perceptions principal leadership enhance teacher self efficacy a mixed method study bandura...
TRANSCRIPT
EXPLAINING PERCEPTIONS OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS
THAT ENHANCE MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY:
A MIXED METHODS STUDY
By
Michelle R. Charf
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Faculty of
The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska
In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Education
Major: Education Administration
Under the Supervision of Professor Larry Dlugosh
Lincoln, Nebraska
July, 2009
UMI Number: 3365839
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 3365839Copyright 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
EXPLAINING PERCEPTIONS OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS
THAT ENHANCE MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHER SELF – EFFICACY:
A MIXED METHODS STUDY
Michelle R. Charf, Ed.D.
University of Nebraska, 2009
Advisor: Larry L. Dlugosh
Teachers are primarily responsible for the educational achievement of all
students. Past research has shown that Teacher Self-Efficacy plays a large role in
academic success of students. This study investigates various levels of teacher efficacy
and the individual perceptions of teacher in regards to principal leadership behaviors,
specifically, at the middle school setting. A mixed methodology approach is used to
explore both the quantitative data of two efficacy surveys and qualitative interviews with
ten individual teacher volunteer candidates.
A sample of 277 survey respondents was obtained on the Bandura’s Instrument of
Teacher Efficacy and Gibson and Dembo’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale. Data analysis
reveals that there is a difference in teacher efficacy based on gender, degree level, years
of experience and socioeconomic status of the school building. Qualitative themes that
emerged from the ten interview transcriptions regarding the perceptions of specific
principal behaviors that enhance their teaching include: (a) Specific Valued Feedback,
(b) Meaningful Support and Trust with Parents and Students, and (c) Active Movement
about School and in Classrooms. A mixing of data occurs when two specific survey
questions are discussed in regards to individual responses on the survey and statements
made during the interview that add depth to these efficacy descriptors. The results of this
study and implications for future research are also presented in the final discussion
section.
DEDICATION
“She thought she could – so she did” (Unknown)
This journey began long ago in a schoolhouse in dusty Wheeler County. It
continued and education took on many different meanings for me, some clear and some
hazy. One special memory is studying for the annual Spelling Bee with my Grandma
Haggerty at her kitchen table with Swiss Miss hot chocolate and buttered toast. She
always gave the impression that I could do whatever I set my mind to.
To my advisor Dr. Larry Dlugosh whose door was always open to my
inquisitions, my fears, and my hopes for this study – thank you. I’m also thankful to my
infallible committee of Dr. Marilyn Grady, Dr. Jody Isernhagen and Dr. Mike Scheel
who offered critical and supportive advice along with plenty of smiles along the way.
Thank you to Cindy DeRyke, whose cheer and well wishes could always be felt through
phone when calling in a panic.
I want to thank my husband Troy who knew when to push or pull, and when to
get the heck out of the way. His patience has been a gift and I hope to repay him by
letting him pursue a dream of his own.
Thank you to my friends and family who attentively listened to me in all modes of
emotions and serving as daycare providers, wingwomen, back porch therapists, and
cheerleaders. My dear friend Jenny Powell who was always there for me in any shape or
form, your friendship is a blessing and now there is one more female doctorate on the
loose! A special thank you to my mother – Linda for all the weekend babysitting and
garage sale outings. To my father – Mike, who has never doubted me, even at my worst.
And finally, for the two children that I have been blessed with – Tanner and
Macy – Mommy’s done writing, let’s go play…………
i
Table of Contents
Chapter 1—Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
Purpose ................................................................................................................. 4
Research Questions .............................................................................................. 5
Philosophical Foundations ............................................................................. 6
Organization of Subsequent Chapters .................................................................. 8
Chapter Two—Literature Review .............................................................................. 9
Principal Leadership Behaviors ........................................................................... 21
Chapter Three—Methods........................................................................................... 29
Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis .......................................................... 32
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................ 33
Mixed Methods Procedure: Integration of Data .................................................. 35
Data Validation .................................................................................................... 36
Researcher Resources and Skills ......................................................................... 37
Potential Ethical Issues ........................................................................................ 37
Timeline ............................................................................................................... 38
Limitations of the Study....................................................................................... 38
Chapter Four—Data Analysis .................................................................................... 40
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 40
Descriptive Statistical Data ............................................................................ 43
Quantitative Analysis of Findings ................................................................. 44
Analysis of Efficacy Instruments ................................................................... 45
Research Question 1: Correlational Analysis of Demographics and Efficacy .......................................................................................................... 47
Presentation and Discussion of Research Question #2 .................................. 54
ii
Qualitative Data Analysis ........................................................................ 55
Theme #1: Specific Valued Feedback ............................................... 59
Theme #2: Trust and Support with Parents and Students .................. 65
Theme #3: Active Movement about School and in Classrooms ......................................................................................... 70
Presentation and Discussion of Research Question #3 .................................. 75
Chapter Five—Findings and Conclusions ................................................................. 85
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 85
Findings................................................................................................................ 86
Implications for Future Research ......................................................................... 90
References .................................................................................................................. 93
Appendices ................................................................................................................. 98
iii
List of Tables
Table 1 Demographics of Participants within the Study....................................... 44
Table 2 Significant Differences in Efficacy Responses Based Upon Gender ...................................................................................................... 48
Table 3 Significant Differences in Efficacy Based Upon High and Low Income Schools ........................................................................................ 49
Table 4 Significant Difference in Teaching Experience and Teacher Efficacy .................................................................................................... 52
Table 5 Significant Differences in Level of Degree Obtained and Teacher Efficacy ...................................................................................... 53
Table 6 Individual Interview Candidates Demographics and Sample Scores ....................................................................................................... 57
Table 7 Interview Candidates Efficacy Scores and Emergence of Themes ..................................................................................................... 59
Table 8 Survey Responses for Mixed Methods Discussion .................................. 77
Table 9 Survey Responses to Bandura Instrument #27 ........................................ 82
iv
List of Appendices
Appendix A Visual Presentation of Explanatory Sequential Study ....................... 98
Appendix B Survey Permission: Bandura Instrument ........................................... 100
Appendix C Survey Permission: Gibson & Dembo ............................................... 102
Appendix D IRB Human Studies Approval ........................................................... 104
Appendix E School District Consent Letter: LPS .................................................. 107
Appendix F School District Consent Letter: MPS ................................................. 109
Appendix G Interview Informed Consent .............................................................. 111
Appendix H Survey Instrument (Bandura, Gibson & Dembo) .............................. 114
Appendix I Teacher Interview Questions ............................................................. 121
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
In the current era of increased accountability and public expectations of teachers,
it is important to realize that teachers perform best when they have a strong sense of self-
efficacy. The quality of teaching in U.S. schools is of central concern to policy makers,
researchers, and the public (Ball & Rowan, 2004). Self-efficacy is defined as “the beliefs
in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to manage
prospective situations” (Pajares, 1996). Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel,
think, motivate themselves and behave (Bandura, 1996). In regards to teaching and
education, efficacy involves a teacher’s belief that they have the skills necessary to
positively impact student learning. This belief provides a solid foundation of thought
processes and perceptions that can overcome the social and political challenges that face
public education today. It includes repertoire of skills that seek to motivate all students by
selecting appropriate strategies to impart their subject area knowledge. The teacher’s
confident disposition towards learning and teaching is transferred to the students in their
care (Chase, Germundsen, Brownstein, & Distad, 2001).
Self-efficacy concepts began developing in the mid 1970’s under the guided
studies of sociologist Albert Bandura and are an individual capability characteristic
(Bandura, 1996). Self-efficacy specifically reflects a teacher’s feelings towards meeting
challenges and reaching all students. The unique and increased challenges of education
today are quite different than in years past, and there exists a subset of teachers that
continue to meet the needs of a variety of unmotivated learners and find avenues to excel.
Is there a guiding force propelling these abilities and enhancing the teacher’s efficacy?
2
In any public education building, students, teachers, and school administrators
operate collectively rather than in isolation (Blasé & Blasé, 1999)). As a result, these
specific entities become entwined in an inseparable experience, one that cannot be
undermined in its importance. Leaders who identify reasons for success when they have
purposeful interactions with teachers and are able to temper success with recognition that
there will be challenges ahead can inspire their faculty to continue working to improve
their practice (Brinson & Steiner, 2007). Educational researchers have devoted much
time and resources to studying classroom frameworks, school organization, and
leadership factors. One critical component of this intertwined context that this study will
explore is the relationship between teacher and leader, and the possible impacts on
teacher efficacy.
Current literature details many components of teacher self-efficacy. Educational
researchers are interested in finding what factors enhance or inhibit self-efficacy. A study
by Blasé & Blasé, (1999) explores the perceptions of teachers in regards to effective
school leadership. Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, and Lee (1982) focus on the instructional
management style of the principal and the effect on school culture and climate. There are
also numerous studies that attempt to find a direct link between leadership behaviors and
student achievement and it has been found that leadership can indirectly affect student
achievement based upon the climate and organization an administrator develops (Brown
& Anfara, 2002; Cotton, 2003). More importantly studies have also found that leaders
can also indirectly affect student achievement through the support of classroom teachers
using transformational leadership styles (Blasé, 1987; Marks & Printy, 2003). Once
Bandura’s work became published in the 1970’s, researchers began exploring teacher
3
self-efficacy and there are a fair number of studies that examine the context of efficacy
(Fuller, Wood, Rapoport, & Dornbusch, 1982) and the domains of teacher efficacy
(Woolfolk & Hoy, 1993). However, a review of the past and current literature shows
there are a limited number of studies that examine the possible link between the teacher’s
perceptions of principal leadership behaviors, specifically at the middle level, and teacher
self-efficacy. There are even fewer studies available that incorporate a mixed methods
inquiry using both quantitative and qualitative techniques.
Past research has studied many classroom variables and their relationship or
impact on teacher self-efficacy. Many of these studies have provided valuable
information regarding the organizational climate of school systems and how teachers are
affected by different styles of organizations and leadership behaviors. These past studies
have been primarily conducted using quantitative methodology and a few research
studies have been purely qualitative. What is missing from the research literature is
valuable mixed methods studies that explore teacher self-efficacy. By combining the
quantitative element of numerical efficacy as based upon a survey instrument and then
qualitatively exploring the perceptions of leadership with a subset of teachers that scored
variably on the efficacy instruments, the researcher is offering both a numerical
explanation and self reflection component to the data obtained.
By explaining leadership behaviors that enhance teacher self-efficacy, both
teachers and administrators can benefit from the results. Although no cookie cutter mold
should exist to define leadership behaviors, by qualifying individual teacher perceptions
and reporting the results, one can hope that there are actual behaviors that foster a
stronger sense of efficacy. Although self-efficacy research has made notable
4
contributions to the understanding of self-regulatory practices, academic motivation and
principal influences, the connection from theory to practices remains a slow process
(Pajares, 1997). Future leaders, educational stakeholders and aspiring teachers should be
familiar with the force of research findings that add definition to the correlation between
specific leadership behaviors and the level of teacher self-efficacy. As the literature
review will reveal, ultimately students can benefit from the results if behaviors are
recognized and incorporated. When a teacher is functioning with the highest level of
efficacy, one that is fostered and heightened by specific principal leadership behaviors,
student achievement increases (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1993).
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to explore middle school teacher self-efficacy scores
and individual teachers perceptions of principal behaviors that may have enhanced and/or
fostered their efficacy. Another important purpose of this research is to add to the
existing research literature, which lacks mixed methods approaches. An explanatory-
sequential mixed methods design is implemented, and involves collecting qualitative data
after a quantitative phase to explain and provide follow-up on the quantitative data in
more depth. In the first, quantitative phase of the study, two survey instruments were
distributed to middle school teachers at two urban school districts in Eastern Metropolitan
Nebraska. The older, established, Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) and
the newly developed Bandura’s Instrument: Teacher Efficacy Scale (Bandura, 2006)
were electronically cast to collect quantitative data about teacher efficacy. The second,
qualitative phase was designed to better explain the numerical survey data by
interviewing a subset of ten selected volunteer respondents. In this exploratory follow-up,
5
the self-efficacy concept was thoughtfully and thoroughly discussed with ten candidates
by meeting with them individually to conduct interviews and explore their perceptions of
principal leadership behaviors that have enhanced their teaching and efficacy.
The two inter-related phases of this study are of equal importance. In the
quantitative phase two surveys of different historical status are used; the Gibson &
Dembo survey developed in 1984, which has been the most frequently used teacher
efficacy scale in research studies to this date, and the 2006 Bandura’s Instrument Teacher
Efficacy Scale, which was designed as part of his “Guide for Creating Efficacy Scales”
chapter, and has not been used in any research studies at the time of this dissertation. The
teacher interview candidates in this study explained how, in their experience, principal
leaders have enhanced their feelings of efficacy. The benefits of this study included:
giving teachers a voice on how efficacy is enhanced and fostered which can provide
mechanisms that increase student achievement through the behaviors of principals. By
identifying these behaviors, we can apply them to leadership classes and training to
provide the utmost environment for fostering teacher self-efficacy. Furthermore, officials
may be able to find these characteristics in principal candidates and therefore enhance the
hiring process to ultimately benefit teachers and students.
Research Questions
1. Quantitative: Is teacher self efficacy dependent upon gender, years of
experience and, or education?
2. Qualitative: Are there predominant themes that support specific leadership
behaviors which enhance teacher self-efficacy?
6
3. Mixed Methods: Are there principal leadership behaviors that can enhance
teacher Self-efficacy?
Philosophical Foundations
The theoretical framework incorporated in this study is based largely upon the
social cognitive theory work of Albert Bandura, who first developed the concept of
self-efficacy. The main thrust of self-efficacy is: “people’s judgments of their capabilities
to organize and execute courses of action required to attain types of performances”
(Bandura, 1996). Teacher efficacy, or teachers’ belief in their effectiveness, is an
essential but often overlooked component of the student performance equation (Chase
et al., 2001). In the 1970’s the RAND Corporation first demonstrated a clear link between
teacher efficacy and student achievement. Currently there is a significant challenge being
made of teachers to meet curriculum standards and leave no child behind in their
learning. This level of challenge is best managed when teachers possess the optimum
level of security, management, and resources.
The researcher incorporates a primarily pragmatic worldview. For the pragmatist,
values and visions of human action and interaction precede a search for descriptions,
theories, explanations, and narratives. Pragmatists decide what they want to research,
guided by their personal value systems; that is, they study what they think is important to
study (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). The importance of the research question not only
drives the mixed methods model being used for the study, but it also requires the
researcher to use deductive and inductive reasoning when analyzing the data. Researchers
who use a mixed methods approach are inclined to base their knowledge claims on a
pragmatic foundation. According to Creswell & Plano-Clark (2007), “pragmatist
7
researchers are concerned with applications, ‘what works’ – and solutions to problems”
(p. 11). It is the research question or premised problem being explored. Most importantly,
pragmatism involves similarities between positivism, post positivism, and constructivism
which includes: the value-leadenness of inquiry, belief that reality is multiple and
constructed, and belief in the fallibility of knowledge. Which leads to the acceptance of
pragmatism as the most often used paradigm in mixed methods studies on social and
behavioral research.
In a recent 2004 interview with Michael Shaughnessy a question was posed to one
of the forerunners of research on teacher self-efficacy, Anita Woolfolk-Hoy.
Woolfolk-Hoy was asked which method of research—quantitative or qualitative—best
measures teacher self-efficacy. Woolfolk-Hoy’s answer included the following
statements:
I believe this concept would benefit from more studies that use both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. For the past 25 years teacher efficacy has been assessed predominately through quantitative scales and surveys. Previous research using quantitative measures found that some aspects of efficacy increase while other dimensions decline. But this research does not tell us why. I believe that qualitative methods are appropriate for an exploration of factors that mediate efficacy development and cultural influences on the construction of efficacy beliefs.
Mixed methods research employs both a quantitative and qualitative approach to
research inquiry. These methods have evolved over the past few decades into a viable and
reliable way to explore research questions. Rather than the emphasis being a set schedule
of methods, the mixed methods researcher is open to using a variety of inquiries to best
answer their questions. The mixed methods researcher believes that mixing qualitative
and quantitative data provides an optimal understanding of their research question.
8
Some final notes from leading mixed methods authors that are being used to guide
this explanatory sequential study are: “we believe that pragmatists consider the research
questions to be more important than either the method they use or the worldview that is
supposed to underlie the method” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998), also there are
indications that “When choices are between qualitative or quantitative methodology, post
positivists typically prefer the experimental design due to their concern with causality and
internal validity” (Cook & Campbell, 1979), with a final note that, “Similarly,
constructivists prefer their own methods and dutifully distinguish the differences in
methodological orientations” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). It is the researchers goal in
this study to use the most useful and creative paradigm to answer the research question
and therefore the pragmatist paradigm offers the most dynamics.
Organization of Subsequent Chapters
The following chapters explore the perceptions of middle school teachers in
regards to their own individual efficacy and perceived principal leadership behaviors. The
literature review in Chapter Two will highlight the research studies in these areas
independently and jointly. Chapter Three will detail the research questions and
procedures of the study including the design and methodology. Results of both
quantitative and qualitative data will be discussed in Chapter Four along with the major
mixed methods question being explored. Lastly, Chapter Five will feature a discussion of
the findings, as well as implications this study has on future research and the relationship
between teacher efficacy and principal leadership behaviors.
9
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The American institution of public education is one of our country’s most prideful
developments. The foundational structures of education have withstood the test of time,
but some might argue that the quality of education is not alive and well today. Federal
involvement, legislation, and increased accountability have changed the dynamics and
purpose of the American classroom and it is the individual teacher who has shouldered
most of the pressure. These concerns for teaching make sense. Research demonstrates
that once children enter school, teachers exercise more influence on students’ academic
growth than any other single factor (Ball & Rowan, 2004). In the current light of
increased public and government scrutiny, teacher self-efficacy may be one of the most
important and endearing traits a teacher can possess today to meet public expectations
and reach all learners who enter their classroom doors. Teachers with a high sense of
efficacy communicate high expectations for performance to students, put greater
emphasis on instruction and learning with students, are aware of student
accomplishments, are less likely to give up on low achieving students, and are more
likely to work harder on their behalf (Chase et al., 2001). Furthermore when the principal
becomes actively involved with teacher instruction and partners with teachers on
reaching students, feelings of efficacy are increased and the achievement of students is
benefited (Marks & Printy, 2003).
This review of past and current literature will first explain in detail the
psychological construct of efficacy. It will then outline the chronological history of
relevant studies that have explored teacher self-efficacy and collective efficacy. The
10
literature will then define leadership behaviors that have emerged from educational
research and outline the target behaviors that will be used in reference to this research
design. Teacher efficacy and leadership behaviors are the two major constructs of this
study. Because each is multifaceted with independent elements, it is important for the
researcher to provide the reader with an accurate and current picture of educational
research, teacher efficacy and leadership behaviors. The nature of this exploratory study
is dependent on a clear presentation of teacher self-efficacy and leadership behaviors.
The scholarly work of several researchers is presented and summarized to reveal the
importance of leadership behaviors and teacher self-efficacy as it pertains to the current
challenges being faced by public education.
Although the face of public education was entirely different in the 1970’s,
researchers began exploring the concept of efficacy as it relates to educators. One of the
first two formulators of efficacy was the American RAND Company, who based their
work on Rotter’s (1966) social learning theory. Rotter’s theory states that people are
motivated to seek out positive stimulation, or reinforcement, and to avoid unpleasant
stimulation. Rotter combined behaviorism and the study of personality, without relying
on physiological instincts or drives as a motive force. The RAND research company
embedded two items into an extensive questionnaire, and they turned out to be powerful
indicators of teacher efficacy. Teachers who express confidence in their ability teach
difficult students evidenced a belief that reinforcement of teaching activities lies within
the teacher’s control and is internal (Woolfolk & Hoy, 2003; Tschannen-Moran, 2002).
