Organizational motivation is a conundrum much like that of a battlefield: Give up
the high ground to take a bridge and one is likely to find the enemy has moved in behind;
stay on the hill and no progress is made toward the goal. The leader of the battle must
make a strategic plan to utilize the resources at his disposal to accomplish his goal with
the fewest casualties possible. The administrator, while not engaged in a battle, must also
plan to move his troops (staff) toward the goal of providing the best possible education
for every student in his school with as few (teacher) casualties as possible. Unlike a
battlefield commander, however, the administrator of a school cannot just order his
teachers to throw themselves at a goal and expect that they will blindly follow him. He
must motivate them to succeed.
The principal of Martin Luther King Elementary School (MLKES) clearly has an
organizational motivation problem that must be addressed. According to Lunenburg and
Ornstein (2012), “Motivation is the extent to which persistent effort is directed toward
organizational goals” (p. 97). This principal has a staff of 21 only 10 of whom are
“eager, enthusiastic, and cooperative,” in other words motivated. Another seven are
“indifferent” to her suggestions and could be categorized as “sitting on the fence.” And,
the final four, the “Old Guard,” are resistant to any sort of change. There does not appear
to be a sense of collective efficacy, or as Dumay and Garland (2012) define it, “the
perceptions that the teachers’ team as a whole can execute the course of action necessary
to have positive effects on students” (as cited in Goddard et al., 2000). Additionally,
According to Salloum (2011), “The stronger a school's collective efficacy beliefs, the
more likely teachers are to put forth sustained effort and persistence to meeting goals” (p.
23).
Several studies reviewed for this analysis have shown that without the leadership
and support of the principal, teacher efficacy is not sustainable (Elliot, Isaacs & Chugani,
2010; Gallagher, 2012; Walker & Slear, 2011). Walker and Slear (2011) have created a
list of principal behaviors that research has shown support teacher efficacy. Appropriate
to this discussion of what needs to be done to create collective efficacy at MLKES are:
(1) Establishing strong lines of communication (as cited in Blasé & Kirby, 2000;
Whitaker, 2003); (2) making an effort to get to know each individual (as cited in Blasé &
Kirby, 2000; Hipp & Bredesen, 1995); (3) using varied leadership behaviors as needed
based on circumstance (as cited in Blasé & Kirby, 2000; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty,
2005); (4) creating an environment where all teacher are part of the team (as cited in
Ashton & Webb, 1986; Hipp, 1996); (5) formally and informally recognizing outstanding
work (as cited in Hipp, 1996; Marzano et al., 2005): and (6) providing feedback to
teachers regarding the instructional impact of classroom strategies (as cited in Ebmeier,
2003; Hipp & Bredeson, 1995).
In addition to making an effort to incorporate these behaviors into her leadership
style, it is important that the principal of MLKES develops and implements a plan to
increase the collective efficacy of her staff. Salloum (2011) claims, and research supports
the assertion, that schools with strong collective efficacy are more likely to have higher
levels of student achievement (as cited in Bandura, 1993; Goddard 2001). The first part
of this plan should focus on the group of teachers who are least resistant to change, the
new and indifferent teachers. The second part of this plan should address the need to set
realistic goals for improving student performance. The third part of the plan must include
developing a higher degree of efficacy in selected teachers. The final part of the plan will
be to develop a strategies to motivate the “Old Guard.”
Increasing Collective Efficacy Amongst New and Indifferent Teachers.
Self-efficacy theory, also known as social cognitive theory according to
Lunenburg and Ornstein (2012), influences the learning and performance of employees.
