effects of school-wide positive behavior support on teacher self-efficacy

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 49(2), 2012 C© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.20624

EFFECTS OF SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT ON TEACHERSELF-EFFICACY

JOANNA L. KELM AND KENT MCINTOSH

University of British Columbia

This study examined the relationships between implementation of a school-wide approach tobehavior, School-wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS), and teacher self-efficacy. Twenty-twoteachers from schools implementing SWPBS and 40 teachers from schools not implementingSWPBS completed a questionnaire measuring aspects of self-efficacy. Differences in ratings ofself-efficacy were examined using multilevel modeling. Results showed that teachers at SWPBSschools reported significantly higher perceptions of teacher self-efficacy when controlling forschool-level effects. Results are discussed in terms of implications for future research and practice.C© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A range of research shows the positive impact that teachers can have on student outcomes,including academic achievement, motivation, attachment to school, behavior, and social skills(Hallinan, 2008; Montalvo, Mansfield, & Miller, 2007; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).Yet the realities of today’s classrooms, including the prevalence of problem behavior and an in-creasingly diverse range of student skills and needs, can challenge teachers’ abilities to completetheir professional responsibilities (Day, Golench, MacDougal, & Beals-Gonzalez, 2002). Further-more, many teachers often report feeling unprepared to work with children of varying abilities andcreate safe, positive environments to support students’ social competencies (Markow, Moessner, &Horowitz, 2006; Schaefer, 2003). Because the positive effects teachers can have on students havebeen well documented, it is important to examine factors that may affect teacher attitudes, whichcan enhance student outcomes.

TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

Teacher self-efficacy, defined as teachers’ perceptions of their ability to affect student outcomes,is an important factor that is related to many positive variables, such as academic achievement, mo-tivation, and on-task behavior in students (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, &Malone, 2006). Teacher self-efficacy is an indication of teachers’ feelings of professional effective-ness and preparation to meet the challenges of their classrooms, and research suggests that it is alsoa protective factor against job stress in the school (Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008; Tschannen-Moranet al., 1998). Although there is much research showing that student outcomes are positively relatedwith teacher self-efficacy, few studies have examined self-efficacy as a dependent variable (Hoy &Woolfolk, 1993; Ross & Bruce, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). Given the value of teacherself-efficacy, further research is warranted to explore factors that may affect this important construct.

Varying definitions of teacher self-efficacy have emerged, primarily stemming from the workof researchers at the RAND Corporation (such as Armor et al., 1976; Berman & McLaughlin,1976) and Bandura (1977, 1993). The RAND Corporation defined teacher self-efficacy as teachers’perceptions of their influence on the motivation and learning of all students, including students whoare unmotivated or display problem behavior (Guskey, 1988). Their definition was based on thepremise that teacher self-efficacy was made up of two factors: personal teaching efficacy (PTE) andgeneral teaching efficacy (GTE). The RAND researchers proposed that PTE is a teacher’s evaluationof his or her personal level of ability to affect student performance, whereas GTE is a teacher’s opinion

Correspondence to: Kent McIntosh, University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4.E-mail: [email protected]

137

138 Kelm and McIntosh

of whether teachers in general are able to influence student performance when in competition withexternal factors, such as home life and social group (Armor et al., 1976; Tschannen-Moran et al.,1998). In other words, a teacher with high GTE would feel that teachers can positively affect studentperformance, regardless of factors such as student home environment or socioeconomic status.

Bandura’s work on self-efficacy provided a somewhat different theoretical stance (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Although Bandura later applied his theory to teachers (1993), his model wasintended to describe self-efficacy of individuals in the general population. Bandura (1982) definedself-efficacy as the belief in one’s own ability to perform certain actions at a desired level in specificsituations. As such, self-efficacy for certain tasks will vary from one environment to the next and willchange with experience. For instance, a teacher may have a different level of perceived self-efficacyfor academic instruction than for classroom management, and different perceptions of his or herability to teach effectively based on the subject matter and the classroom makeup.