To measure efficacy, teachers were asked to indicate their level of agreement with these
two statements: (RAND item 1) “When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t
11
do much because most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his/her
home environment;” and (RAND item 2) “If I really try hard, I can get through to even
the most difficult or unmotivated students.”
The RAND corporation found that in regards to the first statement (RAND
item #1), there are external factors that influence a student’s success in school. Teachers’
belief in these external factors are beyond the control of any one teacher, but as a
collective entity, a school, teachers and leaders, can still have a positive outlook on
student learning. The second RAND statement (item #2) demonstrates how teachers feel
about their own teaching capabilities. It is more specific and refers to the self-component
of teaching, one that can be directly influenced by a variety of factors, including the
actions and involvement of others, namely leaders as this study will strive to demonstrate.
These factors are outlined carefully by one of the most extensive sociologists on
teachers’ efficacy, Albert Bandura. Bandura’s work began in the mid 1970’s and
continues today. He is one of the most cited writers on teacher efficacy and almost all of
the research presented in this literature review, including this researcher’s study is based
on his conclusions.
Teacher self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities organize and execute
the courses of actions required to manage situations (Bandura, 1996). Efficacy is a
concept that can be applied to a variety of life situations: family, intellectual
development, and health to name a few. In regards to education and career, teachers have
a belief in their personal teaching efficacy, which affects their general orientation toward
the educational process as well as their specific instructional activities. Those who have a
low sense of efficacy favor a custodial orientation that relies on extrinsic inducements
12
and negative sanctions to get students to study (Bandura, 1996). Teachers who believe
strongly in their instructional efficacy support the development of students’ intrinsic
interests and academic self-directedness (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1993).
In his 1996 book, Self-efficacy in Changing Societies, Albert Bandura outlines
the four factors of influence on efficacy beliefs. The first influence is mastery
experiences. Successes build a robust belief in one’s personal efficacy. Master
experiences involve acquiring the cognitive, behavioral, and self-regulatory tools for
creating and executing appropriate courses of action to manage ever-changing life
circumstances. For teachers, this mastery experience factor may evolve over consecutive
years of classroom experience, postgraduate educational degrees, and success with ever
changing groups of learners.
The second influence is through vicarious experiences provided by social models.
Seeing people similar to themselves succeed by perseverant effort raises observer’s
beliefs that they, too, possess the capabilities to master comparable activities (Bandura,
1996). The collective efficacy of a group of teachers or individual supportive behaviors
by principals helps to heighten the awareness of individual teachers who have a low sense
of self-efficacy. As we continue with the literature review, studies will be presented in
which the principal leader of the school plays a vital role in fostering the social model.
The third influence on efficacy, verbal persuasion, presents a strong force. People
who are persuaded verbally that they possess the capabilities to master given activities
are likely to mobilize greater effort and sustain it than if they harbor self-doubts and
dwell on personal deficiencies when problems arise (Bandura. 1996). In the school
setting, it is the principal who serves as this persuasion. Not only is verbal encouragement
13
important as acknowledged by Bandura, but the follow through actions and
thoughtfulness of a school leader serve as a strong guiding hand in a teacher’s self
development. Positive interactions displayed by the principal are important in
precipitating reciprocal actions by teachers (Blasé, 1987). As the literature progresses the
researcher will define the construct of transformational leadership that is most closely
aligned with Bandura’s 1977 social persuasion factor.
The final influential factor on efficacy is the physiological and emotional state of
the individual. How a person influences their stress level and reactions to stimuli affect
the ongoing judgment of one’s efficacy state. It is not just the sheer intensity of emotional
and physical reactions, but rather how the individual perceives and interprets the stimuli.
Some may see it as an energizing facilitator and thrive on this eustress. Others who are
set back by self doubt and aloneness may not be able to properly judge their daily
challenges and obstacles, which over time may manifest into a low self efficacy
(Schneider, 2001). As mentioned previously, these premises developed by Bandura
(1977, 1996, & 2006) have been the critical framework for many researchers specifically
studying teacher efficacy.
As researchers began to realize the importance of teacher efficacy in public
education, many began to try to develop a valid instrument to measure teacher efficacy
and predict outcome success. In 1984, Gibson and Dembo performed a construct
validation to explore the variable role that teacher efficacy plays in individual teaching
effectiveness. They proposed that by applying Bandura’s (1977) theory to the construct
teacher efficacy, outcome expectancy would essentially reflect the degree to which
teachers believed the environment could be controlled, that is, the extent to which student
14
can be taught regardless of their external factors (home, background, and IQ) (Gibson &
Dembo, 1984). In a nutshell, they wanted to develop an instrument that would indicate a
teacher’s evaluation of their abilities to bring about positive student change. Even in
1984, this was an innovative research study and coincided with the Nation at Risk report
that was first deployed on the general public calling for a new commitment by schools
and regaining the basic purposes, high expectations, and disciplined effort needed to
attain them (A Nation at Risk, 1983). Now, in present day, with the incredible tasks
outlined by No Child Left Behind, which calls for 100% proficiency in reading and math
of all learners by 2014, educators and principal leaders need to dig deep and explore how
to enhance teacher self-efficacy and collective efficacy to ultimately benefit students and
increase achievement.
The 1984 instrument development by Gibson & Dembo took place in three
distinct phases. A pilot study used 53 sample items that were administered to 90 teachers.
These 53 questions were developed from an analysis of existing literature and teacher
interviews. The responses were then submitted to a factor analysis and there were 30
items that emerged as statistically sound. These 30 questions became the revised Teacher
Efficacy Scale and were formatted using a Likert scale.
Phase One of a new factor analysis used 208 elementary teachers and the
Statistical Package of the Social Sciences (SPSS) to analyze the underlying factor
structure. Phase Two used a multitrait-multimethod analysis and a pool of 55 teachers
enrolled in graduate courses. They answered the 30-item Teacher Efficacy Scale and also
answered an additional 20 open-ended measures in which they described variables
contributing most to a student’s success or failure at school. Phase Three incorporated
15
classroom observations to corroborate the quantitative measures. Eight teachers (four
high-efficacy and four low-efficacy) were selected from the original 208 teachers in
Phase One. The observation instrument used to code the classroom observation consisted
of a “teacher use of time” measure and a question-answer feedback mechanism measure.
The observations were seeking the proportion of time a teacher spends on activities
related to teaching and instructional learning. Quality indicators were incorporated into
the observation.
The result of this rigorous and comprehensive study is the validated and widely
used Teacher Efficacy Scale by Sherri Gibson and Myron Dembo. In their results
discussion the researchers state
teachers, who in general expect students to learn and who have confidence in their ability to teach may communicate higher expectations by providing less criticism to students and persisting with students until they respond correctly rather than going on to the next student. (Gibson & Dembo, 1984)
They also report that the phases of this study and instrument support the two components
of teacher efficacy, self or personal and group or collective.
Another study worth mentioning, and one that pursued teacher efficacy from a
qualitative approach, is Ashton and Webb’s (1986) research on the connection between
school structuring and teachers’ sense of efficacy. This study is also valuable to the
current researcher because it explored efficacy through middle school teachers. Ashton
and Webb sought both ends of the efficacy spectrum, high and low, by extensively
interviewing middle school teachers. The middle school teachers that had higher efficacy
also had higher expectations for their students and were more satisfied with teaching.
Efficacy refers to projected potency in a particular situation and is generally
present or future directed. It is a teacher’s belief that “I can make this happen” (Guskey,
16
1987). Thomas Guskey expanded on previous research that had shown two context
variables as having a strong influence on measure of teacher efficacy. One is the nature of
the student performance outcome and the other is the ability of the students being served.
He believed that there exists unintentional and qualitative difference in the ways that
teachers interact with the two context variables. His research used a data sample of 120
teachers from three very different school districts: urban, suburban and rural. Results
indicate that teachers do appear to distinguish in their perception of efficacy between
results with a single student and those with a group of students. It was discovered that
teachers’ feelings of affect toward teaching and teaching self-concept were more strongly
related to their perceptions of personal efficacy for group results. This study is important
to include in the review of literature to help provide background for the quantitative
research question: “Are there differences in teacher efficacy based upon gender, years of
experience, degree level and socioeconomic status of the school?”
In the 1990’s educational researchers began to explore the possible link between
the organizational structure of schools and teacher efficacy. It was becoming evident that
there are many factors that can influence teacher efficacy. Whether it was the external
environmental variables that each student brought to the classroom or the internal
functioning and routine of the school.
Lee, Dedrick, and Smith (1991) designed a study that would examine the
elements of principal leadership, communal school organization, environment and levels
of control as they pertain to teacher efficacy. They acknowledged the dichotomy of
internal and external variables that affect teacher efficacy and explained the four elements
of efficacy from Bandura’s (1977) writing mentioned at the beginning of this review.
17
Although these sources of information may contribute to a teachers’ sense of efficacy and
satisfaction, a person’s access to these types of information depends on organizational
conditions. Specifically, the school environment can determine a teachers’ access to
information outside their own classrooms, and, consequently, may influence the
continuing development and growth of teachers’ perception of their performance
capabilities (Lee et al., 1991). They hypothesized that teachers’ sense of control over the
environment could determine their efficacy and satisfaction associated with their work.
The study used a quite large sample of 8,488 teachers who had been a part of a
larger study entitled “High School and Beyond,” 30 teachers were selected per school and
administered the Administrator and Teacher Survey (ATS). Using quantitative survey
and statistics the researchers found a strong relationship between teacher efficacy and the
amount of control they feel they have over their classroom. In regards to principal
leadership, the study found a strong relationship towards principals that do not discourage
input from staff and that encourage innovation to better the learning environment. Their
discussion also included the findings that principal behaviors that increase teacher
efficacy were evidenced on the responses that included these elements: “gets resources
for this school” and “deals effectively with pressures from outside the school that might
interfere with my teaching.” These results suggest that fostering cooperative
environments and allowing teachers reasonable autonomy in their classroom practices are
more likely to foster the efficacy and satisfaction of teachers. Further presentations on the
characteristics of strong leaders that will be used to define the leadership behaviors for
this study are forthcoming.
18
In 1992, Stephen Raudenbush, Brian Rowan, and Yuk Cheong ventured into the
contextual effects on teacher self-efficacy. They also acknowledged that the current
instruments being used to measure efficacy were useful, but that research needed to
explore the contextual variables, and there are many, which may affect teacher efficacy.
Raudenbush, Rowan and Cheong specifically researched class size, achievement level of
the class, and organizational environment among other factors. Organizational
environment was defined as: support from administrators, collaboration with colleagues,
and control over organizational policies that affect key instructional conditions
(Raudenbush et al., 1992).
A sample of 16 schools were purposely selected to guarantee a diverse
representation of resources, organization and student composition. All teachers were
administered a questionnaire designed that incorporated past researchers work, Rowan’s
Administrator –Teacher survey and the High School and Beyond study on efficacy and
also addressed the contextual questions the researchers were seeking. The most important
finding from the inter-teacher analysis concerned the effects of organizational
environments on teachers. In their discussion of results they found that teachers who
reported higher levels of control over instructional conditions and higher levels of staff
collaboration also reported higher mean levels of self-efficacy. This finding is potentially
important in light of recent literature on school restructuring, which calls for increased
participation by teachers in decision making in school and increased collaboration among
teachers (Raudenbush et al., 1992). Although this study is more than 15 years old, the
results still resound today. Teachers and leaders need to be involved in a relationship that
betters the overall teacher control of the school, hence, one of the research questions
19
posed in this study, “Are there specific leadership behaviors that enhance teacher
efficacy?”
Two more researchers who have dedicated much of their research to the construct
of teacher efficacy are Wayne Hoy and Anita Woolfolk. In 1993 they published their own
study on teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational components of school. This
study is included in this literature review because it begins to communicate more strongly
the connection between teacher efficacy and leadership behaviors. They believed that a
healthy school climate, one with a strong academic emphasis and a principal who has
influence with superiors and is willing to use it on behalf of teachers, is conducive to the
development of teachers’ beliefs that they can influence student learning (Woolfolk &
Hoy, 1993).
Woolfolk and Hoy (1993) outlined organizational health components of a school,
which included the variables: principal influence and consideration. Principal influence is
the principal’s ability to influence and persuade superiors. It also includes the
maneuvering of the administrative hierarchy to be effective and supply resources at the
managerial level. Consideration is principal behavior that is friendly, supportive, open
and collegial; it represents a genuine concern of a principal for the welfare of teachers
(Woolfolk & Hoy, 1993).
For their study Woolfolk and Hoy (1993) randomly selected 179 teachers who
were administered an adapted version of the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo,
1983). Dimensions of organizational health variables: institutional integrity, principal
influence, consideration, resource support, morale and academic emphasis in the school
building were measured by the Organizational Health Inventory (OHI). Using multiple
20
regressions the researchers found that principal influence did have a unique and
significant effect on teachers’ personal efficacy. Teacher’s who perceived their principals
as exerting influence on their behalf, were likely to have stronger beliefs that they could
motivate and reach even the most difficult students (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1993).
Environments that are warm and supportive interpersonally may make teachers more
satisfied with their jobs and less stressed, but they appear to have little direct effect on a
teachers confidence about reaching difficult students (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1993). It is worth
noting that the discussion of findings also determined that principal influence is important
in which teachers are assisted with instructional tasks, that the learning environment is
orderly and that shared goals that emphasize student learning are foundations for success
and efficacy.
The 1995 dissertation work of Kristin Hipp from the University of Wisconsin
used an explanatory sequential approach to answer her research question, are selected
leadership behaviors of principals related to general teaching efficacy and personal
teaching efficacy? Hipp’s study is one of very few which incorporates a mixed methods
approach. Interestingly, her study is one of the most cited since published in 1995. Hipp’s
sample included 10 principals and 280 teachers from purposely-selected middle schools
in Wisconsin that were in the process of significant building change efforts. The
Quantitative Phase 1 of the study gathered survey information using Gibson and Dembo’s
Teacher Efficacy Scale (1984) and also used the Nature of Leadership survey by
Leithwood (1994). Both teachers and principals answered the two surveys.
For Phase 2, Hipp (1995) used qualitative inquiry interviews with all 10 principals
and teacher volunteers from the highest reported efficacy school and the lowest reported
21
efficacy schools. Hipp discovered that two leadership behaviors were significantly related
to teacher self (personal) efficacy: models behavior and provides contingent rewards and
three behaviors had influence on general efficacy; and models behavior, provides
contingent rewards, and inspires group purpose. These are three of six transformational
leadership behaviors that Kenneth Leithwood (1994) describes in his study, “Leadership
for School Restructuring,” and will be discussed in detail in the defining leadership
behaviors segment of this literature review.
By the late 1990’s and into the 21st century, efficacy studies have dwindled. Not
because of lack of interest, but because of all the different contexts to be explored.
Internet and library searches resulted in many hits on efficacy, but were attached to a
specific criteria being researched: subject area, induction time frame, rural settings, and
multicultural populations. The researcher credits the focus of this study to the interview
quote made earlier by Anita Woolfolk-Hoy (Shaughnessy, 2004). More research on
teacher self-efficacy is needed and a mixed methods approach is a valuable tool to
incorporate.
Principal Leadership Behaviors
Studies that have focused on teacher self-efficacy and leadership behaviors have a
shorter time frame than the efficacy construct. Much of this research has generated
descriptions of what principals do, how their behaviors affect the climate of the school
and the productivity of teachers, which can ultimately in an indirect way affect student
achievement. This part of the literature review will provide definition to the leadership
behaviors construct being explored in this study. Leadership behaviors, specifically those
displayed by a building principal will be defined and add a history of vocabulary to the
22
researchers study. This is a valuable discussion as it will add to the definition and body of
leadership behaviors and provide a background framework for the researcher’s theming
of qualitative interviews obtained in the present study. The research of Kenneth
Leithwood (1993, 1999, and 2008) will be the primary framework discussed along with
other notable researchers who have explored the affect of principal leadership behaviors.
Most definitions of leadership reflect the assumption that it involves a social influence process, whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person (or group) over other people (or groups) to structure the activities and relationships in a group or organization. (Yukl, 1994) There are many forms of leadership behaviors in educational literature. One of the
most widely accepted definitions of leadership behaviors is transformational leadership
and it is one that has been related to teacher self efficacy.
Other research has specifically investigated the instructional leadership role of the
principal ship and teacher efficacy as outlined in the previous section of this literature
review. Two primary images of school principal ship have prevailed in recent decades
research, instructional and transformational, they will be highlighted in this section of the
literature review.
Transformational leadership influence is exercised through motivational processes
that elevate organizational members’ aspirations for their work and inspire higher level of
commitment to the organization and its purposes (Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach, 1999).
Six aspects of transformational leadership exist as found by Leithwood and associates
conducting an extensive review of the literature. They are briefly outlined as follows:
1. Building a shared vision—creating a realistic, creative and attractive future for
the organization.
23
2. Developing consensus about goals—communicating the priority of goals
while continuously building consensus.
3. Creating high performance expectations—encouraging teachers to establish
and review individual professional growth goals.
4. Providing individualized support—acting as an important resource in helping
colleagues achieve their individual and school goals.
5. Creating intellectual stimulation—providing necessary resources to support
staff and embracing conflict as a way of clarifying courses of action.
6. Modeling practices and values—treating everyone equally, having an open
door policy, protecting teachers from excessive inclusions on their work.
As early as 1982 educational researchers were searching for a framework to help
understand the role of the principal as a teacher support mechanism. Bossert, Dwyer,
Rowan & Lee (1982) acknowledged that the literature they reviewed did not present
certain models and behaviors that could specifically be defined into concrete actions that
could ultimately increase teacher performance and help children succeed in school. They
coined the term “effective schools” were students demonstrated success and learning.
These schools were found to have the following characteristics: a school climate
conducive to learning, emphasis on basic skills instruction, expectations among teachers
that all students can achieve, and a system of objectives to monitor student performance
(Bossert et. al, 1982). Although not specifically stated as a purpose for their research
framework, it is interesting to note that the characteristic of an effective school includes
the expectation among teachers that all students can achieve, which is the same premise
of thought behind teacher self-efficacy.
24
One of the first studies designed to explore the link between teacher perceptions
and effective leadership was a qualitative grounded theory study in 1987 by Joseph Blasé.
By using an informal and formal interview process Blasé sought to uncover “thick
descriptions” relevant to the efficacy phenomenon under investigation (Blasé, 1987). By
focusing on the teachers’ perspective of effective and ineffective principal behaviors,
Blasé was searching for qualitative data to substantiate theories of school based
leadership that positively affects the sociocultural context of the school. The data
revealed nine prominent leadership factors related to task: accessibility, consistency,
knowledge/expertise, clear and reasonable expectation, decisiveness, goals/direction,
follow-through, ability to mange time, and problem-solving orientation. Blasé also found
consideration related factors: support in confrontations, participation/consultation,
fairness/equitability, recognition/praise, and willingness to delegate authority. These
factors align closely with the six leadership behaviors premised by Leithwood (1993,
1999 and 2008) which are being used as a framework for this study.
Blasé followed up his study in 1999, by casting a wider net and collecting open
ended survey questions from over 800 American teachers. His findings again showed that
teachers do have valuable perceptions of what effective leadership behaviors look like,
behaviors that enhance their classroom instruction and overall self worth as a teacher.