As cited in Bandura (1982), the goals set for oneself, the effort exerted, and the
persistence with which one pursues difficult tasks is all affected by the level of efficacy
one feels in relation to one’s job, goal, or task. New teachers, in particular, need support
to develop this sense of efficacy. Walker and Slear (2011) state that, although most new
teachers have enthusiasm and confidence at the beginning of their assignment, their sense
of efficacy often does not hold up under the challenge of actually being in a classroom (as
cited in Woolfolk, 2000). Walker and Slear go on to suggest, “efficacy is influenced by
interactions, observations, and experiences that allow more experienced teachers to
become more confident in their abilities to affect student learning” (as cited in Wolters &
Daugherty, 2007). It makes sense that to feel a sense of collective efficacy, all teachers
must feel accomplished themselves. Salloum (2011) asserts, however, that collective
efficacy is more than just the aggregation of individual teacher efficacy (p. 25). Further,
Salloum cites two of Bandura’s works (1986, 1997) as supporting the assertion that
collective efficacy beliefs are “influenced by the same four sources of information
associated with self-efficacy: mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal
persuasion, and physiological and affective states” (p. 23).
Lunenberg & Ornstein (2012) suggest that past performance is the most important
source of self-efficacy among teachers at all levels and that overcoming failures can be
challenging (p. 90). Overall, the teachers at MLKES appear to have been less than
successful when it comes to the performance of their students. Their students are scoring
slightly below average on statewide tests. To counteract this perceived failure, it would
behoove the principal to look for “successes” amongst the data that demonstrates
students’ lack of achievement. For example, in the norm-referenced Measure of
Academic Achievement (MAP) test, the reading test is divided into sections for
informational text, literature and vocabulary (NWEA, 2015). It is conceivable that
students are proficient in one of these sub-sections. If an area of success cannot be found
using this method, the data might show that although students are still below proficient,
they are making growth from year to year, which is a small success. Building upon
success is easier than overcoming failure (Lunenberg & Ornstein, p. 89).
Lunenberg and Ornstein also suggest that efficacy can be built in a staff through
the judicious selection of vicarious experiences (p. 90). According to Whitaker (2013)
one vicarious experience that will help build teacher confidence is an interchange of ideas
between new teachers and experienced teachers through classroom visits. Teachers who
are using best practices in their classrooms can be paired with both the new teachers and
the less experienced ones to build their confidence. This experience of seeing an “expert”
teacher performing similar work is one way to build self-efficacy in newer teachers
(Lunenberg & Ornstein, 2012; Whitaker, 2013). Whitaker goes on to explain that the
visits should be reciprocal to provide support for the newer staff and to create trust and
collegiality among the staff. Lunenberg and Ornstein (2012) cite three motivation
theories addressing employee needs for interpersonal relationships (collegiality):
Maslow’s social needs, Alderfer’s relatedness needs, and McClelland and Winter’s need
for affiliation (p. 81-87). Using classroom visits to help build trust among staff can
support the principal’s effort to build collective efficacy.
Salloum (2011) suggests that observing the accomplishments of other schools can
provide another vicarious experience to improve collective efficacy. Lunenberg and
Ornstein (2012) also support the theory that observing others with the same qualifications
as one’s self can contribute to enhanced self-efficacy (p. 90). A “Blue Ribbon” school
would be a great place to start. Blue Ribbon schools are those that have been recognized
for being exemplary in one of two categories: namely, high performing schools and those
that are exemplary in closing the achievement gap (USDE, 2015). A school that has
achieved the status of becoming a Blue Ribbon School in the exemplary achievement
category, whose student population resembled that of MLKES would, of course, be the
best possible solution. Schools that are exemplary meet the following criteria:
For each of the school's subgroups, the school must be in the top 15
percent of all schools in the state when schools are ranked on the
school's progress in closing the gap between the performance of the
school's subgroup and the state's all-students group over the past five
years, comparing the most recent year to the earliest of the five years.
If a visit to the school by key teachers, those most likely to lead the change in the
school, is not possible, then using video materials from those schools in professional
development would be the next best thing. Reviewing literature and research regarding
the achievements of these schools would provide proof that success is attainable.