Following a review of the research stemming from these competing theories of teacher self-efficacy, Tschannen-Moran and colleagues (1998) developed a theory integrating the different view-points. On the basis of their research, they defined teacher self-efficacy as one’s perception ofperformance of some future task, when the current level of functioning is considered in referenceto the teaching task and its context. This definition includes two processes that contribute to one’steacher self-efficacy: a person’s analysis of the teaching task and its context, and an assessmentof personal teaching competence. The process of analyzing the teaching task and its context em-phasizes the idea that self-efficacy is context specific. This process may include consideration ofthe motivation and abilities of the students being taught, the environment of the school, and theresources and strategies available to the teacher. The second component of teacher self-efficacy, theassessment of personal teaching competence, requires individuals to reflect on and evaluate theircurrent teaching ability. The model by Tschannen-Moran and colleagues proposes that, with timeand experiences, teachers build a relatively stable sense of self-efficacy. A new challenge, however,such as the adoption of a new curriculum or initiative, may cause a teacher to reevaluate his or herperception of self-efficacy in the context of this new task. Tschannen-Moran et al. also emphasizedthe recursive nature of self-efficacy, such that a higher perception of self-efficacy will lead to greaterpersistence on a task, which will often lead to higher performance, which in turn will contribute toan individual’s self- efficacy.

The RAND studies and more recent research have demonstrated the positive influence thatteachers with a high sense of teacher self-efficacy can have on their students, including studentachievement (Armor et al., 1976; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Berman & McLaughlin, 1976; Ross,1992). Interestingly, more recent research (Caprara et al., 2006) has provided evidence of a recip-rocal relationship between academic achievement and teacher self-efficacy, in which achievementinfluences teacher self-efficacy, which in turn predicts academic achievement. Teacher self-efficacyhas also been indicated to influence student motivation (Ashton & Webb, 1986). In addition to theinfluence of teacher self-efficacy on student outcomes, teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy aremore likely to persist in teaching students with difficulties, set more ambitious goals for students,and support the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Researchalso has indicated that high teacher self-efficacy is related to job satisfaction and commitment tothe school, whereas low teacher self-efficacy is linked to job stress and burnout (Allinder, 1995;Betoret, 2006; Caprara et al., 2006; Coladarci, 1992; Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Schwarzer & Hallum,2008).

Although many studies have reported positive student and teacher outcomes of teacher self-efficacy, there is much less research on factors that influence the construct (Klassen, Tze, Betts, &Gordon, 2011). Bandura (1997) suggested that self-efficacy is influenced by the environment. Fol-lowing Bandura’s suggestion, research in teacher self-efficacy has examined aspects of the teaching

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Teacher Self-Efficacy and SWPBS 139

environment, such as organizational health (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). Organizational healthis characterized by: (a) institutional integrity (i.e., protection for teachers from external pressures),(b) the ability of the principal to influence superiors, (c) a concerned and caring principal, (d) avail-ability of supplies and other resources, (e) a sense of morale and companionship among staff, and (f)a sustained focus on academic achievement (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Several studies have indicatedthat factors related to the health of the school environment are also important to teacher self-efficacy(Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Tobin, Muller, & Turner, 2006). This research has indicated that a senseof community among staff strongly predicts levels of self-efficacy in teachers. These findings haveimportant implications for teacher and student outcomes. Research by Ashton and Webb (1986)indicated that teachers who work in an environment that promotes teacher self-efficacy are morelikely to build positive relationships with students, and students will then have more positive expe-riences in school, have higher feelings of self-efficacy toward their academic performance, and willwork harder. Therefore, to support teacher self-efficacy, it is important to enhance teachers’ workenvironments.

SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT

School-wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS; Sugai & Horner, 2009) is a promising ap-proach for enhancing the school environment for students and teachers alike. SWPBS refers to anapproach used in schools to promote a positive school environment that can facilitate success inteaching and learning, increase desired behaviors in students, and decrease instances of problembehaviors (Horner, Sugai, Todd, & Lewis-Palmer, 2005). In an SWPBS approach, school personnelselect and implement research-validated interventions that are ecologically valid; that is, they arefeasible and relevant to the target setting (McIntosh, Filter, Bennett, Ryan, & Sugai, 2010). Inter-ventions are selected based on their relevance to the concerns regarding each school. To ensure thatinterventions are successfully addressing school goals, collecting data before and throughout imple-mentation of interventions is central to SWPBS. SWPBS teams evaluate and modify interventionsbased on data, such as number of office discipline referrals and suspensions, perceptions of schoolclimate, and academic achievement (Sugai & Horner, 2009).