Blasé was then able to narrow down the leadership factors he found in 1987. The 2000
study he conducted stated two major themes of principal leadership behaviors with
supporting sub-parts; talking with teachers to promote reflection and promoting
professional growth. These leadership behaviors are believed to lead to greater teacher
efficacy, motivation, self-esteem, and impact reflective behavior, including
25
innovation/creativity, risk taking, instructional variety, planning/preparation and focus,
(Blasé & Blasé, 1999).
Two researchers (Marks & Printy, 2003) focused on school leadership relations
between principals and teachers in their study on the integration of transformational and
instructional leadership. They acknowledge that past research has provided two images of
principal leadership and that they operate separately, the focus of their study is the
operation of the two forms in tandem, which they name “integrated leadership.” Their
research question asked about the effect of this integrated leadership on school
performance, namely student achievement. The researchers collected quantitative and
qualitative data by using a survey to identify instructional practices, professional
activities and perceptions of their school and its organization. During the study
researchers spent time in each school and interviewed teachers and administrators
individually, plus spent observation time collecting data on governance and professional
meetings at each school. To help address the student achievement factor of integrated
leadership the researchers collected responses on assessment tasks.
Marks and Printy (2003) found that in schools where there was strong
transformational leadership and little instructional leadership that the principal engaged
teachers in social services and school reform, but had little evidence in collaborating with
teachers on instruction, curriculum and assessment. Whereas in schools that incorporated
both transformational and shared instructional leadership, referred to as integrated
leadership by the researchers, as evidenced in survey responses, teachers and
administrators interviewed reported that teachers were regarded as professionals and full
partners in furthering high quality teaching and learning. Specifically, teachers reported
26
their responsibilities as extending beyond their classrooms and were viewed as
instructional leaders. Student achievement in the integrated leadership schools was 0.6
standard deviation points higher than the other schools, which the researchers referred to
as a result of shared engagement between the principal and the teachers (Marks & Printy,
2003). This study is important in recognizing the importance of interactions and
relational behaviors of principals when working with all teachers.
In 2003, Phillip Hallinger reviewed the research literature associated with the
conceptual and empirical development of instructional and transformational leadership.
He stated that Leithwood and his colleagues have contributed the most substantial and
useful models of transformational leadership. Transformational leaders increase the
capacity of others in the school to produce first order effects on learning (Leithwood et
al., 1999). This approach is believed to increase the commitments of teachers and strives
to enable teachers to see the relationship between what they are trying to accomplish and
what the leaders instill in them as the mission of the school. It is a highly sophisticated
relationship because it involves, two separate entities; the teacher and the administrator,
efficacy and behaviors, but in regards to the school contexts they became an invaluable
almost inseparable relationship of leadership and motivation, that this study strives to
build upon the importance of this intimate dance of professional practice and heartfelt
endurance.
Through his extensive synthesis of studies, Hallinger echoed Leithwood’s (1999)
research work: principal effects are achieved through fostering group goals, modeling
desired behavior for others, providing intellectual stimulation and individualized support
toward staff development (Hallinger, 2003). The outcomes of these principal behaviors is
27
a strong indicator in predicting student achievement, increases in academic success,
which is specifically noted in the earlier section of the literature review regarding
leadership styles that increase teacher efficacy. In light of the current study being
conducted this researcher an important statement is made by Hallinger, even the most
sophisticated quantitative designs used in current leadership effects research treat
leadership as an exogenous variable influencing students, sometimes directly, but mostly
indirectly, through school conditions, moderated by student background characteristics.
Leadership must be conceptualized as a mutual influence process, rather than a one-way
process (Hallinger, 2003). This point is taken into consideration by this researcher’s
mixed methods approach that uses quantitative and qualitative methods to answer the
research questions being posed.
A final study to include in this literature review that will help cement the
constructs being explored and provide relevance to the dissertation topic is Ross and
Gray’s (2006) hypotheses that transformational leadership would contribute to teacher
commitment to organizational values exclusively through self efficacy. This quantitative
study used combined measures from various leadership and efficacy instruments. By
using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) they found that transformational
leadership had an impact on teacher efficacy at the school. The researchers go on to state,
although this study was not designed to identify the specific mechanisms through which
principals influence teacher self-efficacy, Bandura’s (1996) social cognitive theory
suggests that the main contribution to efficacy is through principal influence on staff
interpretations of their effectiveness. These two researchers stated in their conclusion and
implication that future studies should “probe the leadership efficacy relationship to link
28
particular dimensions of transformational leadership and specific principal behaviors to
enhanced agency beliefs of their staff” (Ross & Gray, 2006).
In summary, this literature review was written to not only present the educational
concepts being explored, but also to add relevance to the topic by reviewing a history of
studies in both areas. The frameworks of teacher efficacy and leadership behaviors are
not in any sense, new, but given the lull in current research on efficacy and the low
number of mixed methods studies that have sought to define and give substance to the
relationship between efficacy and leadership behaviors, this researcher feels that the
perceptions of teachers will add an invaluable component to a quantified existence of
measures.
29
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
Self-efficacy beliefs should be assessed at the optimal level of specificity that
corresponds to the criteria task being assessed and the domain of functioning being
analyzed (Pajares, 1996). The purpose of this study is to offer the best explanations of
teacher efficacy in regards to the behavioral variables of leaders. The study was designed
to achieve an explanatory and predictive power, to use individual teacher judgments on a
quantitative instrument and then empower the teacher to tell about the domains of
efficacy as it is enhanced by leadership behaviors. This study not only explores an area of
teacher efficacy that has not been saturated yet by research, but also ventures into the
realm of efficacy using a research method that has also not been widely used in this area.
This researcher believes that quantitative efforts need to be complemented by qualitative
inquiries to explore how leadership behaviors can foster the established premise of
teacher efficacy.
Mixed methods research is steadily becoming an acceptable and viable way to
explore a variety of research questions. This study aims to find leadership behaviors that
enhance teacher self-efficacy. The mixed methods format fits this goal because it
incorporates both qualitative and quantitative approaches in the research methods, data
analysis and design. Its central premise is that the use of quantitative and qualitative
approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems than
either approach alone (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2007). To address the research question
in this study a sequential mixed methods design is conducted in two phases. Data sources
30
including two quantitative survey instruments and ten qualitative interviews are the major
components of the two phases and will be discussed in further detail.
The intent of the two-phase exploratory design is that the results of the first,
quantitative method are used to provide valuable data on an existing established efficacy
scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) and provide reliability and validity data using the newly
developed Bandura’s Instrument Teacher Self Efficacy (2006). This unpublished measure
points out that teacher’s sense of efficacy is not necessarily uniform across the many
tasks asked of teachers. Bandura’s Instrument contains the same number of items (30) as
the Gibson & Dembo scale which are anchored in a 9 point Likert scale. There are 7
subscales on his instrument; efficacy to influence decision making, influence school
resources, instructional efficacy, disciplinary efficacy, efficacy to enlist parental
involvement, community involvement, and efficacy to create a positive school climate.
Bandura’s Instrument of Teacher Efficacy was developed to further explore the
purposeful facets of teacher efficacy, he states;
There is no all-purpose measure of perceived self-efficacy. The “one measure approach fits all” approach usually has limited explanatory and predictive value because most of the items in an all-purpose measure may have little or no relevance to the selected domain of functioning. Moreover, in an effort to serve all purposes, global measure are usually cast in a general, decontextualized form leaving much ambiguity about exactly what is being measured and the level of task and situational demands that must be managed. Scales of perceived self-efficacy must be tailored to the particular domains of functioning that are the object of interest. In the follow-up qualitative phase, a convenience sample of ten teachers was
interviewed in a one to one fashion by the researcher to explore perceptions of principal
behaviors that have enhanced their efficacy. The researcher felt that by using this
sequence, data is sufficiently explored using two methods and is also enhanced by
31
enabling the subjects to use their own voice to describe their responses. The framework
of this study called for the collection and analysis of quantitative data to answer the
research question regarding demographic factors and teacher efficacy. A separate and
equally weighted phase of quantitative exploration answered a second research question
about perceptions of actual behaviors that may enhance individual teacher efficacy. A
third research question included in the mixed methods model layered the data by using
demographic information, the ten individual interview candidates and explored two
specific questions anchored in the instructional efficacy and school climate subscales of
Bandura’s Instrument (2006). Mixed methods was also applied at the interpretation and
presentation of findings, in which the data from both phases meshed together to answer
the major mixed methods research question being posed.
1. Qualitative: Is there a predominant theme that supports a specific leadership
behavior which enhances teacher self-efficacy?
2. Quantitative: Is teacher self efficacy dependent upon gender, years of
experience educational level or socioeconomic status of the school?
3. Mixed Methods: Are there leadership behaviors that enhance teacher self-
efficacy?
There are some practical challenges involved with using an explanatory sequential
mixed methods design. Creswell and Plano-Clark (2007) share a comprehensive list of
challenges in their Mixed Methods Research book and the applicable ones are explained
here. The two-phase approach occurs during separate time frames. Therefore it stretches
out the length of the study and requires extra time to implement. “Decisions must be
made in determining the relevant qualitative findings to use” (Creswell & Plano-Clark,
32
2007). In this particular study the researcher must strive to build an appropriate
framework and establish their worldview, lending relevancy to the pursuance of follow-
up interviews and the questions used. Survey participants were asked to indicate their
willingness to be contacted for a follow-up interview. From this pool of volunteers the
researcher selected ten variable scoring efficacy teachers to conduct personal interviews
with. Another challenge involved collecting a proper amount of surveys to conduct
descriptive data statistics. The researcher took extra communication measures to reach a
large audience and obtain the largest survey sample possible.
Mixed methods designs are becoming a prevalent force in educational research
and there have been rigorous studies conducted in both the leadership behavior and
teacher self-efficacy constructs of this study. However, the mixed methods approach is
almost non-existent in the area of combining the two constructs. The sequential design
and two phase model of this particular study is presented in a visual format in
Appendix A.
Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis
The dependent variable of self-efficacy was measured for this study by individual
teachers’ responses to the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) and
Bandura’s Instrument – Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Bandura, 2006). These quantitative
instruments provide concise numerical value to determine behavioral statistics such as t-
tests, ANOVA’s, correlations, reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) and validity. A personal
demographic data sheet that requested descriptive data on the personal characteristics of
teachers was also included in the survey. The information requested included (a) gender,
33
(b) years of experience, (c) highest level of education, and (d) socioeconomic status of
the school (low, middle, high).
Over 700 teachers in two metropolitan Nebraska school districts were contacted
via email to complete the survey. Permission letters to the “gatekeepers,” Directors of
Assessment and Evaluation (Appendix E and F) of the urban school districts were mailed
to gain access to the district’s middle school teachers. The online survey package,
“Survey Monkey” was chosen to distribute the surveys. An additional “VeriSign”
security program was purchased to provide added confidentiality and comfort to the
survey respondents. Five volunteer interview candidates from both high and low SES
schools were selected for a follow-up interview. The independent variables (presumed
causes) are the leadership behaviors that were defined and outlined in the literature
review. The dependent variable (presumed effects) is the individual teacher self-efficacy
score obtained from the surveys and the corresponding information gleaned from the
individual interviews.
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
The goal of the researcher was to build a sample of ten interview respondents that
represented a cross section of middle school teachers with five teachers selected from low
income (Low SES) schools and five teachers from high-income (High SES) schools.
Individual efficacy mean scores are also discussed when the researcher mixes the
quantitative and qualitative data. Data was subjected to a qualitative “coding” and
“theming” process in which the researcher teased out perceptions, when they existed, that
are in alignment with the transformational leadership behaviors outlined from Leithwood
et al., 1999 work and other major researchers as presented in the literature review. This
34
crucial task of building themes and codes is used to establish qualitative data
management for which the data can be organized and presented in a systematic manner
and lend itself to the legitimization process to answer research questions.
Interviews were conducted face to face at a time and location convenient for the
participant. The semi-structured interviews were guided by pre-determined, open-ended
questions supported by the major mixed methods research question and secondary
questions. The interview questions sought to gain individual insight to factors and
specific principal behaviors that promote or enhance self-efficacy, correlations between
individual teacher interview statements and their efficacy scale mean is presented and
discussed. All interviews were conducted by this researcher, audio taped and transcribed
so that the researcher could fully immerse herself in the data.
The interview protocol included 11 open-ended questions (Appendix J). Interview
questions were adapted from the dissertation work of Kristine Hipp at the University of
Wisconsin (1995). A general teaching career question prompted the interviewee to
explain their journey into middle school education. Six of the questions probed the
teacher’s awareness of their self-efficacy and general efficacy feelings in the building.
The remaining 4 questions directly addressed leadership involvement in the teacher’s
daily teaching profession and efficacy. The researcher used probing questions at various
points during the interview discussion to allow the interviewee to illuminate teaching
experiences and interactions with their principal. These questions provided the teacher
participant an opportunity to give voice to not only their experience and efficacy, but also
explored the premise of leadership behaviors and how they have enhanced their teaching
profession.
35
Once the data was completely transcribed, qualitative data analysis was
employed. The researcher must carefully read through the data to gain a holistic sense
before sorting the text into smaller parts (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2007). By fully
immersing herself into the data, the researcher was able to analyze and locate verbal text
that supported and answered the research questions. The dimensions of leadership
behaviors presented by Leithwood et al., in 1999 and other researchers in the professional
literature was used as an organization framework for this researcher to reference when
recognizing themes. This framework was selected as a logical way to organize and
present the qualitative data and not used to control the data collection. The researcher was
looking for common themes across the interviews from each school status to lend support
to the secondary research questions. Tables and graphs have also been incorporated into
the presentation of data to allow a clear visual and alignment of quantitative and
qualitative information as it relates to the research questions being explored.
Mixed Methods Procedure: Integration of Data
The key component of mixed methods research that truly makes it a separate
entity from quantitative or qualitative research is the “mixing” of data at one or all stages
of research. In an explanatory sequential design, the mixing usually occurs after the
quantitative phase for participant selection and interview protocol development and then
again after the qualitative phase within the interpretation segment (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2007). This mixing of data, between the two phases and the answering of a major
mixed methods research question is an important premise in this research study. A visual
model (Appendix A) provides the sequence of this study, the descriptive statistics used to
explain the qualitative data and includes a reference purpose point that one of the efficacy
36
instruments used, Gibson and Dembo (1984) has been validated in past studies and the
newly developed Bandura Instrument of Teacher Self Efficacy will present new
reliability scores for the scale.
Data Validation
Performing validity measures and establishing reliability ensures the researcher is
taking action to solidify the study. These data validation activities add to the rigor of the
study and therefore make the study more acceptable to a wider scholarly audience.
Within the qualitative phase of the study, the researcher strived for authenticity and
minimizing misrepresentation. Member checking was one method of establishing
validity. The researcher performed a “member check” with each individual interview
participant by returning an electronic copy of the transcription and asking the participant
to review the document. All requests from the sample population to view the data and
final research paper were honored by the researcher. An outside auditor and critical
reader were hired by the researcher to ensure proper research techniques were followed
and that the researcher completed appropriate tasks associated with the study.
Ethical practices were also a priority throughout the study. The research was
conducted with informed consent from the participants. All participants were made fully
aware of the purpose of the study, what their participation entailed, and the potential
audiences. The interview candidates’ privacy is protected as their identities are not made
known and information shared is held in confidence. Individual quotes used by the
researcher in Chapter Four have been edited only to maintain the anonyminity of the
teacher’s subject area, gender of principal and other descriptors that might jeopardize the
37
teacher’s identity. Participants were fully given the opportunity to withdraw from the
study at any time.
Researcher Resources and Skills
This research study is limited to the individual resources and skills of the primary
researcher. The results and discussion are limited to only the responses obtained by the
survey participants in two large urban school districts in the state of Nebraska,
generalization of the study is confined to the middle school setting of such school
settings. The researcher has been employed continuously in public education for ten years
and has minor administrative experience. The educational credentials of this researcher
are a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Science education, a Masters Degree in Special
Education and a Supervisory Certificate for the secondary principal level.
Potential Ethical Issues
Since the researcher does not want to insert preconceived judgments or ideas into
the study, ethical issues and biases are identified for the reader. The intent of these
statements is to clarify the focus on participant experiences and the views that the
researcher brings to the study.
• Principal behaviors do affect the daily routine and thoughts of teachers.
• Teachers may base their current perceptions of leadership behaviors based
upon past experiences, not with the current principal.
• Student populations are much more diverse today than 20 or even 10 years
ago.
• Educators need to take responsibility for student successes and failures.
38
Timeline
The initial (Phase 1) part of this explanatory sequential study started in the Fall of
2008 in which two quantitative instruments, the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson &
Dembo, 1984), and Bandura’s Instrument of Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Bandura,
2006) were distributed via electronic mail to middle school teachers at two urban school
districts in Eastern Nebraska. A one-week response time frame was given end of
September for teachers to complete the surveys. An initial introductory letter, the survey
consent letter, and a follow-up reminder and thank you also were sent to the teacher
sample to invite as much participation as possible.
During the connecting phase of this study, the researcher contacted a pool of
voluntary interview candidates as indicated on the survey form. Five teachers from both
high and low SES middle schools comprised the final interview sample of ten teachers.
Phase 2 began in late fall, in which the researcher engaged in interviews with the
ten selected candidates. The bulk of Phase 2 entailed transcription and subsequent coding
and categorizing to tease patterns and themes from the respondents. Member checking
also took place to ensure the validity of qualitative themes and findings. Two critical
professionals were contracted to perform editing and auditing of the final written study.
Limitations of the Study
The nature of this study will rely heavily upon the honest, reflective responses of
the participants on the efficacy scales and during the individual interviews. For the study
to be effective, it will be critical that interviewees openly and freely share their
perceptions of efficacy and principal leadership behaviors. A possible limitation could
exist if participants perceive their comments potentially being shared with their
39
principals. This will be addressed by the written, verbal and behavioral practices of the
researcher ensuring confidentially. Pseudo-names will be given to the ten interview
candidates and when writing the qualitative themes, the researcher will not use critical
identifying information such as specific school building name, subject area or principal
gender.
The investigation is limited by the parameters of the definitions of teacher
efficacy and principal leadership behaviors as premised by past and current research
literature. These concepts of teacher efficacy and principal leadership are highly
complex, multi-faceted, and contextual and intertwined. Readers should recognize that
the purpose of this research is to shed additional light on the relationship between teacher
efficacy and principal leadership by using the responses of many survey sample
participants and the ten individual voices of middle school teachers.
40
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS
Introduction
Recognizing that past research has shown that there is a relationship between
teacher self efficacy and leadership behaviors that have a positive effect on student
achievement, this study was designed to identify and portray perceptions that individual
teachers have of principal leadership behaviors, specifically those in the middle school
setting that have enhanced feelings of efficacy. Focus on the principal and leadership
behaviors as key to the improvement of learning for all children through teacher efficacy
has intensified in past years (Cotton, 2003). A healthy school climate, fostered by
principal leadership behaviors, with a strong academic emphasis, is conducive to the
development of teachers’ beliefs that they can influence student learning through their
teaching efficacy (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1993). In a time where increased public and federal
accountability of schools is pervasive, teachers shoulder most of the pressure in reaching
all students, even the most unmotivated learner. Effective principals can convey a sense
of certainty that teachers can and do make a difference in student learning and
achievement. The extent that a principal can enhance teacher efficacy is evident in their
direction, purpose and meaning. Principals need to be persuaded to act on this notion of
positive linkage and focus on conditions that help teachers acquire and sustain feelings of
competence and worth (Hipp, 1997).