To develop an affective state where the organization meets challenges with
confidence, the principal needs to develop the collective efficacy of her school. She
needs to embrace a transformational leadership style as described by Hauserman and
Stick (2013). Transformational leaders, according to this study, were those who “sought
new ways of doing things and were less likely to support the status quo. They attempted
to create and shape an environment and encourage followers to be a part of the process”
(p. 88). Hauserman and Stick further emphasize the transformational leader’s need to
shape the school vision and establish a collegial culture where teachers feel empowered
to effect positive change (As cited in Skalbeck, 1991). Lunenberg and Ornstein (2012)
support this idea asserting that transformational leaders shift the “values, beliefs, and
needs of their followers” (p. 128). Lunenberg and Ornstein cite a body of research
linking transformational leaders to employee job satisfaction, group and organizational
performance, leadership effectiveness, and employee motivation (p. 130).
Salloum claims that one mastery experience directly related to collective efficacy
beliefs is student achievement (as cited in Goddard, 2001). This claim is discussed in the
next section.
Setting Realistic Performance Goals
According to Lunenberg and Ornstein (2012) “Goals have a pervasive influence
on behavior in school organizations” (p. 94). Furthermore, they assert, “goal setting can
be a powerful technique for motivating organization members” (p. 95). To motivate
employees, however, goals need to be specific, attainable, accepted, and accompanied by
specific feedback on progress toward and attainment of the goal (as cited in Locke &
Latham, 2002).
One way to set specific goals for improving student performance at MLKES
would be to review the data generated by student assessments. For example, the
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) sets yearly growth targets for students based
on their current MAP scores (NWEA, 2015). Using this type of norm-referenced data
can help teachers set realistic goals for their students. Setting growth targets for
individual students based on their current performance is more attainable than setting the
same target for every student. Involving teachers in the assessment and setting of growth
goals will help promote buy-in on their part. Assessments, like the computer-based
MAP, provide immediate feedback to students and teachers up to three times a year: fall,
winter, and spring.
Using assessments like MAP has drawbacks. MAP, and other norm-referenced
tests, may only test a portion of what is taught in a school (Whitaker, 2013). Looking at
this suggestion through an equity theory lens, the principal of MLKES would need to
figure out how to divide the work associated with improving test scores among all of the
teachers and not just those whose subjects are tested, e.g. math, language arts, and
sometimes science. According to Lunenberg and Ornstein (2012), employees will be
dissatisfied, and therefore unmotivated, if they feel that their inputs (effort and time)
outweigh those of their colleagues while their outputs (pay and benefits) are the same (p.
93). Having her teachers review the district standards to find areas where each teacher
can contribute to the success of students on important state tests is an important way to
counteract this perception.
Waiting for large state- or district-wide assessments may not be the best way for
the principal to provide feedback for attainment of this goal. Developing student learning
objectives (SLO), or using curriculum-based benchmarks, that assess learning at shorter
intervals would provide more formative feedback. Again, teachers must be involved in
the development and adoption of these objectives for them to feel ownership and
therefore commitment to achieving them (Lunenberg & Ornstein, 2012, p. 188).
Although test scores are important, and setting goals for improvement necessary,
the principal at MLKES should also consider setting goals for building community
involvement. According to McKinney, Labat, and Labat (2015) who studied two
successful Blue Ribbon schools, increasing community involvement can lead to greater
student achievement (p. 156). A realistic goal would be to plan and implement a parent
math night or other after-school event to start the ball rolling.
Increasing Efficacy Among Select Teachers
In addition to helping create collective efficacy among her staff, the principal at
MLKES will need to help individual teachers build self-efficacy. Walker and Slear
(2011) suggest that it is critical that the principal understands what to do to effect change
in teacher self-efficacy (p. 49) As noted earlier in this analysis, Walker and Slear
developed a list of principal behaviors that have a positive affect on teacher efficacy.
Further, they suggest, “identifying specific behaviors that support teachers at each
experience level and then implementing those behaviors in a differentiated way for each
teacher has the potential to unlock tremendously positive advances in both teacher
confidence and student achievement” (p. 51).
To begin, the principal at MLKES must foster the growth and successful
integration of new teachers into the staff (Elliot, Isaacs and Chugani, 2010). Elliot,
Isaacs, and Chugani (2010) suggest close supervision and professional development
“targeted at individual teacher needs” (p. 136). Ferreting out these needs will require the
principal to evaluate teachers using informal classroom observations, achievement scores,
parent input, and discussions with teachers.
