clear

division of CTE perceptions in regards to the teacher-student expectations within the school.

Figure 8:

Equally, Statement 15 appears to highlight mixed opinions regarding the schools facilities,

and its relationship to teacher-student outcomes.


13/37


Exploring the data: a breakdown ofcollectors

As stipulated earlier, an important factor in understanding CTE perceptions within a school is

highlighting which staff categories (Senior Leader, Middle Manager, etc) or collectors hold

particular perceptions; in this way, school leaders may be able to more accurately identify

where the mixed perceptions are located, and therefore address these more precisely. It is on

this basis that the previous three mixed responses are broken down into the key collectors

within each statement:

Figure 9:

In re-assessing the data in this way, evidence suggests that the LSAs in School M mostly

Agree or Strongly Agree with this statement; contrastingly, Teachers themselves hold

comparatively mixed perceptions in regards to whether training is needed.

Statement 7: Whole-staff perceptions

Statement 7: LSA perceptions Statement 7: Teacher perceptions


14/37


Figure 10:

In this example, evidence demonstrates clear boundaries of perception within each of the

collectors selected: Teachers have mixed perceptions overall; the Support Staff in School M

generally disagree with the statement, whereas LSAs all Agree or Strongly Agree with the

statement.

Statement 8: Whole-staff perceptions

Statement 8: Support-staff perceptions Statement 8: LSA perceptions

Statement 8: Teacher perceptions


15/37


Figure 11:

Finally, Statement 15 reveals a clear disparity between Senior Leaders and Middle Manager

perceptions for School Ms facilities, and its contribution to school outcomes; Teachers

evidently hold mixed perceptions in this regard.

Statement 15: Whole-staff perceptions Statement 15: Senior Leader perceptions

Statement15: Middle-manager perceptions Statement 15: Teacher perceptions


16/37


Defining limitations and drawing conclusions

In defining limitations, it is important to firstly highlight the brevity of this paper; as such a

significant proportion of the results have been omitted in favour of highlighting key examples

on which discussion and analysis can be based. The evidence given should therefore be seen

as more ofa snap-shot of perception, rather than a holistic understanding of it.

Similarly, as Goddard et al. (2004: 3) acknowledge, CTE perceptions are, by definition,

beliefs about individual or group capability, not necessarily accurate assessments of those

capabilities. This is a key factor in assessing CTE perceptions, since it is evident that people

regularly over or underestimate their actual abilities (ibid.). As such, whilst the findings do

assess collective perceptions, caution must be given in connecting these beliefs with theirpossible objective realities.

Equally, contextual arguments relating to the period in which the study was undertaken;

normative factors such as a long-term Headship and significant issues such as a potential 11-

16 development within the school may have affected the results. By its nature, the

assessment of CTE perceptions must be considered as a fundamentally subjective and fluid

construct, unique to each school setting.

Nevertheless, despite these limitations, it is possible for a number of statements to be made

regarding the CTE perceptions of School M, based on this studys findings:

1. Results demonstrated a slightly more positive overall CTE perception (11/21) withinthe school, based on the criteria set;

2. There were marginally less (10/21) mixed CTE perceptions; of these none could bedescribed as entirely negative based on the criteria given (60% or more in disparity

of perception)

3. Positive CTE perceptions related to teacher perseverance, academic and disciplineskills within the school;

4. Mixed CTE perceptions related to teacher training, whole-school facilities andcollective teacher conviction in students;

5. A breakdown of these mixed CTE results highlighted a Teacher/LSA disparity ofperception, as well as Support-staff/LSA and Leadership/Middle-manager disparities.


17/37


In returning to this papers initial premise of exploring the CTE perceptions within School M,

the findings have (whilst limited in scope) uncovered clear areas of commonality and

disparities of perception; further, key staff cohorts within the school system have been

explored, and their diverging perceptions revealed. It is recommended that academic

researchers, and leaders of School M, refer to the full list of findings included in the

appendix, for a more holistic understanding of the schools CTE perceptions.

Whilst it would perhaps be tempting to relate School Ms double-outstanding category to its

positive CTE perceptions, it would also be unwise and assumptive: there is simply not

enough evidence based on this papers findings to firmly associate the two. It is evident,

however, that staff do hold an overall strong perception of their academic skills and

perseverance as a collective; something which is supported by MF and Ofsteds own

assessments, and is defined by CTE academics as a fundamental aspect found in highly

efficious schools with positive student outcomes. Overall, these results therefore point

towards a positive assessment; it is the recommendation of this paper that additional studies

are conducted within School M to develop, and possibly support the findings within this

study.