The study was conducted in two phases using an explanatory mixed methods
technique. The first quantitative phase involved the researcher casting an electronic
survey of two efficacy batteries to middle school teachers in two large urban school
41
districts. Of the 775 teachers receiving the request to complete the surveys, 278 (38%)
responded. To encourage greater participation three separate emails including a
descriptive introduction, a one-week response window statement, and a follow-up
reminder were sent. One high income principal and one low income principal also invited
their staff to complete the survey based on their support of the researcher.
The second qualitative phase, consisted of the researcher conducting 10
interviews with willing volunteers to further explore their perceptions specifically
regarding their efficacy and principal behaviors that they felt had enhanced their teaching
efficacy. There were 89 total candidates that indicated a willingness to be contacted and
interviewed by the researcher. At the end of the survey teachers were asked to indicate
demographic factors in the areas of: gender, degree level, years of experience, and
socioeconomic status of their building. These demographics were obtained to answer the
quantitative research question of the study, which asks if there are significant differences
in efficacy among these demographics. Thirty-one low income setting school teachers
and 27 high income setting teachers were contacted and 5 from each group were selected
and scheduled for an interview. Teachers from middle level SES schools were not
considered for the interview sample. The researcher wanted to keep a clear delineation in
the data by focusing on high and low SES schools. The final pool of 10 interviewees
consisted of 3 males and 7 females from both special and regular education classrooms.
Pseudo-names were given to the interviewees and the researcher established confidence
and trust by ensuring their anonymonity would be maintained.
Interviews took place at a time and location convenient for the participant. The
interview discussions were very insightful and the interviewees’ displayed candidness
42
and honesty which provided a strong depth to the qualitative data. Conference rooms,
coffee shops and the interviewees’ homes provided a comfortable, pleasant setting for
open conversations and insight into the lives of these middle school teachers. The
participants were compensated for their time and energy for the study with a $15 gift
certificate to Barnes and Noble. The candidates expressed interest and support of the
teacher efficacy, principal leadership behavior study. The interviews focused on
questions representing the teachers’ feelings of success and specifically how they ensure
student achievement. In addition, teachers were asked to identify and describe fully the
characteristic behaviors of principals they currently worked with and how the principal
supports their work as a teacher.
The findings of this chapter include the quantitative findings from the survey pool
and also statistics on the two surveys. The results and analysis of the two phases of
research will be explored in depth. The purpose of this study was to provide meaningful
insight towards the relationship of teacher efficacy and principal leadership behaviors
using a mixed methods approach which has been underused, especially at the middle
school level. Descriptive statistics was used the answer the quantitative research question
1; “Is teacher efficacy dependent upon gender, years of experience, degree level and
socioeconomic status of the school?” To address the second qualitative research question;
“Is there predominant themes that support specific principal leadership behaviors that
enhance teacher self-efficacy?” Themes will be presented from the 10 interviews and
discussed in depth. Finally a mixing of data between the two stages and exploration of
two selected questions from Bandura’s Instrument will answer the third major mixed
methods research question, “Are there leadership behaviors that enhance teacher self-
43
efficacy?” Tables and charts are presented along with the statistical data and themes to
properly show the researcher’s data analysis.
Descriptive Statistical Data
Fifteen middle schools from two urban school districts in Eastern Nebraska were
selected to participate in this study. The Director for Curriculum and Assessment for each
school district were contacted by phone and email to request permission for their schools
to participate. Both school districts required the researcher to send a proposal outlining
the study and proper protocol was sent to the Institutional Review Board from the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln to establish the credibility of the study and the
researcher. Permission was granted for the researcher to electronically contact and send
the Bandura Teacher Efficacy Scale (2006) and the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Gibson
& Dembo, 1984) to the pool of middle school teachers. Demographic information
contained in the survey was gathered from each participant and is included in Table 1.
There is a healthy range of teachers represented in the area of years of experience.
Of the 277 surveys returned, females had a higher rate of response with 197 participants
(71%) as compared with 73 males (26%), 7 surveys were returned with incomplete
demographic information. Given the total demographics of the middle school teacher
population of these districts, this sample is representive of the number of male and female
teachers at the middle school level. Highest level of educational degree consisted of 110
respondents with a Bachelors degree (40%) and 147 respondents with a Masters degree
(53%), the remaining 20 surveys indicated 11 specialist degrees, 1 doctoral degree, and
8 incomplete answers. Teachers were also asked to indicate what the socioeconomic
44
Table 1
Demographics of Participants within the Study
Demographic Number
Gender Male Female No Response Total
73
197 7
277
Teaching Experience Less than 5 5-10 10-15 20+ No Response Total
41 59 72 96 9
277
Highest Degree Level Bachelors Masters Specialist Doctoral No Response Total
110 147
11 1 8
277
School Socioeconomic Status Low Income Middle Income High Income No Response Total
89
131 48 9
277
status of their school building was and 89 indicated “low income” (32%), 131 indicated
“middle income” (47%), and 48 indicated “high income” (17%), 9 respondents did not
complete the information.
Quantitative Analysis of Findings
The instruments used to collect quantitative data for all respondents were
Bandura’s Instrument Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Bandura, 2006) and the Teacher
Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). The Bandura Instrument purports to measure
45
efficacy in decision-making, resources, instruction, discipline and school climate. Gibson
and Dembo’s scale measures an overall construct of personal teaching efficacy. There
were a total of 60 questions, 30 for each scale to determine middle school teachers’
perception of self-efficacy and included an identified subset of three questions regarding
leadership indicators that the researcher will use to establish a sense of teacher efficacy
and building administration. A full list of the survey questions is included in Appendix I.
The three questions selected by the researcher will be referred to in the data as
“leadership subscale” and are as follows:
Question 11 (Bandura) “How much can you express your views freely on
important school matters?”
Question 27 (Bandura) “ How much can you do to enhance collaboration between
teachers and the administrators to make the school run effectively?”
Question 50 (Gibson & Dembo) “If my principal suggested that I change some of
my class curriculum, I would feel confident that I have the necessary skills to
implement unfamiliar curriculum.”
Analysis of Efficacy Instruments
To address the first question, “Is teacher self-efficacy dependent upon gender,
years of experience, degree level and socioeconomic status of the school?” the statistical
package (SPSS) was used to calculate t-scores, reliability and validity of the survey. As
mentioned in the methods section of this study, Bandura’s Instrument was created in
2006 and at this time had not been used in many research studies as compared with
Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale. This study will provide initial
validity and reliability of the Bandura Instrument that has not yet been established.
46
Bandura’s Instrument asks teachers to rate 30 items regarding efficacy in the
school setting including: decision making, resources, instruction, discipline, parent
involvement, community, and school climate. On all tables and discussions in this
chapter Bandura Instrument items were numbered 1 through 30 on the survey. Gibson
and Dembo’s survey question were numbered 31 through 60 by the researcher for this
study. A 9 point Likert scale on Bandura’s Instrument is used to rate answers ranging
from (1) Nothing to (9) A Great Deal. The overall central tendency or mean obtained
from the 277 respondents was 6.43 with a standard deviation (SD) of .927. Gibson and
Dembo incorporate a 6 point Likert scale with responses ranging from (1) Strongly
Disagree to (6) Strongly Agree. The overall mean obtained from the 277 respondents was
4.36 with a standard deviation (SD) of .498. Due to the different anchoring Likert scale
for each survey, it is important to remember that the two surveys can not use a raw mean
score to compare their measurability, tests of significance will determine whether the
researcher can reject the null hypothesis for each research question. There will be further
discussion on the mean and individual interview respondents in the mixed methods data
analysis section answering the second research question, “Are there predominant themes
that support specific leadership behaviors that enhance teacher self-efficacy?”
The reliability and validity of a quantitative instrument involves the quality of a
survey instrument. In the everyday sense, reliability is the consistency measure of a
survey and validity refers to the degree to which a survey accurately assesses a specific
concept. For this study the researcher used Cronbach’s Alpha, a measure of internal
survey consistency, to determine the reliability of both instruments. On Bandura’s
Instrument a reliability score of .924 was obtained on a scale of 0 to 1 with 1 being the
47
best internally consistent score and a cut off of .8 as acceptable, although some research
disciplines indicate .7 as being an acceptable cut off. This test confirmed that Bandura’s
Instrument is indeed reliable for research and the reliability is quite high. The reliability
score for Gibson’s Scale was .647, was not as strong, though past research from Guskey
& Passaro (1994) and Hipp (1997) has indicated the survey appropriate for efficacy
research. A lower reliability score could mean that the items are not being interpreted as
strongly or that the respondent did not understand what the question was asking.
Research Question 1: Correlational Analysis of Demographics and Efficacy
Quantitative data was analyzed using the statistical package (SPSS). In the area of
gender there are only two categories the respondent can indicate, male or female. The
null hypothesis would state that there would be no difference in efficacy responses based
upon gender and the research hypothesis for this study would indicate that there is. Each
of the 60 items were analyzed using t-tests to determine significance at the < .05 alpha
level. Although mean scores for two groups may not appear statistically significant
because of their apparent numerical closeness, a t-test uses a ratio computation to show
the difference between two groups means and the overall variability of answers between
the two groups. A higher t-test score indicates a larger difference in significance between
males and females. Table 2 illustrates significant differences between mean scores for
males and females at the < .05 alpha level for specific survey questions.
When dealing with uncooperative students, teachers, because of their lowered
sense of efficacy, focus on discipline over instruction (Lee et al., 1991). Little research
has been conducted in the area of gender and teaching efficacy. The results of this data
48
Table 2
Significant Differences in Efficacy Responses Based Upon Gender
Question Posed Male Female t-score Alpha < .05
Q15 – “How much can you do to control problem behavior on school grounds?”
6.68 (Bandura)
6.06 (Bandura)
3.025
Q31 – “When a student does better than usual, many times it is because I exerted a little extra effort”
4.40 (Gibson)
4.77 (Gibson)
2.944
Q40 – “Some students may need to be place in slower groups so they are not subject to unrealistic expectations.”
3.67 (Gibson)
3.27 (Gibson)
2.150
Q46 – “A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve because a student’s home environment is a large influence on his/her achievement.”
3.14 (Gibson)
2.76 (Gibson)
2.137
Q49 – “When the grades of my students improves it is usually because I found a more effective teaching approaches.”
4.38 (Gibson)
4.67 (Gibson)
2.573
Q56 – “School rules and policies hinder the job I was hired to do.”
4.44 (Gibson)
4.86 (Gibson)
2.119
provide only a small picture of how the efficacy of male and female teachers differs. The
males tended to have a stronger efficacy when conducting discipline with difficult
students and did not feel limited in their teaching with a student’s home environment,
possible explanations may include males being able to assert more authority with middle
school students and thus increase the level of compliance which would decrease
discipline issues. Interviews with male teachers alluded to developing relationships with
students through coaching or common interest in sports and music, these relationship
factors from male teachers may also decrease discipline problems and increase their
feelings of efficacy. Females tended to have higher efficacy scores concerning their
teaching strategies and not letting school policies stymie their classroom instruction. The
49
female teachers in the interview sample shared various instructional strategies and
reflecting on lessons that weren’t well received by students to better help with classroom
discipline.
The null hypothesis for socioeconomic status of the school would state that there
is no difference between teacher-efficacy at high or low-income schools. Teachers that
indicated their position at a middle level SES school were not used in calculating t-test
scores for the two groups. The researcher felt that by focusing on high and low income
schools, a dichotomous pattern, if it exists, would be better presented to the reader. By
paring down the data, the researcher can focus on specific information that answers the
research questions and avoids extraneous, unnecessary statistics that distract from the
focus of the study.
Table 3
Significant Differences in Efficacy Based Upon High and Low Income Schools
Question Posed High Income School Mean
Low Income School Mean
t-score Alpha (.05)
Q12 – “How much can you do to get students to do their homework?”
5.75 (Bandura)
5.16 (Bandura)
2.179
Q32 – “The hours in my class have little influence on student compared to the influence of their home environment”
3.48 (Gibson)
2.90 (Gibson)
-2.585
Q57- “The influence of a student home experiences can be overcome by good teaching”
4.00 (Gibson)
4.46 (Gibson)
2.179
The three questions that reject the null hypothesis regarding high and low income
schools teacher efficacy mainly involve the teacher perception regarding the home
environment of the student. One must immediately recognize that the significant
50
difference in efficacy mean scores obtained from teachers at high and low income
schools, may be a result of positive or negative achievement trends of that particular
school. Research has shown that measures of teacher efficacy are strongly and
consistently related to student achievement gains (Guskey, 1987). Furthermore, Guskey
found that teachers with a higher value of efficacy tend to take greater personal
responsibility for their actions and performance of students. Teachers from high income
schools indicated more efficacy in influencing homework completion and that their direct
contact with students in the classroom is meaningful regardless of the home environment.
It is not surprising that schools with high proportions of low-achieving and disengaged
students are often in buildings where the attendance population is of low SES status.
Raudenbush, Rowan, & Cheong (1992) warned against the assumption that possession of
knowledge and skills alone are sufficient for efficacious teaching. They emphasize the
importance of Bandura’s (1996) four factors of efficacy: mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, social persuasion, and emotional states. This study demonstrates that
efficacy through mastery experiences, such as teaching in a high income school where
achievement struggles may not be as evident, does not indicate a resilience with
struggling learners. A mixing of the quantitative and qualitative data will paint a picture
of how individual teachers interviewed view the home environment and their ability and
strategies in ensuring student achievement success. The data shows low SES teachers felt
that good teaching strategies and instruction can overcome a student’s home
environment. The reader will see in the qualitative data that low SES teachers do feel that
they make a difference in student lives and the instructional motivational strategies that
they incorporate to overcome home difficulties.
51
Statistical analysis was also applied to possible difference in efficacy and years of
teaching experience. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) identifies mean scores differences
among groups larger than two descriptors. Using a one-way test at the 95% confidence
level, variance scores that fell below the .05 level of significance (alpha) were identified
by the researcher and then paired with the years of experience indicator by teachers. The
null hypothesis would state that there are no differences between efficacy and years of
experience. The following Table 4 represents critical alpha scores and corresponds them
with the level of teaching experience difference.
It would seem that the largest difference in teaching experience and efficacy
exists between the 5-10 year group and the over 20 years group. Significant scores were
obtained regarding home and community involvement. The efficacy mean score of the
5-10 year group remained higher than the over 20 years group for all differences
recorded. New and novice teachers that make up the less than 5 years experience group
report higher efficacy mean scores in the areas of safety and trust. An important note to
include in this data is that all the questions posed that indicated a significant difference
between the teacher’s year of experience were from the Bandura Instrument which
statistical analysis proved was a more reliable tool for measuring efficacy. The Gibson
and Dembo (1984) scale failed to detect any difference in years of experience among the
survey sample. Newer teachers that participated in the interview made statements about
using outside resources from the community, scheduling speakers and incorporating
technology to keep students involved and motivated. This information will be further
corroborated when the data is mixed for the major mixed methods research question “Are
there principal leadership questions that enhance teacher self-efficacy?”
52
Table 4
Significant Difference in Teaching Experience and Teacher Efficacy
Question Posed Less than 5 Years
5-10 Years
10-15 Years
20+ Years
Alpha (< .05)
Q5- “How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students?”
6.28 6.11 .032
Q6- “How much can you do to promote learning when there is lack of support from home?”
6.47 5.78 .038
Q19- “How much can you do to get community groups involved in working with the schools?”
5.51 4.73 .012
Q21- “How much can you do to get businesses involved in working with the school?”
5.28 4.50 .024
Q22- “How much can you do to get local colleges and universities involved in working with the school?”
5.35 5.33
4.44 4.44
.024 .010
Q23-“How much can you do to make school a safe place?”
7.56 6.79 .037
Q25- “How much can you do get students to trust teachers?”
7.34 7.11 .024
Q29- “How much can you do to reduce school absenteeism?”
4.08 4.89 .042
The final area to be explored by descriptive statistics is the degree level of the
teacher and their level of efficacy. The null hypothesis would state that there is no
difference between the level of degree obtained by the teacher and their efficacy. Few
research studies have explored this question in depth and this study provides a small
snapshot with statistical data that again uses an analysis of variance (ANOVA) between
53
the groups with a 95% confidence level at the < .05 significance (alpha). It should be
noted that there were only 11 teachers surveyed that indicated a “Specialist” degree and
one with a Doctoral degree. There were over 10 critical differences obtained between the
11 specialists, 110 Bachelors, and 147 Masters degree teachers. However, this researcher
feels that a sample size of n = 11 is not sufficient to use for discussion in this study. More
importantly, there was one significant difference obtained between teachers with
Bachelors and Masters degrees as outlined in Table 5.
Table 5
Significant Differences in Level of Degree Obtained and Teacher Efficacy
Question Posed Bachelors Degree
Masters Degree Alpha (< .05)
Q50 –“If my principal suggested that I change some class curriculum, I would feel confident that I have the necessary skills to implement unfamiliar curriculum.”
4.92 5.22 .014
Teachers with Masters degrees feel they are able to use those educational skills
and strategies to make change and implement new curriculum. When interviewing the 10
teachers, of which 3 had obtained Masters degrees, there were noticeable statements that
the Masters degree teachers made. One teacher spoke about his Masters work and the 4
different styles in which a person learns, “It’s more about life and about themselves using
math, and not about just numbers. I used it for a month and a half and the impact was
amazing. When I didn’t use it the last 4 weeks the kids where asking why I didn’t teach
the other way.” This speaks highly to the purpose of principals supporting and
encouraging teachers to pursue higher degrees. The three Masters degree teachers
54
interviewed were specifically able to verbalize the benefits towards students by
incorporating the latest meaningful skills to achieve learning and increase proficiency in
their subject area.
The data analysis in this section reveals that there are indeed differences in
teacher efficacy among gender, years of experiences, level of education and SES status.
Data should be used to suggest the importance of principals employing different
behavioral methods of support and encouragement to specific demographics of teachers
and the SES status of their individual schools. These practices parallel Bandura’s (1996)
four sources of efficacy beliefs. It is highly important for current and future principals to
realize that they play an intimate role in paralleling and enhancing these sources. This
facet of principal interaction and individual teacher efficacy will be further illuminated in
the final mixing of data discussion.
Presentation and Discussion of Research Question #2
In providing valuable data to explore individual teacher perceptions of principal
leadership behaviors the researcher chose to interview a subset of 10 teachers that
represent a cross sample of middle level teachers. Past research indicates teacher efficacy
is affected by the building principal and their leadership style, whether it be
transformational or instructional. The literature reviewed indicated that most studies have
found that transformational leadership is best suited for increasing efficacy.
Transformational leadership seeks to raise participants’ level of commitment, encourage
them in reaching their fullest potential, and to support them in transcending their own
self-interest for a larger good (Marks & Printy, 2003). Researchers have suggested that
transformational leadership styles are best suited for fostering teacher efficacy.
55
Transformational leadership focuses on developing the organization’s capacity to
innovate (Hallinger, 2003). The focus of this study is to provide relevance to individual
efficacy scores by exploring in depth the teacher’s perceptions. Research Question #2
states, are there predominant themes that support specific leadership behaviors, which
enhance teacher self-efficacy?
Qualitative Data Analysis
Five teachers from both high income and low income SES schools were selected
for follow-up interviews. Teachers indicated a willingness to be interviewed on the
electronic survey and were individually contacted by the researcher. There were 89
(32%) interview volunteers from the 277 returned surveys. Thirty one low SES teachers
and 27 high SES teacher were contacted and a final sample of ten teachers, 5 from high
SES settings and 5 from low SES settings with varying efficacy mean scores were
scheduled for interviews. The ten interview candidates signed a consent form for the
researcher and agreed to have their interviews audio taped and transcribed. The sample
included 7 females, 3 males. The areas of curriculum represented included 3 Math
teachers, 2 Art teachers, 1 English teacher, 1 Social Studies teacher, and 3 Special
Education teachers. Levels of educational degrees included 7 Bachelors degrees and 3
Masters degrees. The interviews were semi-structured (Appendix D) with 11 open-ended
questions and the researcher incorporated probing questions to add important detail to the
participant’s answers.