Early career teachers need support. One method of support is through a
mentoring program (Isreal et al, 2014). Mentors provide assistance with “instruction,
aligning instruction to the content standards, behavior management, compliance
processes, and understanding schoolwide (SIC) policies” (as cited in Algonzine et al.,
2007; White & Mason, 2006). MLKES’s principal can seek out mentors within her own
building or tap teachers from other buildings within the district. It could also be possible
that the state has a mentoring program with which first year teachers can be connected.
Some other strategies for supporting early career teachers suggested by Elliot,
Isaacs and Chugani (2010) would apply to all teachers the principal wishes to help grow
self-efficacy. They are: (1) Provision of specific plans or methods to address teacher
concerns; (2) Observations targeted to specific skills and timely feedback on
observations; and (3) Provision of individualized attention (p. 142).
Marzano, Frontier, and Livingston (2011) support the introduction of instructional
rounds to improve teacher efficacy. This model differs from that of traditional teacher
observations in that it is conducted much as interns conduct rounds in a hospital (p. 71).
A small group of teachers conduct observations not for evaluation of the teacher being
observed but to learn a new skill or practice that will enhance their own teaching. These
small groups of three to five teachers visit multiple teachers’ rooms on a given day and
then discuss among themselves the strategies observed. Part of the process is to compare
and contrast his or her classroom strategies with those of the teachers observed. Using
this strategy the principal at MLKES can help teachers learn new ways of teaching
literacy without causing them to feel that they themselves are being judged. Of course,
she would need to ensure that the teachers being observed were veteran teachers
comfortable with the process and accomplished in getting the results the principal would
like to see at her own school. The authors caution that instructional rounds alone will not
improve student achievement (p.71). They suggest, as have others in this analysis, that
collaboration among teachers is another important factor.
Acquisition of the skills that MLKES teachers need to improve the reading
proficiency of their students will vary by teacher as well as student need. Primary grade
teachers will need strategies that differ from those needed by upper grade teachers.
Additionally Pomerantz and Pierce (2013) report that research has shown that the same
reading instruction does not work for every child (p. 102). Thus, it is necessary to
provide teachers with a repertoire of strategies and the knowledge to know when to use
each one. The authors suggest that the most effective approach is to have a literacy coach
who collaborates with teachers and focuses on “knowledge building sessions,
demonstration/modeling, co-teaching, and observations/feedback, with co-teaching at the
heart of the collaborative process” (p. 103).
Motivating the “Old Guard”
As Lunenburg and Ornstein (2012) discuss in their chapter on organizational
change, people resist change when they feel threatened by it (p. 186). The authors
discuss seven reasons that employees may resist change, and the principal of MLKES
would do well to ferret out the reasons the “Old Guard” feel threatened. However, for the
purposes of this discussion, two possibilities will be discussed. First, it is plausible that
the resistant teachers feel that their power and influence will be diminished by the
changes the principal suggests. They, after all, have been working at this school for
many years and have likely seen principals come and go. A second reason they may
resist change is that they may be afraid that their knowledge and skills have become or
will become obsolete (p. 187). According to Powell and Kusuma-Powell (2015) “people
strive to protect their self-esteem, their reputations, their perceptions of past success, and
their professional fulfillment when faced with externally driven change” (p. 67).
The authors also suggest that when adults (teachers) are faced with the need for
new learning on their parts, their resistance to change may be related to the type of
challenge they face: technical or adaptive (p. 66). A technical challenge would threaten
the “Old Guard’s” perceptions of their skills. Technical challenges, according to the
authors, can be overcome with professional development that addresses the specific
deficit. In other words, if teachers are required to use a new grading software package,
teaching them the ins and outs of the system should overcome the opposition. On the
other hand, adaptive challenges call for “transformational learning or learning that
requires us to rethink our deeply held values, beliefs, assumptions, and even our
professional identity” (p. 67). This is the type of challenge that presents itself in the
remarks made by the “Old Guard.” When teachers comments focus on all the extrinsic
reasons why students are not achieving, they are attempting to place blame. Placing
blame is an attempt to preserve their beliefs and self-concept. This is definitely an
adaptive challenge. According to these authors, “adaptive challenges are more complex,
and addressing them requires patience and time” (p. 67).