Several studies have examined the positive outcomes of SWPBS, such as decreases in the num-ber of office discipline referrals, student assaults, disciplinary actions, and suspensions(Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Lassen, Steele, & Sailor, 2006; Luiselli, Putnam, Handler,& Feinberg, 2005; McCurdy, Mannella, & Eldridge, 2003; Nelson, Martella, & Marchand-Martella,2002; Taylor-Greene et al., 1997), and increases in academic performance (Horner et al., 2009;Lassen et al., 2006; Luiselli et al., 2005; Nelson et al., 2002). Studies also have demonstrated im-provement in social adjustment of students exhibiting problem behaviors in schools implementingSWPBS (Nelson et al., 2002). Further positive results have been demonstrated by Algozzine and Al-gozzine (2007), who examined the effect of SWPBS on students’ on-task behavior in the classroomin comparison to a school that was not implementing SWPBS. The results indicated that studentsin the school implementing SWPBS displayed overall higher levels of on-task behavior and lowerlevels of off-task behavior than did those in the comparison school.

Implementing SWPBS also has been shown to increase the organizational health of schools(Bradshaw, Koth, Bevans, Ialongo, & Leaf, 2008). In a randomized trial, Bradshaw and colleaguesexamined teachers’ perceptions of the organizational health of their schools following the imple-mentation of SWPBS. This study indicated that teachers in schools implementing SWPBS per-ceived their schools to have greater overall organizational health than before implementation. Theseteachers reported that they had more positive interactions and a greater sense of commitment tostudents.



SWPBS AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

Few studies have examined the relationship between SWPBS and teacher outcomes, such asteacher self-efficacy. Based on previous findings that indicate a relationship between SWPBS andan increase in perceived organizational health of schools, in addition to increases in achievementand positive student behavior, it is possible that implementing SWPBS may be related to increasesin teacher self-efficacy. In addition, teachers at SWPBS schools receive clear instruction regardingeffective strategies for teaching expectations and dealing with problem behaviors. These additionalinstructional skills also may influence teacher self-efficacy. A study by Nelson (1996) indicatedthat teachers at SWPBS schools had a greater sense of self-efficacy, as they provided statisticallysignificantly higher ratings of their ability to deal with problem behaviors. This study provides afirst step in understanding the relationship between SWPBS and teacher self-efficacy, although datawere not collected regarding the fidelity of implementation of SWPBS, such that it was possible thatnot all elements of SWPBS were being implemented or that SWPBS was implemented at differentlevels at each school.

Ross and Horner (2006) also examined the effect of SWPBS on teacher self-efficacy. Twentyteachers at four middle schools participated in the study; two of the schools were implementingSWPBS with high fidelity, and two with low fidelity. The results of this study indicated that imple-mentation of SWPBS was positively related to teacher self-efficacy, such that teachers at the highimplementing schools had significantly higher feelings of efficacy. As with Nelson’s (1996) study,several limitations of this study were noted. First, only 20 teachers took part in the study, limitingits statistical power. Second, all schools were implementing SWPBS at differing levels of fidelity,such that there was no comparison of schools that were not implementing SWPBS. Third, the studyonly included middle school teachers, who may differ in experience when compared to teachersfrom elementary and high schools. Fourth, some researchers (Brouwers & Tomic, 2004; Guskey& Passaro, 1994; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990) have questioned the validity of the factor structure ofthe measure used in Ross and Horner’s 2006 study, the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo,1984). These results indicate that studies including control schools, larger samples, greater diversityamong types of teachers, and more valid measurement of teacher self-efficacy are needed.

It is crucial to identify systems that may support teachers by increasing their feelings of self-efficacy and protecting them against stress. The purpose of this study was to add to the researchcontributions of Nelson (1996) and Ross and Horner (2006) by examining the relationship betweenSWPBS and teacher self-efficacy. Teacher self-efficacy is critical to many teacher and student out-comes in education, and it is therefore important to identify how it may be enhanced. Based onprevious research, it was hypothesized that the experience of teaching in a school implementingSWPBS and potentially enhanced teaching skills as a result of implementation would be linked tohigher teacher self-efficacy. The aim of the current study was to answer the following research ques-tion: What is the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and implementation of SWPBS? It washypothesized that teachers in schools implementing SWPBS would report statistically significantlyhigher teacher self-efficacy than would teachers in schools not implementing SWPBS.