To begin the discussion of qualitative findings a visual table has been created that
represents the 10 interview candidates in accordance with their descriptive statistics. The
table also outlines their individual efficacy scores compared with the total sample and
56
with the corresponding socioeconomic status of their school. Three questions, named
“leadership subscale”, from the survey that indicated direct relations with the principal
were pulled by the researcher and used to present a central tendency score for the
candidate as compared with the whole sample. The researcher feels that the sub sample of
10 teachers represents a healthy cross section of the middle level teacher population.
Looking closely at the scores and comparing them by SES status and the total sample
allows the reader to begin to think about the small and larger differences between
candidate scores and how they will relate to the emergent themes that will be discussed.
Table 6 also sheds more light on the quantitative discussion of this study and how the
significant differences (alpha < .05) is represented in previous tables on specific efficacy
survey questions.
The first five participants are teachers from high-income schools and their
efficacy means are paired with the total sample and other high SES teachers. The bottom
five candidates are from low SES schools and their scores are related with other teachers
from the same status schools. Specific data from middle SES income schools was not
used. Instead the researcher compared the overall mean score from the Bandura
Instrument (Questions 1-30) and the Gibson and Dembo Scale (31-60) with the whole
survey sample of 277 teachers.
Once the researcher completed all ten interviews, the transcription process began.
Each interview was transcribed by the researcher to fully immerse herself in the data and
to begin solidifying the perceptions of each candidate, which would then emerge into
themes of principal behaviors. Constant comparative analysis was used after all
57
Table 6
Individual Interview Candidates Demographics and Sample Scores
Participant Degree/Yrs Exp/SES
Individual Bandura Score / Total
Sample (n=277)
Individual Gibson Score / Total
Sample (n=277)
Leadership Perception Sub score /
Total Sample (n=277)
SES Low/High Bandura
Score (n=89) (n=48)
SES Low/High
Gibson Score (n=89) (n=48)
Leadership Perception Sub score Low/High
(n=89) (n=48)
“Dina” BA / 20+ / High
6.80 / 6.43 4.80 / 4.36 4.67 / 5.42 HighSES 6.37
HighSES 4.38
HighSES 5.44
“Edie” BA / -5 / High
7.00 / 6.43 4.50 / 4.36 6.00 / 5.42 6.37 4.38 5.44
“Hillary” BA / 5-10 / High
4.80 / 6.43 4.20 / 4.36 4.67 / 5.42 6.37 4.38 5.44
“Lisa” MA/5-10/High
5.90 / 6.43 4.30 / 4.36 5.33 / 5.42 6.37 4.38 5.44
“Margaret” BA/ 10-15/ High
6.50 / 6.43 4.80 / 4.36 6.33 / 5.42 6.37 4.38 5.44
“Jason” MA / -5 / Low
7.50 / 6.43 4.70 / 4.36 6.00 / 5.42 LowSES 6.41
LowSES 4.40
LowSES 5.39
“Kevin” MA / -5 / Low
7.90 / 6.43 5.00 / 4.36 5.67 / 5.42 6.41 4.40 5.39
“Madalyn” MA / 5-10 / Low
7.20 / 6.43 3.70 / 4.36 6.67 / 5.42 6.41 4.40 5.39
“Matt” BA / -5 / Low
4.90 / 6.43 3.10 / 4.36 5.00 / 5.42 6.41 4.40 5.39
“Sue” BA / 20+ / Low
6.40 / 6.43 4.5 / 4.36 4.67 / 5.42 6.41 4.40 5.39
transcriptions were completed. This procedure refers to the line-by-line inspection of all
data to determine a “fit” to emergent categories or themes. The aim was to identify
statements that the researcher could refer to as a value and the numerical total of
statements for each interviewee, which could then be compared to the other teachers
58
interviewed. The total number of statements for each candidate could then be compared
to the mean score obtained by the teacher on they surveys. The researcher used a
highlighter to draw out efficacious statements made. After highlighting critical
statements, the researcher began color-coding specific statements as they pertained to the
broad domains of teaching and leadership visibility. For example, purple ink pertained to
specific reference to the principal and interactions with teachers. Pink signified comments
made about parent involvement and communication. When the candidate discussed the
uniqueness of the middle level learner, blue ink was used. Brown ink was used when the
interviewee discussed veteran teachers and differences between instructional styles
within the building. Red ink indicated statements regarding their specific subject area and
instructional strategies. Once each transcription was completed with color-coded ink
statements the researcher used an 11 X 17 inch paper for each participant that mapped out
the 11 interview questions and then bulleted color-coded statements under each question.
As the qualitative theming process progressed, the researcher was pleased to find the
emergence of three themes as they related to principal behaviors that enhance and support
teacher efficacy. The researcher used specific descriptive words that were echoed by
candidates when illuminating their interactions, or lack thereof, with the principal. The
number of quotes given by each candidate that supports the 3 themes are provided in
Table 7 and allow the reader to compare the efficacy score with the number of responses,
which will be discussed in more detail.
The table provides a snapshot of the ten individual interviews, their efficacy
scores and the statements made that directly related to principal behaviors. By presenting
59
Table 7
Interview Candidates Efficacy Scores and Emergence of Themes
Interviewee Bandura
Mean Score
Gibson Mean Score
Leadership Subset Score
THEME #1 “Specific Valued
Feedback” (Statements)
THEME #2 “Trust & support with parents and
Students” (Statements)
THEME #3 “Active
Movement about School / Classrooms”
Dina 6.80 4.80 4.67 3 7 5
Edie 7.00 4.50 6.00 4 4 5
Hillary 4.80 4.20 4.67 2 2 1
Lisa 5.90 4.30 5.33 5 5 6
Margaret 6.50 4.80 6.33 5 2 1
Jason 7.50 4.70 6.00 2 2 1
Kevin 7.90 5.00 5.67 5 6 2
Madalyn 7.20 3.70 6.67 3 5 1
Matt 4.90 3.10 5.00 0 2 0
Sue 6.40 4.50 4.67 0 2 0
this information in a quantitative format, the researcher is beginning another “mixing”
process during the study. Numerical data is easy to reference when provided in this
format. When the reader digests the actual statements made by the interviewee, it adds a
depth and weight to the numbers. Themes were named by the researcher with
Leithwood’s (1999) framework and transformational leadership behaviors in mind, in
hopes of providing a clear representation of thoughts and keywords that emerged from
the teachers. The following discussion details each theme obtained from the interviews.
Theme #1: Specific valued feedback. Leithwood describes an aspect of
transformational leadership as “providing individualized support, acting as an important
60
resource in helping colleagues achieve their individual and school goals (Leithwood
et al., 1999). Throughout the interview teachers were asked to describe their feelings of
efficacy and how they strive to reach all learners. Probing questions involved asking the
teacher to describe specifically how their principal supports their instruction and aspects
of teaching. Their responses indicate the realism of Leithwood’s description, but also
included an element of wanting a personal approach, an individual recognition from the
principal that was not only professionally orientated, but specific to the teacher.
Principals described as providing more specific valued feedback were described as
precipitating reciprocal actions from teachers. This positive verbal interplay relates to
enhanced organizational cohesiveness by reducing the social and psychological distance
commonly present in super ordinate-subordinate relations (Blasé, 1987). Value was
added to this theme by the researcher because responses included that human desire to be
validated and valued, not just coddled. Teachers see themselves as professionals, but the
element of teaching children brings an emotional passion to the profession.
“Dina” was very open and honest. As a veteran teacher in the 20+ demographic
range of the sample, her efficacy was still very evident and strong. Dina had experienced
a lot of success as a teacher, even in very difficult low-income schools. She recognized a
very different approach in the two principals she had worked under. The past principal
was very interactive with staff and this may have helped Dina solidify her efficacy
beliefs. The current principal she works is not as interactive and is “formal.” Yet Dina
was able to describe the specific feedback she valued from the principal included:
there’s that intrinsic – the relationship of having, being known, being respected, and having that trust and that personal relationship . . . that would be an internal thing. Just saying, “You’re doing a good job for me.” “I know you did that well” or “That’s good, that you did that with that parent.
61
Dina also recognized that she understood that her principal’s personality might
not lend itself to building those personal relationships with staff. She felt supported with
her teaching and resources, especially because finances didn’t seem to be an issue at her
upper income school. Dina’s interview contained a total of three statements regarding the
personal feedback that she would value from her principal and her efficacy scores fell
into the mid-range of the ten candidates scores.
“Hillary” was also a teacher from the same high SES school and painted the same
picture of her principal in regards to employing personal feedback. When asked what
makes teachers feel good about their teaching she replied, “Being recognized for what we
do. I’m not sure that teachers get that a lot, not only from the community, but your
administration know what you do on a daily basis and being excited about that and being
excited about kids learning.” Farther along in the interview she described the principal as
being, “Very forward thinking. I really appreciate that. I think in the end it’s always been
good for us to be ahead of the game.” Hillary’s efficacy scores were lower than Dina’s,
especially on the more valid Bandura’s instrument and overall her interview contained a
total of 5 specific principal behavior statements compared with Dina’s 15.
A third teacher, “Edie” was interviewed from the same school. Of the five
teachers interviewed from high-income schools, three were from this particular school
and two were from another school. Edie’s scores were commisserate with Dina’s and she
had a total 13 specific principal behavior statements. In regards to Theme #1, Edie stated
the following about specific valued feedback.
It helps to have the principal say, “Wow – that project you created in front of the school looks great.” You know, just positive reinforcement, I mean it sounds like, I don’t know sometimes it sounds a little silly – but it really helps me.
62
Edie’s years of experience demographic was in the “less than 5 years” teaching range
while the other two teachers were in the veteran teaching range. Edie’s experiences as a
new teacher and feeling valued by her principal serve as a strong factor in developing her
efficacy. Bandura’s factor of social persuasion by Edie’s principal is evident. People who
are persuaded verbally that they possess the capabilities to master given activities are
likely to mobilize greater effort and sustain it than if they harbor self-doubts and dwell on
personal deficiencies when problems arise. Although Hillary and Dina were not
experience active verbal persuasion from the principal, they had already developed a
strong enough efficacy through past experience to maturely recognize this difference.
The two other teachers interviewed from another high SES school were “Lisa”
and “Margaret.” Lisa’s efficacy scores were slightly lower on the average from the group
and Margaret’s were in the mid-range. However they both had five statements regarding
their principal and specific valued feedback. The statements regarded more of what they
would like to see their individual principal do in regards to feedback. They felt supported
with resources and the aspects of teaching that involved the students and the classroom,
but alluded to the need for more specific and personal feedback. Lisa stated,
I just think that in a building that admin wise, (the principal) need to know – it is a huge part of your life, it’s not just your job, it’s work, but it’s where you pretty much where you live and your heart goes into it so much that you can bottom out and they (principal) need to look for signs of that. “Wow, you really tried hard on that.” I think that would be the ultimate thing realizing that your school is your entire, family . . . have to understand that you’re working with humans.
Margaret stated,
There’s not as much in school recognition, specific recognition. I think that would be something that would probably generate even a little bit more enthusiasm (from the teachers). Building that sense of community and knowing that you specifically did a great job on a particular thing or bringing a speaker in and/or
63
this unit that you developed or something that you had the kids do . . . I think that would help.
In 1987, Blasé began shedding a direct light on the importance of praise. His
study found that praise significantly affected teacher motivation, self-esteem, and
efficacy. It also fostered teacher reflective behavior, including reinforcement of effective
teaching strategies, risk taking and innovation (Blasé, 1987). Specific valued feedback
statements were obtained from three of the interview candidates from low SES schools.
Three of the candidates “Jason,” “Kevin,” and “Madalyn” had higher efficacy scores on
Bandura’s Instrument. Kevin’s score was the highest and he also had the highest number
of statements (5) regarding specific feedback. “Matt” and “Sue” had lower scores and no
statements regarding feedback. Furthermore, their overall interview did not portray a
want for feedback. Matt referred to administration as “management” and that the
principal’s job was to “run a school like you would run a business.” Sue on the other
hand was in the highest demographic (20+) for years of teaching experience. Her
interview indicated that she had become disenfranchised over the years with principals,
“So obviously I don’t need any administrative pats on the back – because I keep doing it.
It would be nice to be noticed, but by now I’m just used to it.” Her feeling that their lack
of interest with her subject area had always been the case, but, she still found enjoyment
from teaching students and providing an appreciation for her subject area.
I think it’s the students that make the teachers feel good. I don’t think it’s extrinsic from like the administrators or anyone else. I think it’s the kids’ reaction to you and the trust level and their respect and that’s what makes me feel good. It doesn’t really matter to me so much what the adults think or how they react to me.
Clearly, over the years, Sue did not experience those vicarious experiences that Bandura
describes as: observing others fail despite high efforts lowers the individual’s judgment
64
of their own efficacy and undermines their level of motivation. Sue shared that in her 20+
years of teaching that the three principals she worked with really valued her work and
subject area. Had she been fostered and provided specific valued feedback, her efficacy
may have been enhanced. When posed this probing question, Sue pondered and
answered, “I don’t know.”
Kevin’s interview reflected an understanding and mature outlook of all the
aspects of the principal job.
Always going to the next thing and always trying new stuff. It’s a big push trying to get things improved. I mean they do drop-ins, just unannounced they’ll just come in a they’ll write a note just saying it was “really cool how you did this.” “It makes this school a better place because of how you taught that.” I’ve been dropped in on 3 times already this year (October).
An interestingly high efficacy score was obtained from “Jason” (7.50) on the
Bandura Instrument. Jason had only been teaching for a couple months in a low-income
school with math achievement struggles. This time of critical teacher induction is being
nurtured by his principal, as Bandura points out in the mastery experiences factor of
efficacy: successes build a robust belief in one’s personal efficacy. Failures undermine it,
especially if failures occur before a sense of efficacy is firmly established (Bandura,
1996). He made 2 very strong statements regarding the principal providing specific
valued feedback. When asked if he felt that the principal notices his work and efforts, he
replied,
Yes, yes absolutely. He actually said something just the other day. He sad “You’re making a real connection with these students.” He said, “Keep up the great work because I think your getting through to them.” So, yeah, I feel very, very supported by my administration.
A total of 31 comments by the 10 candidates were made in reference to the
principal providing specific valued feedback. Overall the number of statements made by
65
each candidate was in proportion with their efficacy score obtained. The strongest
correlations between the mean result on the Bandura and Gibson instruments did occur
with the most statements being made in proportion with the candidates score. For
example Kevin scored a 7.90 on Bandura’s Instrument and 5.00 on the Gibson and
Dembo Scale, he made 5 statements in regards to the principal providing specific valued
feedback. Matt scored the lowest on Bandura’s Instrument (4.90) and the Gibson and
Dembo Scale (3.10) and did not make any statements regarding a want for feedback from
the principal. If transformational leadership indeed seeks to raise participants’ level of
commitment and encourages teacher to reach their fullest potential, as reported by Bass
and Avolio (1993), then this study provides additional critical qualitative information in
the themes obtained.
Theme #2: Trust and support with parents and students. Another theme that
emerged through the qualitative process and one that resulted in 37 statements by the
interview candidates involved the need for principals to exhibit a firm trust and support of
the teacher in regards to parents and students. This theme was developed by a repeating
use of the words, trust and support. Trust and support were used most frequently when
describing relations and communication with parents. It seems there is an almost cyclical
relationship in which the candidate has an innate sense of efficacy in their instructional
and communication skills, but that trait can be increased and fostered when the principal
demonstrates trust in their ability, which in turn increases the teacher’s sense of efficacy.
If this is indeed true, teachers can constantly build upon their internal efficacy if this
cycle is actively engaged in and fostered by the principal. It is through this indirect
avenue that principals can provide an influence on increasing student achievement.
66
Dina made the highest number of statements during her interview and consistently
provided candid statements about her feelings and past experiences.
When there are issues with parents that come up, that they communicate that to me, I think that’s a very important one, because I need to be involved in any decision making issue. At my school the parents do call and to have the principal direct that back to parents to call the classroom teacher (me) – that’s supportive of the principal, trusting that I can problem solve with parents – angry parents too.
At her high SES income school she felt that parents did not hesitate to call, that they are
very aware and confident in calling with any questions or concerns. She indicated that
this is a very important part of her job and one that she was very willing to handle.
Two other high income school teachers, Edie and Hillary, made the next highest
number of statements regarding trust and support from their principal. Edie painted a
picture of a cultural situation in which the parent of a female student from India did not
feel that the subject area being taught was important to the female role in that culture.
Edie spent extra time with the student and took care in applying the subject matter to real
world situations and having the knowledge be a form of expression, the student
blossomed and returned to Edie saying, “I think my mom will understand me a little bit
more.” A teacher with a lower sense of efficacy and support from the building principal
may not have taken the risk to possibly alienate a parent from the school. Edie’s
interview included such statements as her principal having a real appreciation for her
subject area and confidence in Edie’s teaching skills. This confidence carries over into
Edie’s ability to actively engage parents and the community in her subject area.
Throughout her interview Edie verbalized her confidence in her abilities to reach students
and providing different deliveries of the subject matter to reach all students.
67
Lori’s interview also contained a very personal story in which she worked
specifically with a student and family that were new to the school building. The child was
very behind academically and socially. By the end of the year, the team had a progress
meeting with the family and the student had made great strides. The father began crying
and said, “I cannot believe how he’s grown up this year.” Lori stated,
That was like the pinnacle – it wasn’t just me – it was everything in his entire school day and finding him socialization at lunch and increased wait time so he could say what he wanted to say. When his father cried, we all just lost it. It was like . . . it was just an amazing celebration.
When Lori was asked if her principal was also involved in this student’s programming,
she replied, “I think so, just because he knows everyone and you know he was aware, if
you had to ask a question (of the student), you might have to wait or rephrase the
question.” Later on in the interview Lori also stated the importance of her principal,
Being approachable . . . for students and staff . . . making it known that this is a safe and o.k. person to talk to. And as adults, that’s very hard – putting your trust in someone, like you know, should know that your principal has your back and will take your side first – upon hearing anything (from a parent) you have established that relationship that they’re there for you.
Another high income teacher, Hillary, provided a clear perception of trust and
support by stating,
I think advocacy is a huge piece of being a leader. I think you have to be able to advocate for your teachers, for your students, for your community and I think knowing how to do that effectively and balanced, is a difficult thing for a principal.
Teachers interviewed from low income schools generally had slightly higher
efficacy scores than the high SES schoolteachers. This is interesting in light of the
learning challenges low income schools face. Jason, Kevin and Madalyn scored the
highest on the two instruments, and Jason, being the newest teacher, made two comments
68
regarding trust and support. Kevin and Madalyn had been teaching longer and made more
frequent comments about the principal providing trust and support with parents and
students. Matt’s score as mentioned before was the lowest score of all the interview
candidates and he made two references about the principal’s trust and support, Matt did
not use the word “trust” in his answers, but instead verbalized the principal’s support
with student discipline so teachers could “do their job.” Sue had a mid-range score and
also made two comments. She again indicated a want, not necessarily a need for principal
trust and support. Sue felt that the school wide behavior plan was effective because it
focused on relationship building with students and families, but did not think the
principal “walked the walk.” If there is a cyclical effect of a principal providing solid
trust and support of teachers and their responsibilities to students and parents it would be
interesting to see if Sue and Matt’s scores would increase after a year of active trust and
support involvement from their building principal. Leithwood would describe these
behaviors as, leading with teacher’s emotions in mind (Leithwood & Beatty, 2008).