By way of a final consideration, it is important to return to the documented effects of

fostering collective perceptions: recent studies have found that CTE operates within schools

on a reciprocal level; that is, the relationship between belief patterns and subsequent

achievements are seen to be inexorably linked: outcomes affect efficacy beliefs, and beliefs

contribute to higher attainments.

There is a reciprocal relationship between collective teacher efficacy and

student achievement. The school environment can affect teachers belief intheir collective efficacy to improve student achievement, and increased student

achievement can increase teachers sense of collective efficacy. (Tschannen-

Moran & Barr 2004: 196)

As such, assessing and fostering positive CTE perceptions within a school may not only lead

to enhanced normative states, increased teacher confidence and overall staff and pupil

morale, it may indirectly lead to improved student outcomes, in turn creating a reciprocal

cycle of positive beliefs, and subsequent achievement.


18/37


Figure 12:

Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998. Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and Measure. Review of Educational

Research, 68(2), pp. 202.

Whilst more empirical evidence is needed, initial findings suggest that assessing CTE

perceptions may potentially offer educational leaders a means of unlocking and

understanding the very foundations of their school and its outcomes.

As such, Collective Teacher Efficacy is a notion which academics and school leaders may

wish to continue to explore and develop within this school and others like itthroughout

the foreseeable future: the benefits of doing so might be very powerful indeed.

END

3570 words

Daniel C. Thomas

Leicester Number: 077365703


19/37


References

Bandura, A., 1993. Social Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning.Educational Psychologist, 28(2), pp.117-148

Cybulski et al. 2005. The roles of collective efficacy of teachers and fiscal efficiency in studentachievement.Journal of Educational Administration, 43(5), pp.439-461.

Evans, A., 2009. No Child Left Behind and the Quest for Educational Equity: The Role of TeachersCollective Sense of Efficacy.Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), pp.64-91.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M.,1985. Teachers Sense of Efficacy: An Important Factor in SchoolImprovement. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), p.173.

Goddard et al., 2000. Collective Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning, Measure, and Impact on Student

Achievement.American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), pp.479-507.

Goddard et al., 2004. Collective Efficacy Beliefs: Theoretical Developments, Empirical Evidence, and

Future Directions.Educational Researcher, 33(3), pp.3-13.

Hobson, A. J., & Townsend, A., 2010. Interviewing as Educational Research Methods. In Hartas, D.

(ed.),Educational Research and Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Cheltenham:

Nelson Thornes, pp. 223-238

Hoy, W. & Woolfolk, A., 1993. Teachers Sense of Efficacy and the Organizational Health ofSchools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), p.355.

Leithwood, K., et al. 2010. School leaders influences on student learning: the four paths. In Bush, T.,

Bell, L. & Middlewood, D. (eds.), The Principles of Educational Leadership &Management. 2nd ed.London: Sage.

MF, 2011. The Martin High School: Our Values and Ethos.

http://www.martin.leics.sch.uk/page4.html, 17/07/2011

Mohammed, A., 2009. Ofsted Inspection Report, Leicestershire LEA. URN 120255, pp. 1-9.

Robson, C., 2002. Surveys and questionnaires. In Robson, C.Real World Research. 2nd

ed. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing, pp. 227-268.

Ross, J. & Gray, P., 2004. Transformational Leadership and Teacher Commitment to Organizational

Values: The Mediating Effects of Collective Teacher Efficacy. American Educational ResearchJournal, pp.1-30.

Rotter, J. B., 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.

Psychological Monographs, 80, pp. 1-28.

Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998. Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and Measure.Review of Educational

Research, 68(2), pp.202.

Tschannen-Moran, M. & Barr, M., 2004. Fostering Student Learning: The Relationship of Collective

Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), pp. 189209.
http://www.martin.leics.sch.uk/page4.htmlhttp://www.martin.leics.sch.uk/page4.html


20/37


Appendices

The following appendices are included in order to support and develop the findings

evidenced within the main section of this paper; it is hoped they will both support academic

scrutiny, and further assist leaders of School M in understanding the CTE perceptions of their

school.


21/37


Appendix 1: Raw data for each statement


22/37



23/37



24/37



25/37



26/37



27/37


Appendix 2: Visual breakdown of each statement

Statement 1:

Statement 2:


28/37


Statement 3:

Statement 4:


29/37


Statement 5:

Statement 6:


30/37


Statement 7:

Statement 8:


31/37


Statement 9:

Statement 10:


32/37


Statement 11:

Statement 12:


33/37


Statement 13:

Statement 14:


34/37


Statement 14:

Statement 15:


35/37


Statement 16:

Statement 17:


36/37


Statement 18:

Statement 19:


37/37


Statement 20:

Statement 21:

Documents

In it together - Exploring the Collective Teacher Efficacy perceptions of staff in a Leicestershire Middle-School