METHOD

Setting

The setting was a rural school district with 28 schools (20 elementary schools) located inWestern Canada. In the 2009–2010 academic year, approximately 14,000 students were enrolledin the district. The majority (95%) of students spoke English in the home. Sixteen percent ofstudents in the district were of Aboriginal (First Nations, Metis, or Inuit) heritage, and 8% were



identified for special education services. In the district, census data indicated that the majority of thepopulation were of European descent, and 4% of the population were visible minorities, primarilyself-identifying as Asian or South-Asian. Approximately 16.6% of families were low-income.

Setting Selection

Two schools implementing SWPBS (SWPBS schools) and three schools not implementingSWPBS (non-SWPBS schools) participated in the study. SWPBS schools were selected based oncriteria that they had been implementing SWPBS for at least two years and had been evaluated to beimplementing SWPBS with fidelity in both the previous year (2008–2009 academic year) and the yearof data collection (2009–2010 academic year). Both schools had been implementing SWPBS for atleast five years. Data were collected to confirm that the SWPBS schools were implementing SWPBSwith fidelity. In 2008–2009, fidelity was measured through the School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET;http://www.pbis.org/evaluation/evaluation tools.aspx; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, & Horner, 2001).

The SET is a research-validated measure that is conducted by trained individuals who observeand rate specific features (e.g., expectations have been defined and taught to students) of a school’sSWPBS system. The SET has been shown to be a valid and reliable tool for the assessment ofimplementation fidelity of SWPBS (Horner et al., 2004). Schools are implementing SWPBS withfidelity if they receive an overall score of 80% or higher on the SET. Following data collection inthe 2009–2010 academic year, the School-wide Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ; Kincaid, Childs, &George, 2005) measure from that year was used to confirm implementation fidelity. The BoQ is avalid and reliable measure of the degree to which a school is implementing SWPBS with fidelity(Cohen, Kincaid, & Childs, 2007). Similar to the SET, the items on the BoQ assess critical featuresof SWPBS, such as faculty commitment and the existence of school-wide expectations. A school isimplementing SWPBS with fidelity if it receives a score of 70% or greater on the BoQ. All schoolsobtained a score of 80% or higher on the SET in 2008–2009 (M = 88%) and a score of 70% orgreater on the BoQ in 2009–2010 (M = 74%).

Three non-SWPBS schools were selected based on the criteria that they were not implementingSWPBS and that their demographic information (see Table 1) was comparable to that of the SWPBSschools, with no statistically significant differences. School administrators confirmed that the schoolswere not implementing SWPBS. Based on the lack of a SWPBS team, school-wide expectations,and a school-wide acknowledgment system at each of the non-SWPBS schools, a score of 50% orhigher on either the SET or the BoQ was not possible for these schools.

Participants

A total of 62 teachers (48 female, 14 male) participated in the study. All staff with classroomteaching responsibilities were invited to participate in the study. The sample included 22 teachersfrom SWPBS schools and 40 teachers from non-SWPBS schools, resulting in a mean participationrate of 67% for SWPBS schools and 75% for non-SWPBS schools. The participants reported thatthey had been teaching for an average of 13.90 years. Table 1 shows demographic informationfor teacher variables, with no statistically significant differences between teachers at SWPBS andnon-SWPBS schools.

Measure

Teacher self-efficacy. The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy,2001) is a 24-item questionnaire that measures teacher self-efficacy. Teachers are asked to rate theirperceptions of their efficacy on a nine-point Likert scale (1 = Nothing, 3 = Very Little, 5 = SomeInfluence, 7 = Quite a Bit, 9 = A Great Deal). The measure is based on Tshannen-Moran and



Table 1Demographic Information for Respondents and SWPBS and non-SWPBS Schools

SWPBS Schools Non-SWPBS Schools t or χ2 p

Teacher VariablesMean Number of Teachers (SD) 16.5 (3.54) 17.67 (7.09) 0.21 .848Mean Number of Years Teaching (SD) 12.91 (9.10) 14.45 (8.80) 0.65 .516Male to Female Teacher Ratio .29 .29 0.00 .984Teacher to Student Ratio 1:23.1 1:22.7 0.21 .847

School VariablesMean Number of Students (SD) 293 (50.91) 350 (168.85) 0.45 .686Students of Aboriginal Heritage 29% (14.42) 12% (1.33) −1.6 .353Students who Speak English as a Second Language 8% (10.89) 6% (3.23) −0.37 .769Students Receiving Special Education 7% (2.82) 6% (2.82) −0.52 .641Teacher Ratings on the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale 7.47 (0.64) 6.91 (0.75) −2.93 .005

colleagues’ (1998) model of teacher self-efficacy and measures teacher self-efficacy regarding one’sskills in managing the classroom, engaging students in learning, and using a variety of strategiesin response to student understanding. The scale was created and revised throughout the course ofthree studies, resulting in a 24-item scale. The final scale was indicated to have small to moderatesignificant correlations with several other teacher self-efficacy scales, such as with the originalRAND items (GTE r = .18 and PTE r = .53, p < .01) and was found to have strong internalconsistency scores. The total scale score was used in analyses (sample Cronbach’s α = .921).