Kevin indicated that he felt his good classroom management skills were
recognized and when he did have a discipline issue with a student, the principal was
quick to respond with support. This interaction provided him with a feeling of
competency, one that was recognized. When discussing school wide discipline plans and
individual classroom skills Kevin stated, “It is up to the individual (teacher), we have an
outline of this is kind of the way you do it, but how you get there is up to you. Which I
have praise for, I think it’s great, allowing me the freedom.” When describing a difficult
student behavior situation and interaction with a parent over the phone, Kevin went into
detail about the support from his principal.
69
I couldn’t believe what this parent was telling me, I quick documented it and printed it off and gave it to the principal saying – this was ridiculous and in front of students. The principal called them and told the parent that it wasn’t right. I know our administration – they take they brunt of that – they buffer us and that helps a lot.
When Madalyn was asked how the principal has supported her work as a teacher,
she described a difficult parent situation,
There was a particular meeting that I went to where the parent pretty much, who I guess pretty much every year, targeted one teacher and I was that teacher. At the end of that difficult meeting, he said you did a really good job of sitting there and not saying the words that I know you are thinking in your head. (laughs). You did a good job of remaining calm and I felt like he agreed with me and not the parent. I felt supported and beside the fact that I just got reamed in front of everybody – I still felt like I had a right to feel like I felt. Usually when I go to the principal with problems – they get taken care of or at least a conference is set up between the student and I or parent or whatever.
The value in this theme is emphasized when taking Matt and Sue into
consideration. Matt and Sue overall had the fewest comments in regarding principal trust
and support, with two comments each. When taking the other two specific principal
behavior themes into consideration, there were no statements made. Matt made reference
to the administration “They just kind of keeping the machine rolling” that they “manage”
situations, “They kind of let us do our own thing and then when we have problems,
they’re there to clean up the mess.” More specifically in regards to student discipline,
Matt stated,
They’re supportive, very supportive. Always helping us out in the sense that if we’ve got problems with discipline, he’s on top of it. If we have problems with parents not helping us – he wears the parents out – you know, he’s on the phone “Hey, your son or daughter is…,” he’s very on top of situations.
Sue’s statement indicated a desire to have more support from her principal with
students and parents. Her efficacy scores were only slightly below the group mean, which
means she does possess the driving force of efficacy and wanting to reach students,
70
however her statements indicate she does not receive the needed trust that other teachers
were getting from their principals.
I think administrators don’t always trust us to know when there is a kid we just can’t have in our room – it’s too bad they don’t acknowledge or support that. They don’t listen to you and realize that you are an expert in your area. I know my subject and the setting and what is not good for the class.
These powerful perceptions indicate a real need for principals to provide a trust and
support with classroom teachers. This principal leadership theme resounds the premise
made by Marks and Printy (2003), that teachers possess critical information about their
students and how they learn, teachers need discretionary authority to make their own
curricular and instructional decisions. If a cyclical effect exists that increases teacher
efficacy, principals could actively increase feelings of efficacy by responding to these
perceptions and responding in kind when a teacher faces any struggles with discipline.
This second theme of trust and support was also echoed in Jason’s interview. He
is also a teacher from the low SES group of teachers. Jason was able to voice his
perception and stated,
I’ve had positions before where, you know, my bosses aren’t supportive and I can still do my job very will. It’s not fun, but it’s possible, and I just kind of seclude myself from that, and not worry about it, but when I have it, I relish it and I do everything I can to keep up that kind, to keep up their faith in me and keep that grace point.
This statement solidifies Jason’s strong efficacy score, which was one of the highest in
the interview group.
Theme #3: Active movement about school and in classrooms. The image of an
effective principal who is decisive, hardworking, keeps in close contact with teachers and
acts as an information center (Bossert et al., 1982) has been established by past research
and is further supported in this study. The third theme that emerged from the interviews
71
was a teacher perception of wanting the principal in their room, to be actively engaged in
the teaching and learning process. Most interesting about this theme was that there was a
discrepancy in answers from the high and low income groups. Teacher interviews from
high income schools netted 18 statements regarding active involvement from the
principal in their classrooms, while the low income group only netted 5 statements. Since
the low income group of teachers interviewed had a higher group mean of efficacy, the
lowest two efficacy scores were from Hillary (high income school/1 statement) and Matt
(low income school/0 statements) further discussion will take place on this theme during
the mixing of data component of this study and will explore possible reasons for the
discrepancy and shed light on future research implications for low and high income SES
schools and teacher efficacy.
Lisa shared the highest number of perception statements regarding the active
movement of her principal. Lisa illuminated her pride in having the principal at her
building be so involved in her teaching, she shared that her principal was not afraid to
help with toileting special needs students and assist these students in the lunchroom, no
matter how “messy” they might be. Her feelings toward these specific behaviors were
stated as
He makes it his business to kind of know the inner-workings, you know, down to the basic needs of students. They (administration team) make it their point to know every single name of every single student in the school. They go through it (school) and they have team meetings and sit there and they learn kid’s names. They meet kids at they door and make sure to call them by name . . . I mean that is definitely one of the strong suits at our school, you know, they will do what they need to do to help. We’re so lucky.
Lisa paints a picture of her principal being very student driven and the theme of active
movement throughout the school is further supported when she states that having
72
administrators understand what truly takes place in a classroom would really boost
morale in the school,
There are a lot of things that I would like to see administrators do and we just had a conversation at lunch the other day, that admin should have to spend at least a week or two in the classroom being in charge. The lesson planning or at least implementing . . . taking roll and keeping grades and discipline, I think that would be so invaluable because I think there are some admin who have never taught in the classroom.
The “active movement” theme was echoed by Edie, who was also very pleased
with her principal’s visibility in the classroom. She acknowledged that she felt her
principal had an interest in her subject area, but also felt that her classroom teaching
strategies drew the principal into her room and she took pride in providing enjoyment for
her principal.
This fall I had a presenter come in and he talked about the practical use of an art degree. The administrators all showed up and then came back and watched him several more times during the day, which was really great. . . . From the day I got here the principal has been really supportive of my whole program and anything I need. I like to do different projects and she let me take professional leave to pick up supplies that I had donated from Concordia University.
Dina shared that she doesn’t see her principal as much as she would like to, but
understood the time aspects of the principal’s day being wrapped up in meetings and
discipline. She acknowledged the theme of wanting active movement throughout the
building and classroom when stating,
When she comes in, I’m like “Do you need something?” I’ve probably seen my principal twice in the last year come through. I know they are incorporating “walk-throughs” and I love that. Just come in. Don’t tell me when you’re coming in. I’m always doing what I’m supposed to be doing. You know. Just come in. Anytime.
Dina reminisced about her teaching experience at elementary school and was very
passionate about remembering when her principal would come in and sit and read with
73
the kids, or just stop by and joke around. As a veteran teacher she understood the
different dynamics of elementary and middle school, but shared that it would be
important to her to see the principal more involved in the classroom experience.
Of the five high income teachers interviewed, Hillary scored the lowest on the
efficacy surveys and overall had the lowest comments on the themes obtained. Based
upon her interview statements, it would be valid to assume that her efficacy scores would
improve if she experienced more specific principal behaviors that supported her work as
a teacher.
I think the principal is very forward thinking, I really think that the principal is thinking about what’s best for the kids at our school. In general, though, I don’t think the principal knows the kids very well, I’ve worked with principals that get out there and they know kids’ names and they get out and mingle with them and talk to them and “Hey, I heard you have a game on Saturday” and “How’d that go?” So I don’t think our principal is that closely involved with our students.
Hillary interviewed as a very student centered teacher and a lot of her feelings of success
had to do with reaching kids and watching them learn, if her principal were to model that
interest more Hillary would feel more in tune with her principal. Bandura describes this
modeling factor in his sources of efficacy as more then simply providing a social standard
against which to judge one’s own capabilities. People seek proficient models who posses
the competencies to which they aspire (Bandura, 1996).
As mentioned at the beginning of this theme discussion, the subgroup of 5 low
income teachers scored a higher mean than the high income teachers. Kevin’s efficacy
score was the highest of the low-income group and he shared two statements indicating
that active movement in classrooms and about the building was something he felt was
important for student success and that the validation of having the principal spend time in
your room would be very beneficial. Kevin was able to describe how much more
74
meaningful it would be if the principal and administrators who visited your classroom
actually had teaching experience in the specific subject area.
It would be good to know when they say, “that’s really cool how you do that,” and for them to know what you’re talking about. Some of those administrators, I mean, they might not have even taught math, they have no idea what I’m doing and they may think everyone teaches that way. I mean if they see something different, they’re like “Oh, that was neat” and that’s all they’re going to think is that it’s a neat activity. They might have years of administrative experience, but they’ve never had time to sit through a whole period and watch what these kids are actually learning.
This discrepancy between the perceptions of teachers in high and low SES
schools is mirrored in Kathleen Cotton’s book, Principal’s and Student Achievement.
Principals in low-SES school are less likely to instructional leaders than those in higher
SES school (Cotton, 2003). It may be that low-SES principals show their support for
student learning and teachers through disciplinary actions, which was stated frequently
enough in the five teacher interviews from low SES schools to be a valid point. But as we
look to the future and wanting to increase teacher efficacy and student achievement,
researchers may need to design more detailed and longitudinal mixed methods studies
that demonstrate an actual positive effect on teaching and efficacy if the principal
demonstrates more active movement and instructional support. An even stronger point to
consider is the fact that student achievement struggles are more evident in low SES
schools, and teachers need a principal with depth in instruction to help facilitate
innovative instructional strategies to reach struggling learners.
This discussion supports the researchers positive conclusion in answering the
second research question, “Are there predominant themes that support specific leadership
behaviors which enhance teacher self-efficacy?” The interviews, transcriptions, color
coding and key word themes indeed recognize that teachers do have specific perceptions
75
of leadership behaviors that increase their efficacy in teaching students and helping
students achieve. Whether the perception had already been validated by interactions
between the teacher and the principal or if the teacher described a want and need for a
specific behavior, there exists clear ideas and practices that enhance teacher’s instruction,
increasing success with learners and feelings of efficacy.
Presentation and Discussion of Research Question #3
Mixed methodology provides a two pronged approach in answering research
questions and then capitalizes on the premise that the data obtained can be integrated or
“mixed” to answer research questions. The third research question posed “Are there
principal leadership behaviors that can enhance teacher self-efficacy?” is answered by the
researcher when layering the quantitative response score on two survey questions and
applying the qualitative descriptors used by the individual teacher in their interview.
There was an interesting and unexpected development of teacher behavior sub themes
when answering this third research question. These teacher behaviors and further
perceptions paint a picture of personal teaching efficacy, the ability to reach unmotivated
learners and the descriptors used by the teachers to describe what attributes they would
want to see in a principal provides valuable data to the study.
While coding the qualitative data for specific principal behavior themes, other
keywords kept presenting themselves in regards to the teacher having a love for the
unique middle level learner, using technology to better the learning and communication
experience with stakeholders, and relationships with students, colleagues, and principals.
It was Ashton (1984) that provided clarification on efficacy beliefs demonstrated
themselves through teaching behaviors and there were distinguishing factors between low
76
and high efficacy teachers. Thus far the researcher has used mean scores, ANOVA’s, and
correlation coefficients to answer the first two research questions. The following table
provides a visual format of individual responses on selected survey questions and
corresponding statements made during the interview that add depth to the survey question
and indicated answer. Ashton’s (1984) findings included: (a) a sense of personal
accomplishment, (b) positive expectations for student behavior and achievement,
(c) personal responsibility for student learning, (d) strategies for achieving objectives,
(e) positive affect, (f) sense of control, (g) sense of common teacher-student goals, and
(h) democratic decision making. By using these established behaviors as a comparison
point for the current study, the researcher can provide descriptions from the data obtained
to answer the third research question.
Significant relationships are obtained with generalized domain-specific self-
perceptions, provided that they assess skills and performances in related domains,
(Pajares, 1996). The subscales in the efficacy instruments have provided valuable
information as it relates to the scoring of the whole teacher efficacy construct. Prediction
of specific behaviors and perceptions is enhanced when itemizing two research questions
and matching them to related interview themes. The two questions explored in this
layering approach were both taken from the Bandura instrument, which yielded a strong
validity score and more directly state the efficacy behaviors the researcher is searching
for.
All ten interviewees were directly asked if they thought there were unmotivated
students in their respective buildings. All ten candidates answered affirmatively that there
77
Table 8
Survey Responses for Mixed Methods Discussion: How much can you do to get through
to the most difficult students? (Bandura Instrument #5)
1
Nothing 2 3
Very little 4
5 Some
Influence 6
7 Quite A Bit 8
9 A Great
Deal
Dina X
Edie X
Hillary X
Lisa X
Margaret X
Jason X
Kevin X
Matt X
Madalyn X
Sue X
Total Responses N = 276
0 3 17 13 79 50 81 10 23
were indeed unmotivated students. Individual efficacy depends on the extent that a
teacher has control over key working conditions and receives technical support from
colleagues and the school principal, an increased capacity emerges to cope with the
uncertainties of the classroom (Raudenbush et al., 1992). It seemed that the reason for
students in high SES schools being unmotivated to learn was mostly affected by
difficulties in the home, the learner thinking that middle school “doesn’t count,”
“overbearing parents,” parents not valuing teachers as educators, and mental illnesses.
78
For the low SES teachers, they reported that students in their building that were
unmotivated came from: having little past success in math and reading, poverty, home
issues, and having more duties after school than other students. Given this wide range of
reasons for unmotivated students, individual teachers reported using specific techniques
to motivate even the most difficult learners. These answers began to solidify into two
themes: building relationships with the student, and providing instruction that reaches the
learner. Even though there was a large range between the lowest (4.80) and highest (7.90)
efficacy score on the 9 Point Bandura Instruments, responses did not differ significantly
when teachers described building relationships and helping the learner find academic
success. The most poignant picture of unmotivated students at a low SES school was
created by “Matt” who had the second overall lowest efficacy score (4.90), and indicated
“Very Little” on his survey response for how much he could do to get through to the most
difficult students.
I think because their whole lives they, you know, they haven’t dreamed, they’re definition of success is being able to pay the rent and buying a new pair of shoes, I don’t know if it’s been taught to them at home, or reinforced that there is something better than what they have, and that they can get it. I think helplessness might be a good word for it, disenfranchised.
But yet, Matt was unable to provide as clear a picture as how he would overcome the lack
of motivation to learn, he stated that he does try to get involved with them, he coaches
basketball and calls parents. He did not provide any specific instructional strategies that
would help overcome learning difficulties, or that he possessed the needed efficacy to
provide an internal impetus to reach all students. This absence of instructional leadership
from his principal also lends importance to need for principals in low SES schools to be
innovative and up to date on the best practices for a low-achieving, high poverty
79
population. Blasé (1999) found that effective principal-teacher interaction about
instruction, included processes such as inquiry, reflection, exploration, and
experimentation that help teachers build repertoires of flexible alternative rather than
collecting rigid teaching procedures and methods. This low sense of instructional efficacy
was probably best demonstrated when Matt was asked a probing question about having a
strong faith in himself and his teaching skills reaching students and he answered, “No, I
think it’s because I’m doing what I’m supposed to do.”
Relationship building with students as a sub theme was more explicitly explained
by Dina, Margaret, and Madalyn, who represented both high and low SES schools. Their
scores were slightly above the group mean. These teachers reported using positive
reinforcement, affirmation, and humor to build relationships with middle level learners.
They all described loving to see learning happen, “the proverbial light bulb,” and the
importance of compliments. As teachers they felt it was very important to first build a
relationship and rapport with unmotivated or difficult learners. Once that relationship was
established these teachers were able to paint a picture that included pride and expertise in
their subject area to try different instructional strategies to reach learners. Margaret
stated,
I really enjoy creating projects for the kids to do. I have a really challenging project, but when you break it down and you teach them all the pieces, they all can do it. I love creating materials for them to do, and I love watching them engage in it and be successful and “get it.”
In regards to those days where it doesn’t seem like the kids are learning Margaret asks
herself,
I don’t like the days where I teach all day and I feel like what I’m doing is really boring and the kids aren’t engaged. Then I’ll remember that sometimes it’s not always me, sometimes it’s the day, the weather, the kids, but if it’s happening all
80
day, then I know to make some kind of adjustment and the way I deal with that is that I know in middle school every day is different.
Dina and Edie indicated the highest level of efficacy response to the difficult
student question. Both shared how important relationships were and how unique the
middle level learner was. Dina explained how she enjoyed her lunch and recess duty so
she could observe all the dynamics of middle school adolescents, that she just “loves
them.” She specifically described how she uses compliments to build relationships,
anything from complementing a student on a new shirt to specific praise on academic
success. Edie provided a clear picture of how she incorporates technology into her subject
area and her teaching, that she feels middle school students learn best with up to date
methods of instruction. Most interesting was Edie’s faith in herself, her subject area and
her teaching ability, that if a lesson “went bad” one day, she was not opposed to totally
“switching gears” and trying something else instead of forcing the original lesson.
The mixing of survey data and interview responses paints a better picture of
individual teacher efficacy, strategies used to reach difficult learners and two sub themes
that emerged from the qualitative data. In particular, support from administrators,
collaboration with other colleagues, and control over organizational policies that affect
key instructional conditions may enable teachers to cope better with difficulties
associated with teacher low-track students, thus reducing the typical negative effects of
low track classroom setting on teachers’ perceived self-efficacy (Raudenbush et al.,
1992). Principals play an important role in this efficacy building, they are not just a
figurehead, they can ultimately be the heart and soul of a school that helps teachers beat
in rhythm and bring fresh oxygen to learners who might be suffocating. Mixing data
provides depth and realism to the construct of teacher efficacy, which could further be
81
used and reflected on when working with teachers not feeling efficacious in the
classroom setting.
The researcher also chose Question 27 from the Bandura Instrument, “How much
can you do to enhance collaboration between teachers and the administrators to make the
school run effectively?” This question was selected because it directly relates to the
teachers efficacy to affect the overall climate and morale of a school. The notion of a
school climate cannot be undermined, especially in efficacy studies. Climate pervades the
daily and innovation within schools. If the climate instills a feeling of involvement and
commitment, teacher success and efficacy increases (Bossert et al., 1982). The researcher
feels this question best poses an insight into actual interactions between the teacher and
the principal, and provides insight into the nature of climate at an individual school.
These survey questions are corroborated specifically during the interview when the
teacher was asked how they are supported by the principal, and what attributes they think
a principal should possess to best help teachers. Question 27, the individual candidate
responses as compared with the total sample is outlined in Table 9.