Another way to look at resistance to change comes from the business sector. In
their article “Overcoming resistance to change,” Umble and Umble (2014) suggest that
there are seven layers to resistance (p. 16):
(1) Disagreement that there is a problem;
(2) Disagreement about the nature of the problem;
(3) Disagreement about the general direction of the solution;
(4) Disagreement about the details of the solution;
(5) The solution has negative side effects;
(6) Disagreement that the solution can be implemented; and
(7) Unspoken/unresolved reservations.
From what has been said at the MLKES staff meetings, the “Old Guard” does not
disagree that there is a problem. Their disagreement seems to stem from the nature of the
problem, the details about the solution, and a lack of faith that any solution can be
implemented.
The principal of MLKES cannot afford to just ignore these “Old Guard” teachers.
It isn’t fair to the rest of the staff, and it isn’t fair to the students who will be in their
classrooms every day. According to Umble and Umble it is imperative that the change
leader, in this case the principal, listens to the perspectives of the teachers. “Once you
fully understand their perspective, it will be easier to help them see the problems and
opportunities that exist,” (p. 19). Whitaker (2012) and others agree that listening to
people is the first step in getting them to commit to the change that you want.
Unfortunately, just listening will not change their behaviors. The principal must
have frank discussions with staff about what the nature of the problem at MLKES is and
address the staff’s tendency to blame uncontrollable factors. Given that the students are
not going to change, the parents are not going to change, and the facility is not going to
change, the only thing that can change is the teachers’ response to the problem of low
performing students. The nature of the problem is the staff’s reluctance to do what is
necessary to change student outcomes. Powell and Kusum-Powell (2015) suggest
transformational learning (p. 68); an examination of the reality of the school, the
teachers’ deeply held assumptions, and a reframing of those assumptions. This might
require outside coaches to help teachers reframe their beliefs about what they can
accomplish with students. As noted earlier, some time spent at a successful Blue Ribbon
school might go a long way toward empowering the “Old Guard” to attempt change.
Still another perspective on motivating people to change comes from Eyal and
Roth (2010). Based on self-determination theory (as cited in Deci & Ryan, 2000), the
authors suggest that motivation or the lack thereof is sometimes based on whether or not
the activity is valued by the participants. Activities that are highly interesting tend to
engender intrinsic motivation while those that are not interesting require an extrinsic
consequence of some sort. Intrinsic motivation tends to make people feel that they are in
charge of their lives, while extrinsic motivation tends to make people feel they are being
controlled (p. 258). The benefits of intrinsic motivation far outweigh those of extrinsic
motivation. It is, therefore, important that the principal of MLKES find ways to help the
“Old Guard” internalize the needed changes at the school through her leadership: namely,
by providing strong rationale for the need to change, choices in how the change can be
accomplished, providing an avenue for criticism (discussion) of the change, encouraging
critical thinking, and proving the intrinsic value of making the change (p. 259).
Conclusion
McKinney, Labat, and Labat assert that principals can have “a profound impact
on instruction and learning” (as cited in Peterson and Deal, 2009) (p. 155). All of the
research studies on principal behaviors reviewed for this analysis suggest that principals
contribute to the success of their schools. Whitaker (2012) sums up school improvement
succinctly, “There are really two ways to improve a school significantly: Get better
teachers or improve the teachers you already have.” The MLKES principal needs to
improve the ones she has using the strategies outlined in this analysis.
References
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, reltedness, and growht. New York, NY: Free Press.
Algozzine, B., Gretes, J., Queen, A. J., & Cowan-Hathcock, M. (2007). Beginning
teachers perceptions of their induction program experiences. The Clearing House,
80, 137-143.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy
and student achievement. New York, NY: Longman.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H.