Analyses

Before analyzing the data, assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were testedon each sample separately. Both samples were assessed to meet the criteria of normality andhomogeneity of variance (SWPBS: Shapiro-Wilk = .96, p = .527; Non-SWPBS: Shapiro-Wilk= .97, p = .399; Levene’s Test = .38, p = .542). Results from a preliminary t test can be seenin Table 1. In this analysis, teachers’ mean scores on the TSES were entered as the dependentvariable, and SWPBS status was entered as the independent variable. In the data set, teachers werenested within schools, which in turn were grouped within condition (SWPBS or non-SWPBS). Theintra-class correlation (.142) and design effect (2.60) for the TSES indicated substantial Level 2variance, indicating that a nested design was needed to control for school-level variance (Peugh,2010). As a result, multilevel modeling was conducted using Mplus 6.1 (Muthen & Muthen, 2010).Individual teacher TSES score was the Level 1 dependent variable, SWPBS status was the Level 2independent variable, and school was the Level 2 cluster variable. The effect size for TSES scoresbetween teachers at SWPBS and non-SWPBS schools was calculated through the familiar metric ofCohen’s d (Cohen, 1988).

RESULTS

Missing Data

Overall, 87% of participants had complete data for each variable, and data were missing for11 cells in total (less than 1% of the data). Multiple imputation procedures were used to replacemissing data using the multiple imputation software NORM (Schafer, 1999). Multiple imputation is astatistical procedure in which a data set with missing values is subjected to a set of equations to gener-ate multiple data sets, each with different values replacing the missing data (Baraldi & Enders, 2010).



Table 2Parameter Estimates for Multilevel Model

Variable Estimate SE p Value

Fixed EffectsIntercept 6.93 0.14 .00SWPBS status 0.53 0.23 .019

Random EffectsResidual Variance (Level 1) 0.48 0.11 .00Residual Variance (Level 2) 0.01 0.02 .50

Multilevel Analyses

Results of the multilevel modeling analysis are presented in Table 2. The results show astatistically significant effect of SWPBS on teacher self-efficacy, b = .53, p = .019, such thatteachers at SWPBS schools had higher ratings on the TSES when controlling for school effects. Theeffect size associated with the difference in self-efficacy ratings between teachers in SWPBS andnon-SWPBS schools was large, d = 0.80.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine perceptions of teacher self-efficacy at SWPBS andnon-SWPBS schools. It was predicted that implementation of SWPBS, with its potential positiveoutcomes, such as enhanced teaching capacity and increased social skills and achievement in stu-dents, would be related to higher levels of teacher self-efficacy. Multilevel modeling analyses wereconducted to examine the effect of SWPBS on teacher ratings on the TSES while controlling forschool effects. Results indicated that teachers at SWPBS schools reported significantly higher levelsof teacher self-efficacy than did teachers at non-SWPBS schools. Analyses indicated that there wasa large effect size (d = 0.80), indicating that the difference between ratings on the TSES by teachersat SWPBS and non-SWPBS schools was meaningful. It should be noted, however, that the meanratings for teachers at both SWPBS and non-SWPBS schools were above the mid-range rating(5 = Some Influence), indicating that the majority of teachers felt that they had at least some influ-ence on student outcomes. Previous research has indicated a negative skew in responses, such thatthe mean tends to be higher than the middle option of the scale (Heneman, Kimball, & Milanowski,2006; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). These results indicate that teachers at SWPBS schools feelmore capable to engage students in the classroom and use strategies to adapt to student needs;however, all teachers reported feeling at least somewhat able to influence student outcomes. Thisfinding is consistent with previous research in this area (Ross & Horner, 2006).