Survey responses were closely related to the individual teacher’s efficacy mean
on the Bandura Instrument. If the candidate indicated a stronger efficacy towards
collaboration with administration, it was commiserate with their overall mean on the
survey. This is especially true with Matt and Hillary who portrayed their perceptions of
the principal in their interviews as more of a “manager” and someone that is there to
oversee the school building and not necessarily someone who is to help them be
successful with students. Even though Jason had the overall highest efficacy mean, he
82
Table 9
Survey Responses to Bandura Instrument #27
#27 1
Nothing 2
3 Very Little 4
5 Some
Influence 6
7 Quite A Bit 8
9 A Great
Deal
Dina X
Edie X
Hillary X
Lisa X
Margaret X
Jason X
Kevin X
Matt X
Madalyn X
Sue X
Total Respondents (n = 275)
3 4 33 23 63 43 68 22 16
indicated a “Very Little” response on collaboration with the administration. Jason shared
in his interview that he felt very supportive and received specific valued feedback from
his principal, therefore his low response may be more related to the fact that he had only
been teaching a couple of months and had not established himself in the building yet as
one who could enhance relations between teachers and administrators. Sue also
responded lower on this question than her overall efficacy score which was above the
group mean. Sue shared her frustration and disillusionment with administration and
specifically the principal in her interview and her low number statements supporting the
83
themes of principal behaviors is further supported by her “Very Little” response in
collaboration between teachers and administration. She especially pointed out in her
interview that the principal and administration is not in classrooms, that they “don’t listen
to you and realize you are an expert in your area.” If principals began displaying more of
the behaviors themes of this study then individual responses on this facet of efficacy
would increase and overall teacher efficacy would also increase. Sue also was part of the
20+ years of teaching demographic which resulted in rejecting the null hypotheses of
Research Question 1. There are significant differences in efficacy for teachers in the
veteran stages of their career as compared to the rest of the sample’s years of experience.
Edie’s response of “Quite a Bit” was frequently mirrored in her interview when
she described her relations with the principal as not only very positive, but that she felt
the principal had a special interest in her subject area and the teaching strategies she
incorporated in the classroom. Even though Edie had been teaching less than 5 years, her
efficacy in enhancing relations was evident in her interview responses such as; “listening
to my co-workers and understanding where they are coming from when an idea gets shot
down (from the principal),” “seeing if their curriculum would ever match my
curriculum”.
It was quite evident in all ten interviews that the middle level learner has a special
place in teachers’ hearts. The teachers identified a passion within themselves to work
with young adolescents and to help create emotionally safe school climates. “Moldable,”
“unique,” “hilarious,” “insightful,” and “fulfilling” were descriptors used to describe the
learner and the experiences associated with middle school teaching. These powerful
84
feelings and passion need to be actively fostered by the principal so teacher efficacy can
take root in the classroom and blossom into learning and achievement for all.
Bandura set forth in his four influential factors of efficacy that vicarious
experiences and social persuasion are important in building individual efficacy. People
who are persuaded verbally that they possess the capabilities to master given activities
are likely to mobilize greater effort and sustain it then if they harbor self-doubts and
dwell on personal deficiencies when problems arise (Bandura, 1996). Leithwood (1999)
offers descriptions of actual leadership behaviors best suited for improving the effects of
teachers, which are mirrored in this study.
By using two quantitative instruments that measure individual efficacy, the
researcher was able to explore demographic information that has an impact on the level
of teacher efficacy. Interviews were conducted to further explore themes of principal
behaviors that teachers perceived as enhancing their sense of efficacy and finally the two
sources of data were combined to add clear facets to the intertwined relationship between
teachers, principals and students. Chapter Five will present a summary conclusion of the
study and implications of the specific behaviors derived from the data. The conclusion
discussion will also include recommendations for future research in this highly important
relationship between principal leadership behaviors and teacher efficacy.
85
CHAPTER FIVE
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The findings and conclusions presented in this chapter emerged from a two phase
mixed methods study that involved quantitative data collection through electronic survey
and qualitative data collection through ten interviews with individual teachers. This
chapter will discuss the results of the investigation with respect to the current literature.
Future implications for research in the area of teacher efficacy and principal leadership
behaviors will be discussed, as well as the limitations of the study.
Electronic surveys were sent to over 700 middle school teachers in two urban
school districts in Eastern Nebraska. There were 277 (38%) responses that were subjected
to quantitative data analysis using the Statistical Package (SPSS). Teachers were asked to
indicate their voluntary willingness to be contacted for a follow-up interview. Over 80
teachers volunteered to be interviewed and 10 were selected for the final sample based
upon the SES status of their school and their efficacy mean score.
This study utilized an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach that
equally weighed the two phases. The first quantitative stage was followed directly by the
second qualitative phase. A mixing of data occurred at the end of the two phases, which
resulted in a discussion of two specific survey questions on the Bandura Instrument and
corresponding individual teacher interview statements. There were three research
questions that were answered using the various data analysis and mixing the two methods
of research.
86
Findings
Research Question 1 asks if teacher efficacy is dependent upon gender, years of
experience, level of educational degree, and SES status of the school. Quantitative data
was analyzed using t-scores and ANOVA’s to suggest that there are significant
differences in efficacy, not necessarily for the overall survey of 60 questions, but in
specific areas of efficacy, which are divided into subscales in the survey instrument.
Statistical findings indicate a difference in teacher efficacy among males and females in
the area of discipline and instructional strategies. Males were more apt to have a higher
efficacy regarding classroom behaviors and difficult students, whereas females
demonstrate more instructional efficacy.
Significant differences were found most often among the subgroups representing
years of teaching experience. Teachers with 5 to 10 years of experience showed the
highest efficacy obtaining community and home support with learners as compared with
the 20+ year group. There were also efficacy differences between the less than 5 years
teaching group and the 20+ group regarding interactions of trust and attendance with
students. These findings indicate that efficacy possibly decreases over the cumulative
years of teaching and specifically one veteran teacher interviewed directly stated her
disenfranchised feelings with principals over the years. Principals have optimal chances
of enhancing teacher efficacy if they begin actively fostering relationships and support
early on in the teacher’s career and sustaining it as time progresses and challenges in
education increase.
The quantitative data analysis revealed three differences between teacher efficacy
and SES status of the school. All differences between the high and low SES teacher
87
groups pertained to the possibility of the home environment affecting learning and also
how to help unmotivated students to complete homework. In follow up interviews,
teachers in the high and low SES groups explained their perceptions of unmotivated
learners. None of the teachers used blame to explain difficult students and the home
situation. Instead they described how a lack of support by the parent towards learning
and towards school is difficult to overcome, but that they can truly make gains with the
students while they are in school. Specific principal behaviors that emerged from the
interviews indicate a need for principals in low SES schools to demonstrate more
instructional leadership and support with teaching strategies when students are struggling.
Teachers in SES schools realize that the principal is “tied up” with discipline issues and
that is a “major part of their job,” but there exists a want and need for active movement
and support about the building and in classrooms from the principal.
One significant difference between the degree level of teachers, bachelors and
masters degrees, was identified. Teachers with Masters degrees statistically showed more
efficacy with changes in the curriculum as directed by the principal more so than teachers
with bachelors degrees. This difference was further supported in interview answers with
three candidates who had obtained masters degrees. These teachers actively described
using the masters work in instructional strategies in the classroom. Pride and competence
were evident in their statements “it really helps students,” “I understand their learning
better.”
This research study illuminates facets of teacher efficacy and principal leadership
behaviors. Marks and Printy (2003) had found that transformational leadership with
components of shared instructional leadership is best suited for positively affecting
88
teacher efficacy. They believe efficacy refers to the ability to reach all learners regardless
of ability or other extenuating factors. In this manner, the dynamic between teacher
efficacy and principal behaviors becomes a focal point for improving education and
increasing achievement for students. Previous research had also found that
transformational leadership strongly contributes to teacher efficacy outcomes, increased
commitment, and student achievement. This study specifically examined the mechanisms
provided by the principal through active behaviors perceived by the teacher as enhancing
their efficacy and solidifying their output regarding students in the classroom.
Also taken into consideration for the theoretical framework of this study was
Albert Bandura’s four factor sources of efficacy: mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, social persuasion, and emotional state of the individual. The data findings in
the study were consistently reflective of transformational leadership and specific
behaviors outlined by Kenneth Leithwood (1999) and Leithwood & Jantzi (2008) and
they shed a more direct light on the real existence of principal leadership behaviors
enhancing teacher efficacy. The principal’s role offers a variety of opportunities to
improve the efficacy beliefs of individual teachers. This research study solidified three
behavior themes as perceived by teachers.
The second research question posed for the study involved finding descriptive
themes of principal behaviors in the qualitative interview data that demonstrate specific
principal leadership behaviors. Principal behaviors that can have an enhancing effect on
teacher efficacy was elucidated by many participants. Teachers felt empowered in their
teaching through personal valued feedback from their principals, support and trust with
parents and students, and having the principal actively move about the building and in
89
their classrooms. This is confirmed in the literature by Cotton (2003), successful
principals make themselves available to teachers, frequently visit classrooms, support
teacher goals despite setbacks, recognize excellence, and build positive instructional
relationship that enhance all school functions. This lens on the relationship between
teacher efficacy and principal behaviors helps solidify overall practices that can benefit
our most important commodity in schools, the teachers.
The mixed methods research question for this study involved directly identifying
if there are principal leadership behaviors that support teacher efficacy. The answer is
yes. Two questions from the Bandura (2006) Instrument regarding efficacy with difficult
students and efficacy in the school regarding teacher and principal relationships were
explored and layered with interview answers. Participants in this study indicated that they
experience real emotions through their interactions with the principal. Not only was their
passion towards the middle level learner evident, but also knowing that their principal
supported their work and efforts was crucial to their overall well-being and efficacy. The
number of statements made by each individual teacher regarding principal behaviors, in
most cases was in direct relation with their level of efficacy as found on the quantitative
instrument. The highest and lowest mean scores obtained from the teachers provided
clear implications that the level of efficacy of the teacher was directly related to
perceptions of principal behaviors or lack of behaviors as identified in the three themes
from the second research question; specific valued feedback, trust and support with
parents, and active movement about school and in the classroom.
90
Implications for Future Research
A strong sense of teaching efficacy has been identified in the literature as
significant to student achievement. Teachers’ sense of efficacy is attributed to many
variables that contribute to the teacher’s self-perception of their performance in the
classroom (Warren & Payne, 1997). Teachers’ confidence and being able to reach
students can be supported by organizational factors implemented by principal behaviors.
Principals who are transformational in their leadership behaviors have been most
successful in relationships with teachers and in congruence with teacher efficacy (Ross &
Gray, 2006). However Ross and Gray also indicated that their study was not designed to
identify the specific mechanisms thorough which principals influence teacher efficacy.
They recommended that researchers probe the leadership efficacy relations to link
particular dimensions of principal behaviors that enhance efficacy beliefs of their staff.
This study adds an up to date report of teacher efficacy and principal behaviors by
incorporating a mixed methods approach and a newer efficacy instrument to obtain
efficacy scores. This study provides a solid look at the middle school setting and uses
valid methods to explore an enhancing reciprocal relationship between principals and
teachers. Other dimensions of teacher efficacy and principal leadership behaviors
emerged in this study and qualify for further inquiry.
Investigators should continue to search for specific leadership behaviors as they
pertain to different socioeconomic school statuses. This study uncovered a sub-theme
between low and high SES teachers and their perceptions of what principals need to do to
help them increase student achievement. Low SES teachers felt supported with discipline
procedures but indicated no real actions by the principal that increased their teaching
91
expertise and practice. Whereas high SES teachers felt their principals were more
involved and aware of their teaching finesse, they did not feel the principals were in tune
with the building morale and solidifying personal relationships with teachers and
students.
Quantitative efforts will have to be complemented by qualitative studies aimed at
exploring how efficacy beliefs are developed in the school setting. Comparison analysis
in this study among new and veteran teachers showed a difference between efficacy
scores. Newer teachers scored higher on the efficacy scales than teachers with 20+ years
of experience. Researchers should try to measure if efficacy decreases over the years
because of teaching struggles and poor principal behaviors or if efficacy is a static
construct once it is established.
Although self-efficacy research has made notable contributions to the
understanding of teachers impact on students and the affects of leadership styles that best
support teacher efficacy, the connection from theory to practice has been slow.
Classroom teachers and stakeholders may be inclined to accept positive findings about
specific leadership behaviors that enhance teacher efficacy, especially when they are
presented in a light that illuminates the many facets of teaching and the relationships with
principals. Exciting possibilities lay ahead as we learn more about this simple yet
powerful idea. If the significant effects of teachers’ beliefs in their capabilities are taken a
step further in research, it could provoke significant changes in the way teachers are
fostered and enhanced throughout their career and potentially excite them to increase and
share their expertise through leadership and advance degree pursuits. This study provides
useful educational implications, sensible relationship behavior practices, and practical
92
ways to enhance teacher efficacy, improve instruction and ultimately increase student
learning.
93
References
A Nation at Risk. (1983). Department of Education Archives. Retrieved November 15,
2008, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
Ashton, P.T. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 28-32.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy
and student achievement. New York: Longman.
Ball, D. L., & Rowan, B. (2004). Measuring instruction: Collective teacher efficacy: Its
meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. The Elementary School
Journal, 105(1), 3-10.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational Leadership: A response to
critiques.
Public Administration Quarterly, 17, 112-121.
Bandura, A., (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Pyschological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1996). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Bandura, A. (2006). Self-efficacy of adolescents, Chapter 14 guide for constructing
self-efficacy scales (pp. 307-314). New York: Information Age.
Blasé, J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teachers perspective.
American Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 589-610.
94
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (1999). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on
how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Education,
38(2), 130-141.
Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. V. (1982). The instructional
management role of the principal. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 18(3),
34-64.
Brinson, D., & Steiner, L. (2007) Building collective efficacy: How leaders inspire
teachers to achieve. Available at: www.centerforcsri.org. Learning Point
Associates, Issue Brief, October 2007.
Brown, K. M, & Anfara, V. A. (2002). The walls of division crumble as ears, mouths,
minds and hearts open: A unified profession of middle level administrators and
teachers. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5(1), 33-49.
Chase, B., Germundsen, R., Brownstein, J. C., & Distad, L. S. (2001, Spring). Making
the connection between increased student learning and reflective practice.
Educational HORIZONS, 143-147.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi experimentation: Design and analytical
issues for field setting. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Creswell, J., & Plano-Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fuller, B., Wood, K., Rapoport, T., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1982). The organizational
context of individual efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 7-30.
95
Gibson, S., & Dembo, D. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.
Guskey, T. R. (1987). Context Variables That Affect Measures of Teacher Efficacy.
Journal of Educational Research, 81(1), 41-47.
Guskey, T. R. & Passaro, P.D. (1994). Teacher Efficacy: A student of construct
dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections of the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,
33(3), 330-351.
Hipp K.A. (1995) Exploring the relationship between principals’ leadership behaviors
and teachers’ sense of efficacy in Wisconsin middle schools. A dissertation
submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Madision
Hipp, K.A. (1997). Documenting the effects of transformational leadership behavior on
teacher efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Education Research Association. (Chicago, IL, March 24-28, 1997).
Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R. F., & Smith, J. B. (1991). The effect of social organization of
schools on teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64(3),
190-208.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Education Administration
Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
Leithwood, K., & Beatty, B. (2008). Leading with teacher emotions in mind.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
96
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing
times. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administrative Quarterly, 39(3), 370-393.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66(4), 543-578.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. Advances in Motivation
and Achievement, 10, 1-49.
Raudenbush, S.W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y.K. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-
perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65(2), 150-
167.
Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to
organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179-199.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control
of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80. (Whole No. 609)
Schneider, S. L. (2001). In search of realistic optimism: Meaning, knowledge, and
warm fuzziness. American Psychologist, 56(3), 250-263.
Shaughnessy, M. F. (2004). An interview with Anita Woolfolk: The educational
psychology of teacher efficacy. Educational Psychology, 16(2), 153-176.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
97
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2002, April). The influences of resources and support on
teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Paper presented to the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA
Warren, L. L., & Payne, B. D. (1997). Impact on middle grades’ organization on teacher
efficacy and environmental perceptions. The Journal of Educational Research,
90(5), 301-308.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the
organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372.
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Organizations (3rd ed.)
Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
98
APPENDIX A
Visual Presentation of Explanatory Sequential Study
99
100
APPENDIX B
Survey Permission: Bandura Instrument
101
July 14, 2008 Albert Bandura, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Stanford University Stanford, CA. 94305-2130 Dear, Professor Bandura, My name is Michelle Charf and I am a doctoral student at the University of Nebraska, in Lincoln, Nebraska. I am writing to request permission in regards to a survey you have developed. The focus of my dissertation is to continue exploring the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and leadership behaviors. Are there leadership behaviors that enhance teacher self-efficacy? I will be incorporating a mixed methods explanatory model that uses quantitative surveys to identify teachers with a high or low self-efficacy and then conducting personal open-ended interviews to gather their perceptions. There have been many researchers who have used either quantitative or qualitative measures to explore teacher-efficacy. I think the mixed methods approach will shed new light on this important educational area. With your permission, I would like to use your newly developed Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale for the initial quantitative phase of my study. The survey will be electronically distributed to over 600 middle level teachers and then a convenience sample of 6 teachers will be contacted for follow-up interviews. The qualitative phase of the study will include statistical analysis for validity and reliability. Your survey would be used as is with no modifications and a credit statement regarding your ownership and development of the survey would be contained in the study survey document. I feel that my study will provide valuable information regarding future leadership programs and increased student achievement in the era of accountability. I would be very grateful in gaining your permission to incorporate your survey components into my study. Please return a copy of this signed letter in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. If you have question or would like further information, please call me at my home (402-470-3379) or you may reach me by email at [email protected]. I await your response as I continue on the exciting journey of completing my dissertation study. Name:
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN SCIENCES Department of Educational Administration
141 Teachers College Hall / P.O. Box 880360 / Lincoln, NE 68588 / (402) 472-3726 / FAX (402) 472-4300
102
APPENDIX C
DEMBO SURVEY PERMISSION
103
July 14, 2008 Myron Dembo, Ph.D. Professor of Education / Rossier School University of Southern California Dear Professor Dembo, My name is Michelle Charf and I am a doctoral student at the University of Nebraska, in Lincoln, Nebraska. I am writing to request permission in regards to a survey you have developed. The focus of my dissertation is to continue exploring the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and middle school principal leadership behaviors. Are there leadership behaviors that enhance teacher self-efficacy? I will be incorporating a mixed methods explanatory model that uses quantitative surveys to identify teachers with a high or low self-efficacy and then conducting personal open-ended interviews to gather their perceptions. There have been many researchers who have used either quantitative or qualitative measures to explore teacher-efficacy. I think the mixed methods approach will shed new light on this important educational area. With your permission, I would like to use your Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1983) for the initial quantitative phase of my study. The survey will be electronically distributed to over 600 middle level teachers and then a convenience sample of 6 teachers will be contacted for follow-up interviews. Your survey would be used as is with no modifications and a credit statement regarding your ownership and development of the survey would be contained in the study survey document. I feel that my study will provide valuable information regarding future leadership programs and increased student achievement in the era of accountability. I would be very grateful in gaining your permission to incorporate your survey components into my study. Please return a copy of this signed letter in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. If you have question or would like further information, please call me at my home (402-470-3379) or you may reach me by email at [email protected]. I await your response as I continue on the exciting journey of completing my dissertation study.
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN SCIENCES Department of Educational Administration
141 Teachers College Hall / P.O. Box 880360 / Lincoln, NE 68588 / (402) 472-3726 / FAX (402) 472-4300
104
APPENDIX D
HUMAN STUDIES APPROVAL
105
August 28, 2008 Michelle Charf Department of Educational Administration 6605 NW 42nd St Lincoln, NE 68524 Larry Dlugosh Department of Educational Administration 141C TEAC UNL 68588-0360 IRB Number: 2008089159 EX Project ID: 9159 Project Title: Explaining Principal Leadership Behaviors that Enhance Middle School Teacher Self-Efficacy: A Mixed Methods Study Dear Michelle: This letter is to officially notify you of the approval of your project by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the Protection of Human Subjects. It is the Board’s opinion that you have provided adequate safeguards for the rights and welfare of the participants in this study based on the information provided. Your proposal is in compliance with this institution’s Federal Wide Assurance 00002258 and the DHHS Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR 46) and has been classified as exempt. Date of EX Review: 8/27/08 You are authorized to implement this study as of the Date of Final Approval: 08/28/2008. This approval is Valid Until: 08/27/2009. 1. Your project has been approved to be conducted at Lincoln Public Schools. Your study can be approved for Millard Public Schools as soon as you submit the approval letter from them. 2. The approved informed consent form has been uploaded to NUgrant (INTERVIEWconsent(IRB)-Approved.pdf file). Please use this form to distribute to participants. If you need to make changes to the informed consent form, please submit the revised form to the IRB for review and approval prior to using it. 3. Please include the IRB approval number on the on-line informed consent page. Please email a copy to the IRB office, with the number included, for our records. If you need to make changes to the informed consent form, please submit the revised form to the IRB for review and approval prior to using it.