Freeman and Company.
Blase, J., & Kirby, P. C. (2000). Bringing out the best in teacher: What effective
principals do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Target article: The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,
11(4), 227-268.
Dumay, X., & Garland, B. (2012). The multi-level impact of transformational leadership
on teacher commitment: Cognitive and motivational pathways. British
Educational Research Journal, 38(5), 703-729.
Ebmeier, H. (2003). How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commitment: An
investigation of a path model. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, (18), 110141.
Elliott, E. M., Isaacs, M. L., & Chugani, C. D. (2010). Promoting self-efficacy in early
career teachers: A principal's guide for differentiated mentoring and supervision.
Florida Journal of Educational Administration & Policy, 4(1), 131-143.
Eyal, O., & Roth, G. (2011). Principals' leadership and teachers' motivation: Self
determination theory analysis. Journal of Educational Leadership, 49(3), 256275.
Gallagher, M. (n.d.). How principals support teacher effectiveness. Leadership, 41(3), 3237.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its
meaning, measure and impact on student achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.
Hauserman, C. P., & Stick, S. L. (n.d.). The leadership teachers want from principals:
Transformational. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(3), 184-203.
Hipp, K. A., & Bredeson, P. V. (1995). Exploring connections between teacher efficacy
and principal's leadership behaviors. Journal of School Leadership, 5, 136-150.
Hipp, K. A. (1996 April). Teacher Efficacy: Influence of Principal Leadership Behavior.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, NY.
Israel, M., Kamman, M. L., McCray, E. D., & Sindelar, P. T. (2014). Mentoring in
action: The interplay among professional assistance, emotional support, and
evaluation. Exceptional Children, 8(1), 45-63.
Kalargyrou, V., Pescosolido, A. T., & Kalargirow, E. A. (n.d.). Leadership skills in
management education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16(4), 3963.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (n.d.). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting
and task motivation. The American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2012). Educational administration: Concepts and
practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Marzano, R. J., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision: Supporting
the art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Walters, T., & McNaulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Maslow, A. H. (1998). Maslow on management. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
McClelland, D. C., & Winter, D. G. (1971). Motivating economic achievement. New
York, NY: Free Press.
McKinney, C. L., Labat, M. B., & Labat, C. A. (2015). Traits possessed by principals
who transform school culture in national blue ribbon schools. Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 19(1), 152-166.
Northwest Evaluation Association (2105) https://teach.mapnwea.org/learning-continuum
Retrieved: Oct. 31, 2015
Peterson, K., & Deal, T. (2009). The shaping school culture field book. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pomerantz, F., & Pierce, M. (2013). "When do we get to read?" Reading instruction and
literacy coaching in a "failed" urban elementary school. Reading Improvemen,
50(3), 101-117.
Powell, W., & Kusuma-Powell, O. (2015). Overcoming resistance to new ideas. Phi
Delta Kappan, 96(8), 66-69.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development and well-bing. American Psychologist,
55, 68-78.
Salloum, S. (2011). Collective efficacy, social context, teachers' work, and student
achievement: A mixed method study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Michigan, Detroit.
Skalbeck, K. (1991). Profile of a transformational leader: A sacred mission. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 52(2736).
Umble, M., & Umble, E. (2014). Overcoming resistance to change. Industrial
Management, 56(1), 16-61.
U.S. Department of Education (2015). Blue ribbon schools.
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/eligibility.html Retrieved Oct. 31, 2015
Walker, J., & Slear, S. (n.d.). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on the efficacy
of new and experienced middle school teachers. NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 46-64.
Whitaker, T. (2003). What great principals do differently: Fifteen things that matter
most. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
White, M., & Mason, C. Y. (2006). Components of a successful mentoring program for
beginning special education teachers: Perspectives from new teachers and
mentors. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 191-201.
Wolters, C. A., & Daughtery, S. G. (2007). Goal structure and teachers' sense of efficacy:
Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 181-193.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000, April). Changes in Teacher Efficacy During the Early Years of
Teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.