Based on the emphasis of SWPBS on teaching strategies, and the relationship between SWPBSand improved student behavior, it is not surprising that teachers at SWPBS schools reported greaterfeelings of self-efficacy. Teachers at SWPBS schools may have reported higher ratings of teacher self-efficacy for several reasons. One possible explanation of these results relates to the model proposedby Tschannen-Moran and colleagues (1998), which states that teacher self-efficacy is based onone’s analysis of the teaching task and personal teaching competence. Analysis of the teaching taskincludes evaluating the motivation and abilities of the students, the school environment, and theresources and strategies available to the teacher. This model is supported by research findings thatteacher self-efficacy is positively influenced by the organizational health of a school. For instance,a positive school culture and a shared sense of purpose among staff is related to higher feelings of



teacher self-efficacy (Lee, Dedrick, & Smith, 1991). Furthermore, research indicates that teacherself-efficacy is influenced by the academic achievement of students (Caprara et al., 2006). Researchalso indicates that these aspects of the teaching task and its context may be some of the positiveoutcomes related to SWPBS. For instance, SWPBS is linked to outcomes such as higher levels ofacademic achievement, on-task behavior, perceived school safety, collegial affiliation, and overallorganizational health (Bradshaw, Koth, Thornton, & Leaf, 2009; Horner et al., 2009; Nelson et al.,2002). Furthermore, SWPBS can provide teachers with a shared sense of purpose. Research suggeststhat SWPBS is an effective approach to establishing a safe, positive instructional environment. Thatis, SWPBS increases positive, on-task behaviors in students, encourages students to be positiveand active participants in learning, and allows teachers to spend more time engaging in instruction.Teachers are therefore able to focus more on instruction, rather than the classroom environment,leading to increased student academic engagement (Algozzine & Algozzine, 2007).

Based on Tschannen-Moran and colleagues’ 1998 model, the results of the current study suggestthat the positive outcomes related to SWPBS, which contribute to creating an environment that isconducive to effective instruction and student learning, are important variables related to enhancedteacher self-efficacy. It is further posited that teachers at SWPBS schools may have reported greaterefficacy in the classroom because less time is spent engaging in discipline in these schools. Thus,teachers may have more time to spend on instruction, which may increase teachers’ appraisal of theteaching task and context.

An additional factor that may have enhanced teacher self-efficacy in SWPBS schools is theapproach’s emphasis on instruction (e.g., teaching expectations, routines, and social emotionalskills). When SWPBS is implemented in a school, teachers are provided with effective instructionalstrategies, such that using SWPBS may have resulted in improved instructional skills in general,which in turn may have led teachers to report that they were better able to affect student outcomes.In addition, by using behavior support strategies that are used and promoted by fellow teachers andadministrators, teachers may have had more confidence in the effectiveness of the strategies thatthey were using. This hypothesis relates to Bandura’s concept of efficacy expectancy, or the RANDCorporation’s concept of personal teaching self-efficacy, such that teachers at SWPBS schoolsperceived themselves as more capable to personally influence student outcomes. Another possibleexplanation relates to the RAND Corporation’s general teaching self-efficacy. This reasoning positsthat the use of an effective practice such as SWPBS, which resulted in positive outcomes for students,may have affected teachers’ perceptions about the ability of teachers to influence student outcomeswhen in competition with external factors. In other words, when teachers at SWPBS schools perceivethat SWPBS has resulted in positive outcomes, they may be more likely to believe that they are ableto have an impact on students, resulting in higher instructional self-efficacy.

LIMITATIONS

There are several limitations of this study that must be considered before assessing its contri-butions. A primary limitation of this study was related to the selection of participants and control forextraneous variables that may have influenced teachers’ responses. First, participants were chosenby convenience sampling, based on schools that were already implementing or not implementingSWPBS, thus precluding any causal statements. Assessing self-efficacy at the start and end of arandomized, controlled trial would provide a stronger test of whether implementation of SWPBSwas related to an increase in feelings of teacher self-efficacy. That is, it is possible that teachers withhigher levels of self-efficacy are more likely to choose to work at SWPBS schools, or differencesmay be due to some unrelated variable. In addition, it is possible that teachers at non-SWPBS schoolshad taught at SWPBS schools in the past, which may have influenced their reported self-efficacy. Forinstance, an understanding of the behavioral principles that guide SWPBS may influence teachers’



classroom management skills, providing them with a higher level of personal self-efficacy, regardlessof school-wide practices in their schools. Finally, it is possible that any of the schools in the studywere implementing other behavior support programs or were being affected by other changes thatmay have influenced teacher self-efficacy.