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN SCIENCES Department of Educational Administration
106
We wish to remind you that the principal investigator is responsible for reporting to this Board any of the following events within 48 hours of the event: • Any serious event (including on-site and off-site adverse events, injuries, side effects, deaths, or other problems) which in the opinion of the local investigator was unanticipated, involved risk to subjects or others, and was possibly related to the research procedures; • Any serious accidental or unintentional change to the IRB-approved protocol that involves risk or has the potential to recur; • Any publication in the literature, safety monitoring report, interim result or other finding that indicates an unexpected change to the risk/benefit ratio of the research; • Any breach in confidentiality or compromise in data privacy related to the subject or others; or
• Any complaint of a subject that indicates an unanticipated risk or that cannot be resolved by the research staff. This project should be conducted in full accordance with all applicable sections of the IRB Guidelines and you should notify the IRB immediately of any proposed changes that may affect the exempt status of your research project. You should report any unanticipated problems involving risks to the participants or others to the Board. For projects, which continue beyond one year from the starting date, the IRB will request continuing review and update of the research project. Your study will be due for continuing review as indicated above. The investigator must also advise the Board when this study is finished or discontinued by completing the enclosed Protocol Final Report form and returning it to the Institutional Review Board. If you have any questions, please contact the IRB office at 472-6965. Sincerely, Mario Scalora, Ph.D. Chair for the IRB
107
APPENDIX E
PERMISSION FOR RESEARCH STUDY – LPS
108
Lincoln Public Schools 5901 O Street • Box 82889 • Lincoln, NE 68501 • (402) 436-1790
RR 09-13 August 21, 2008 Michelle Charf Mickle Middle School RE: Request to Conduct Research in the Lincoln Public Schools Dear Ms. Charf: Your request to implement an on-line survey and follow-up interviews with Lincoln Public Schools middle school teachers is approved. Written consent is required for this study. Sincerely,
Leslie E. Lukin, Ph.D. Director of Assessment and Evaluation Services Title of Research: Explaining Principal Leadership Behaviors that Enhance Middle
School Teacher Self-Efficacy: A Mixed Methods Study
109
APPENDIX F
RESEARCH STUDY PERMISSION – MPS
110
111
APPENDIX G
INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT FORM
112
INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Identification of Project: Explaining Principal Leadership Behaviors that Enhance Middle School Teacher Self-Efficacy: A Mixed Methods Study Purpose of the Research The purpose of this mixed methods study is to explore the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and principal leadership behaviors that enhance those efficacy feelings. Past and current literature supports that high teacher self-efficacy increases student learning. By identifying principal behaviors that foster an individual’s efficacy, stakeholders may benefit from the findings and improvements may be made in principal leadership programs. The data collection will take place in two phases during the 2008-09 school year and the entire study will be complete for presentation by the summer of 2009. The focus population of this study is middle school teachers and their perceptions of self-efficacy. Procedures You have been selected for a follow-up qualitative interview as indicated by your response to be contacted on the Teacher Efficacy Scale. Interviews will take place at a time and location convenient for the participant and you will receive a $15 gift certificate to Barnes & Noble for your time invested. The length of time expected for the interview of eleven open-ended questions is 45 to 60 minutes. You will be assigned a pseudo name and code to maintain your confidentiality. Once the interviews have been transcribed, you will be contacted for a member checking of the transcript to ensure the appropriate recording of your answers. Recording Individual interviews conducted as an explanatory method of data collection will be audiotaped and transcribed for analysis of content. If selected as an interviewee, you will retain the right to decline the interview. I AGREE to be AUDIOTAPED____________________________ DATE____________ Confidentiality All audiotapes and transcribed data will be stored on a password-protected computer and in a locked cabinet located in the primary researcher’s home office and will be accessed only by the primary researcher. A secondary trained transcriber will be hired by the investigator to assist with qualitative data transcription. Interview participants will be given a pseudo name and confidentiality will be given the utmost care. The audiotapes will be destroyed upon transcription verification. It is anticipated that the information learned from this study will be of interest to those involved in fostering teacher efficacy and the leadership behaviors that can enhance that efficacy. The results of this study will be published for the primary researcher’s dissertation and possibly be used for
113
publication in educational journals. The intent of this study is to present an in depth descriptive analysis without exposing individual participants. Opportunity to Ask Questions If you have and questions or concerns about this project at any time, you may contact the principal investigator, Michelle Charf, via phone (h) 402-470-3379 or ( c) 402-432-3152. Or you may call the academic advisor of the project, Dr. Larry Dlugosh (o) 402-472-0975. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant that have not been answered by this document, or to report any reservations about this study, you may contact the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Institutional Review Board, 402-472-6965. Benefits and/or Discomforts You may find the personal interview an agreeable experience. You will have the opportunity to verbally share your insight and experiences regarding teacher efficacy and principal leadership. The reflection of practicing teachers is extremely important and valued for this study. The focused exchange of information will provide mixed methods data to educational stakeholders. There are no known risks. Freedom to Withdraw You are free to decide not to participate in this study or to withdraw at any time without adversely affecting your relationship with the investigator, the University of Nebraska- Lincoln, or your school district. Your decision will not result in any loss or benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Consent, Right to Receive a Copy You are voluntarily making a decision whether or not to participate in this research study. Your consent and participation are highly valued. You retain the right to keep a copy of the transcribed interview data. A hard copy of this signed interview consent will be the property of the researcher and an additional copy will be provided to you for your records. I CONSENT TO THE INTERVIEW AND TRANSCRIPTION __________________________________________ Date____________________ PRIMARY RESEARCHER __________________________________________ Date____________________ Name / Email / Telephone of Investigators Michelle Charf: Principal Investigator Dr. Larry Dlugosh: Advisor [email protected] [email protected] H 402-470-3379 C 402-432-3152
114
APPENDIX H
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
115
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Bandura's Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (2007) This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understanding of the kinds of things that create difficulties for teachers in their school activities. Please indicate your opinion about each of the statements by clicking on the appropriate bullet item. Your answers will be kept strictly confidential and will not be identified by name. You may notice that the second part of the survey incorporates a 6-Point Likert scale and the questions may seem repetitive. This is in regards to using an older established Teacher Efficacy Scale by Gibson & Dembo (1983) and one of the goals of this study is to compare the reliability and validity of both versions. Thank you again for your time and participation. 1. How much can you influence the decisions that are made in the school?
Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2. How much can you express your views freely on important school matters? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3. How much can you do to get the instructional materials and equipment you need? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4. How much can you do to influence the class sizes in your school? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5. How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
6. How much can you do to promote learning when there is lack of support from the home? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7. How much can you do to keep students on task on difficult assignments? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8. How much can you do to increase students’ memory of what they have been taught in previous lessons? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
116
9. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10. How much can you do to get students to work together? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11. How much can you do to overcome the influence of adverse community conditions on students learning? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
12. How much can you do to get children to do their homework? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
13. How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
14. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15. How much can you do to control problem behavior on school grounds? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
16. How much can you do to get parents to become involved n school activities? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
17. How much can you assist parents in helping their children do well in school? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
18. How much can you do to make parents feel comfortable coming to school? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
19. How much can you do to get community groups involved in working with the schools? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
20. How much can you do to get churches involved in working with the school? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
21. How much can you do to get businesses involved in working with the school? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
117
22. How much can you do to get local colleges and universities involved in working with the school? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
23. How much can you do to make the school a safe place? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24. How much can you do to make students enjoy coming to school? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
25. How much can you do to get students to trust teachers? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
26. How much can you help other teachers with their teaching skills? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
27. How much can you do to enhance collaboration between teachers and the administrators to make the school run effectively? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
28. How much can you do to reduce school dropout? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
29. How much can you do to reduce school absenteeism? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
30. How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork? Nothing Very Little Some Influence Quite a Bit A Great Deal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Gibson & Dembo - Teacher Efficacy Scale (1983) Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement below by clicking on the appropriate button that corresponds with your answer. All questions are required to be answered.
Strongly Disagree
1
Moderately Disagree
2
Disagree slightly more than Agree
3
Agree slightly more than Disagree
4
Moderately Agree
5 Strongly Agree
6 31. When a student does better than usual, many times it is because I exerted a little
extra effort. 1 2 3 4 5 6
118
32. The hours in my class have little influence on students compared to the influence of their home environment.
1 2 3 4 5 6
33. If parents comment to me that their child behaves much better at school than he/she does at home, it would probably be because I have some specific techniques of managing his/her behavior, which they may lack.
1 2 3 4 5 6
34. The amount that a student can learn is primarily related to family background. 1 2 3 4 5 6
35. If a teacher has adequate skills and motivation, she/he can get through to the most difficult student.
1 2 3 4 5 6
36. If students aren't disciplined at home, they aren't likely to accept any discipline. 1 2 3 4 5 6
37. I have enough training to deal with almost any learning problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6
38. My teacher training program and/or experience has given me the necessary skills to be an effective teacher.
1 2 3 4 5 6
39. Many teachers are stymied in their attempts to help students by lack of support from the community.
1 2 3 4 5 6
40. Some students need to be placed in slower groups so they are not subjected to unrealistic expectations.
1 2 3 4 5 6
41. Individual differences among teachers account for the wide variations on student achievement.
1 2 3 4 5 6
42. When a student is having difficulty with an assignment, I am usually able to adjust it to his/her level.
1 2 3 4 5 6
43. If one of my new students cannot remain on task for a particular assignment, there is little that I could do to increase his/her attention until he/she is ready.
1 2 3 4 5 6
119
44. When a student gets a better grade than he usually gets, it is usually because I found better ways of teaching that student.
1 2 3 4 5 6
45. When I really try, I can get through to the most difficult students. 1 2 3 4 5 6
46. A teacher is very limited in what she/he can achieve because a student's home environment is a large influence on his/her achievement.
1 2 3 4 5 6
47. Teachers are not a very powerful influence on student achievement whenall factors are considered.
1 2 3 4 5 6
48. If students are particularly disruptive one day, I ask myself what I have been doing differently.
1 2 3 4 5 6
49. When the grades of my students improve it is usually because I found more effective teaching approaches.
1 2 3 4 5 6
50. If my principal suggested that I change some of my class curriculum, I would feel confident that I have the necessary skills to implement unfamiliar curriculum.
1 2 3 4 5 6
51. If a student masters a new math concept quickly, this might be because I knew the necessary steps in teaching that concept.
1 2 3 4 5 6
52. Parent conferences can help a teacher judge how much to expect from a student bygiving the teacher an idea of the parents' values toward education, discipline, etc.
1 2 3 4 5 6
53. If parents would do more with their children, I could do more. 1 2 3 4 5 6
54. If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would knowhow to increase his/her retention in the next lesson.
1 2 3 4 5 6
55. If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I know some techniques to redirect them quickly.
1 2 3 4 5 6
120
56. School rules and policies hinder my doing the job I was hired to do. 1 2 3 4 5 6
57. The influences of a student's home experiences can be overcome by good teaching. 1 2 3 4 5 6
58. When a child progresses after being placed in a slower group, it is usually because the teacher has had the chance to give him/her extra attention.
1 2 3 4 5 6
59. If one of my students couldn't do a class assignment, I would be able to accurately assess whether the assignment was at the correct level of difficulty.
1 2 3 4 5 6
60. Even a teacher with good teaching abilities may not reach many students. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Please indicate the following: Gender: Male Female Years of Experience: Less than 5 5-10 years 10-15 years Over 20 years Educational Level: Bachelors Masters Specialist Doctorate How would you classify your middle school population? High SES (upper income) Middle SES Low SES (poverty level) Would you be willing to be contacted for a confidential follow-up interview?
yes no
If yes – Please provide your name and preferred method of contact. Your confidentiality will be maintained and you retain the right to withdraw from the study at any time. Name Phone Email
121
APPENDIX I
TEACHER INTERVIEW
122
TEACHER INTERVIEW
1) Tell me about your experience as a middle school teacher. 2) As you look at your school and teaching in general, what makes teachers feel good
about their teaching? 3) Can you tell me about a moment or specific situation in your teaching career that brought you great satisfaction?
4) Explain to me how middle school principals that you have worked with have supported your work as a teacher?
5) What makes you feel good about your teaching? 6) What do you like best about teaching? How is this supported at your school? 7) Has there been a situation or experience of which you are especially proud of? Was it acknowledged by others? 8) What does a “bad” day look like for you? How do you manage bad days? 8) How are you involved in the daily routines and decisions of this school? 10) What do you feel are the biggest challenges facing teachers today? How are teachers supported in regards to these challenges? 11) What is the most important aspect of teaching that allows you to feel fulfilled?
123
External Audit Attestation By Jenny M. Powell Ed. D
Michelle Charf requested that I complete an educational audit of her mixed methods study entitled: Explaining Perceptions of Principal Leadership Behaviors That Enhance Middle School Teacher Self-Efficacy: A Mixed Methods Study. This audit was conducted between June 25th, 2009 and July 8th, 2009. The purpose of the audit was to determine whether the researcher left a clear audit trail. In leaving a clear audit trail, the researcher must delineate a path that others could follow easily. The audit also attempts to determine whether the study is trustworthy. According to Merriam in her book Qualitative Research, the audit trail describes, “in detail how data were collected, how categories were derived, and how decisions were made throughout the inquiry” (2009, p.223). Merriam also discusses the fact that the audit trail can be used to ensure “consistency and dependability” in the data. It is the auditor’s job, “to authenticate the findings of the researchers by following the trail of the researcher”(2009, p.222). Creswell in his book Educational Research, suggests that the auditor answer several questions including the following: Are the findings grounded in the data, Are the themes appropriate, Can inquiry decisions and methodological shifts be justified, and Are inferences logical. (2002, p.281).
To meet the outlined purpose of this audit, numerous materials were reviewed. The following materials were submitted for the audit:
1) A red binder that contained the following items: A guidebook “For Preparation and Submission of a Dissertation, information regarding the CITI course, several e-mail messages requesting use of the Teacher Efficacy Surveys, five handwritten pages regarding timelines, contact information, and information from the NEAR center, the IRB approval letter, eight pages of e-mail messages from the district representatives granting permission to conduct the study, a copy of the two surveys that were used in the study, permission, the protocol for the interview questions, a copy of her program and approval from the committee, two handwritten pages of notes from a class with Dr. Grady, a four page Powerpoint presentation of the proposal, two newsletters from Graduate Connections, and the proposal. The proposal was undated and contained 44 pages. I paid particular attention to chapter one (Introduction) and chapter three (methods).
2) A CD labeled “UNL Data.”
124
3) A folder labeled, “Audio Tapes 10 interviews.” This folder contained seven audio cassettes. The cassettes were labeled with the initials of each of the respondents.
4) A folder labeled, “Interviews—signature sheets (10), survey score sheet
(10), member check 6/10 returned. This folder contained informed consent forms signed and dated by each of the informants, scores on the surveys from each of the ten informants, six e-mail messages from the informants regarding the fact that they had reviewed their interviews. The researcher sent e-mail messages to each of the informants detailing the member check process and that explaining that pseudo-names would be used in the final dissertation and that other identifiers would be edited.
5) A folder labeled “Clean Transcripts.” This folder contained transcripts of
each of the ten interviews conducted. The interviews were transcribed verbatim. Each interview was a different color. The interviews were single spaced and varied from eight to twelve pages in length, for a total of 103 pages. Some of the interviews contained the time and date of the interview with the pseudo-name of the informant.
6) A blue binder with the following: a set of data labeled frequency table, this
contained 24 pages with each set numbered, and handwritten notes off to the side, a set of data labeled reliability, a set of data labeled T-test male/female, a set of tables labeled assumptions variances, six pages labeled oneway experience, six pages labeled experience ANOVA, 18 pages labeled Post Hoc Tukey, six pages labeled oneway degree levels, five pages labeled ANOVA degrees, 15 pages labeled Tukey degree, two pages labeled correlations. This binder also contained ten pages of handwritten notes detailing the research questions, assumptions, and results that the researcher proposed. The researcher also included the following pieces of information in this binder: contact information for each of the survey respondents along with identifying information such as gender, educational attainment, score on the surveys, and whether they worked at a low, middle, or high income school, 22 pages of results from one of the surveys completed, and nine chapters from an unidentified source detailing how to organize and make sense of statistical information.
7) A blue binder that contained the following: Each of the ten interviews
which included notes written off to the side in a variety of colors, an explanation of each of the colors that was used in the transcriptions, ten large descriptions of each of the informants on legal size paper, each of these descriptions included identifying information about each informant, a summary of how they answered key questions in the interview, as well as their scores on the two surveys that were conducted.
125
8) A copy of the dissertation draft dated July 2009. This draft was 99 pages in length including appendices.
The audit consisted of the following steps:
1) I reviewed all materials that were submitted for the audit.
2) I read the entire dissertation proposal. I paid particular attention to the introduction, research questions, data collection and analysis procedures, and the interview protocol. I wrote down key steps that were listed in the proposal and later compared them to what the researcher actually did in the completed study.
3) I examined the transcripts, and color-coded comments and themes in the
margins of the transcripts.
4) I read the entire dissertation draft. Summary of the audit findings:
After careful examination of both the process and product of this researcher’s work, I believe that this study is trustworthy. This was determined based on the fact that the research procedure was sound and the findings were clearly grounded in the data. The research questions remained consistent from the proposal to the dissertation draft. The purpose in the final dissertation draft is much more specific than the purpose in the proposal. However, this is expected in the completed dissertation. The research questions remained consistent with what was proposed. The unit of analysis (teachers) also remained consistent. This study’s research plan was well defined in the proposal as well as the materials that were submitted for this audit. The mixed methods approach that was utilized was explained thoroughly by the author. It is my belief that this research would be easily duplicated. The quantitative section of the paper was especially well defined. In the qualitative section, the research proposal stated that three respondents from each of the two districts would be selected for interviews. However, in the final dissertation, a total of ten teachers were interviewed. The increase in the number of informants was completely appropriate and added to the study.
126
The researcher made some other changes to her study from the proposal to the final draft. Several changes were made in the interview protocol. Some of the questions were combined, and others were changed completely. These questions seemed to be more specific in the final draft and were probably due to more information that became available to the researcher as she progressed through her study. The researcher was much more specific in her dissertation draft regarding how she analyzed the qualitative data. This is common in qualitative studies as the researcher becomes more immersed in and familiar with the data. The researcher’s procedures were documented in detail, and the materials submitted for the audit clearly supported the procedures she outlined in her proposal and dissertation. She was much more specific about the procedures in the dissertation draft. Using the mixed methods approach was completely appropriate for this study.
In conclusion, I believe the information provided to me by the researcher, as well as the descriptions in the dissertation draft, allow for an easy to follow audit trail. The study contains a high level of trustworthiness, and the researcher has clearly outlined how she determined her themes, and conclusions. Based on all of the above, I believe other researchers could follow this clear audit trail. Attested to by Jenny Powell this 8th day of July, 2009. Jenny Powell, Ed.D Principal, Nebraska City Middle School