Further limitations include design and sampling restrictions, which restrict the generalizationof the results of this study to a larger population. These limitations include the small number ofschools, small number of teachers at SWPBS schools, and the unequal sample sizes of participantsin the SWPBS and non-SWPBS samples. Another limiting aspect of this study was related to themethod with which the constructs were examined. The study used only one self-report measure ofteacher self-efficacy, which was not confirmed with other assessment methods. When taken together,these limitations are important considerations and should be considered in future research.

Future Research

Although the results of this study contribute to our understanding of the relationship betweenSWPBS and teacher outcomes, further research in this area is necessary. In particular, future researchwould measure additional variables, such as academic achievement and student discipline data, toexamine whether changes in student outcomes may mediate the relationship between SWPBS imple-mentation and teacher outcomes. Furthermore, additional teacher outcomes, such as organizationalhealth, burnout, and personal perceptions regarding SWPBS and behavior management, could beevaluated. To overcome the limitations of this study, a randomized controlled trial with a largersample size could be conducted, in which teacher self-efficacy is measured both before and afterimplementation of SWPBS.

As noted, the mean ratings for teachers at SWPBS and non-SWPBS schools were above themiddle rating of 5 (Some Influence). Previous research also has indicated this finding. Heneman andcolleagues (2006) suggested that future research examine whether this bias is due to a measurementbias or to a true tendency for teachers to have higher than average levels of self-efficacy. Thecurrent research would support Heneman and colleagues’ suggestion that more research is requiredin this area. Furthermore, the field of research related to teacher self-efficacy would benefit from astandardization study of the TSES, such that scores could be classified into practical categories (i.e.,high, medium, and low teacher self-efficacy).

Implications for Practice

The results of this study contribute to current research on SWPBS and teacher self-efficacy andalign with findings from studies by Nelson (1996) and Ross and Horner (2006). There has been muchresearch regarding the positive student outcomes related to the implementation of SWPBS; however,few studies have examined the relationship between SWPBS and teacher outcomes. The results of thecurrent study and research by Nelson and Ross and Horner indicate that there are significant teachereffects related to SWPBS. When taken together, these results suggest that teachers at SWPBS schoolsfeel more prepared to engage students in learning and effectively teach and respond to students ofvarying abilities, compared to teachers at non-SWPBS schools. These results make SWPBS an evenmore appealing approach, implying that SWPBS is related not only to positive student outcomes,but to positive teacher outcomes as well.

Previous research has shown that positive student and teacher outcomes are related to teacherself-efficacy; therefore, increasing teacher self-efficacy should be a priority. In addition, higher levelsof teacher self-efficacy may increase the likelihood that SWPBS will be sustained over the long term(Han & Weiss, 2005). The teacher outcomes, in addition to the student outcomes, make SWPBS anappealing approach for widespread adoption.



REFERENCES

Algozzine, K., & Algozzine, B. (2007). Classroom instructional ecology and school-wide positive behavior support. Journalof Applied School Psychology, 24, 29–47.

Allinder, R. (1995). An examination of the relationship between teacher efficacy and curriculum-based measurement andstudent achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 247.

Armor, D., Conry-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., et al. (1976). Analysis of the school preferredreading program in selected Los Angeles minority schools. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.

Ashton, P., & Webb, R. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement: New York:Longman.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.Baraldi, A., & Enders, C. (2010). An introduction to modern missing data analyses. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 5–37.Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1976). Implementation of educational innovations. Educational Forum, 40, 345–370.Betoret, F. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burnout among secondary school teachers in Spain. Educa-

tional Psychology, 26, 519–539.Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Thornton, L. A., & Leaf, P. J. (2009). Altering school climate through School-wide Positive

Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10,100–115.

Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, K., Bevans, K. B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). The impact of school-wide positive behavioralinterventions and supports on the organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 462–473.

Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Examining the effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventionsand supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools.Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148.

Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroommanagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 239–253.

Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfactionand students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473–490.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Cohen, R., Kincaid, D., & Childs, K. E. (2007). Measuring school-wide positive behavior support implementation: Develop-

ment and validation of the Benchmarks of Quality. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 203–213.Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60,

323–337.Day, D. M., Golench, C. A., MacDougal, J., & Beals-Gonzalez, C. A. (2002). School-based violence prevention in Canada:

Results of a national survey of policies and programs, 1995-02. Ottawa, ON: Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada.Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,

569–582.Guskey, T. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63–69.Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research

Journal, 31, 627–643.Hallinan, M. (2008). Teacher influences on students’ attachment to school. Sociology of Education, 81, 271–283.Han, S. S., & Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of teacher implementation of school-based mental health programs. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 665–679.Heneman III, H. G., Kimball, S., & Milanowski, A. (2006). The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale: Validation evidence and

behavioral prediction. WCER Working Paper No. 2006-7. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 1–21.Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A., et al. (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled

effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive BehaviorInterventions, 11, 133–144.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005). School-wide positive behavior support. In L. Bambara& L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for students with problem behaviors: Designing positive behavior plans(pp. 359–390). New York: Guilford Press.

Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., Lewis-Palmer, T., Irvin, L. K., Sugai, G., & Boland, J. B. (2004). The School-wide EvaluationTool (SET): A research instrument for assessing school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive BehaviorInterventions, 6, 3–12.



Hoy, W., & Woolfolk, A. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary SchoolJournal, 93, 355–372.

Kincaid, D., Childs, K., & George, H. (2005). School-wide benchmarks of quality. Unpublished Instrument. University ofSouth Florida.

Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years ofexperience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 741.

Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: Signs of progressor unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21–43.

Lassen, S. R., Steele, M. M., & Sailor, W. (2006). The relationship of school-wide positive behavior support to academicachievement in an urban middle school. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 701–712.

Lee, V., Dedrick, R., & Smith, J. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction.Sociology of Education, 64, 190–208.

Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., & Feinberg, A. B. (2005). Whole-school positive behaviour support: Effectson student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25, 183–198.

Markow, D., Moessner, C., & Horowitz, H. (2006). The MetLife survey of the American teacher, 2005-2006: Expectationsand experiences. New York: MetLife Insurance Company. Available at http://www.metlife.org

McCurdy, B., Mannella, M., & Eldridge, N. (2003). Positive behavior support in urban schools: Can we prevent the escalationof antisocial behavior? Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 158–170.

McIntosh, K., Filter, K. J., Bennett, J. L., Ryan, C., & Sugai, G. (2010). Principles of sustainable prevention: Designingscale-up of school-wide positive behavior support to promote durable systems. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 5–21.

Montalvo, G., Mansfield, E., & Miller, R. (2007). Liking or disliking the teacher: Student motivation, engagement andachievement. Evaluation & Research in Education, 20, 144–158.

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2010). Mplus users’ guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen.Nelson, J. R. (1996). Designing schools to meet the needs of students who exhibit disruptive behavior. Journal of Emotional

and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 147–161.Nelson, J. R., Martella, R. M., & Marchand-Martella, N. (2002). Maximizing student learning: The effects of a comprehensive

school-based program for preventing problem behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 136–148.Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 85–112.Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education/

Revue canadienne de l’education, 17, 51–65.Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of randomized field trial. The

Journal of Educational Research, 101, 50–60.Ross, S., & Horner, R. H. (2006). Teacher outcomes of school-wide positive behavior support. Teaching Exceptional Children

Plus, 3. Retrieved on May 9, 2011 from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol3/iss6/art6Schaefer, A. C. (2003). The good, the bad, and the indifferent: A comparison of elementary and secondary teachers’ workload

and stress issues. (No. RT03-0017). Vancouver: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation.Schafer, J. L. (1999). NORM: Multiple imputation of incomplete multivariate data under a normal model, version 2. Software

for Windows 95/98/NT, available from http://www.stat.psu.edu/∼jls/misoftwa.htmlSchwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation

analyses. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 152–171.Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Defining and describing schoolwide positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap,

G. Sugai, & R. H. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 307–326). New York: Springer.Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T. L., Todd, A. W., & Horner, R. H. (2001). School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET). Eugene, OR:

Educational and Community Supports. Available at http://www.pbis.orgTaylor-Greene, S., Brown, D., Nelson, L., Longton, J., Gassman, T., Cohen, J., et al. (1997). School-wide behavioral support:

Starting the year off right. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 99–112.Tobin, T. J., Muller, R. O., & Turner, L. M. (2006). Organizational learning and climate as predictors of self-efficacy. Social

Psychology of Education, 9, 301–319.Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education,

17, 783–805.Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced

teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944–956.Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational

Research, 68, 202–248.Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 82, 81–91.


effects of school-wide positive behavior support on teacher self-efficacy

Documents