Searching for School Characteristics that
Make a Difference for the Achievement of
All Students: A 40-Year Odyssey
Taiwan, May, 2014
www.waynekhoy.com
[Papers>Taiwan: Academic Optimism]
1© Hoy, 2014
Overview: From Oklahoma to Ohio
What makes some schools better places to work and learn than others?
• General Nature of School Climate—What is School Climate?
• Conceptual frameworks for School Climate and its Measures: 3 Perspectives
Control Perspective: Humanistic to Custodial School Climates
Openness Perspective: Open to Closed School Climates
Health Perspective: Healthy to Unhealthy School Climates
• Collective Trust in Schools
• Collective Efficacy in Schools
• Academic Emphasis in Schools
• Academic Optimism of Schools
• Academic Optimism and Student Achievement
• Implications for Practice
2 © Hoy, 2014
School Climates:
Humanistic, Open & Healthy Climates
I Control Perspective—Continuum from Custodial to Humanistic
• Custodial School Climate. Watchful mistrust and autocratic control are the critical
aspects of a custodial perspective.
• Humanistic School Climate is optimistic about students and teachers have open and
friendly relations with students. Teachers and students are willing to act on their own
volition and accept responsibility for their actions.
II Openness Perspective—Continuum from Closed to Open
• The Closed School Climate is one imbued with game playing, close teacher supervision,
teacher apathy, and low morale.
• The Open School Climate is one anchored in authentic, open, and transparent
interactions among faculty members, supportive supervision, & high morale.
III Perspective on Health of Interpersonal Relations—Continuum from Unhealthy-Healthy
• The Unhealthy School Climate is imbued with conflict and poor interpersonal relations.
• The Healthy School Climate is one in the interpersonal relations between teachers,
teachers and administrators, and teachers and students are positive-good interpersonal
relations.
3 © Hoy, 2014
Oklahoma Findings
Humanistic Control and Openness in School Climates: A Comparative Analysis
Humanistic Schools contrasted with Custodial ones
Principals were:
More Considerate—kind and thoughtful
More Personal—warm and helpful
More Engaging—easy interactions
More Friendly—caring
More Supportive—avoided close supervision
Faculty had:
Higher Morale
Greater Engagement.
Greater Openness
1.
The more open the climate, the more humanistic the control perspectives—two go together. The
relation is a reciprocal one.
1.
There was openness and authenticity in teacher-principal relations and openness in teacherteacher relations in humanistic schools .
(Appleberry & Hoy, 1969; Hoy & Appleberry, 1970; Hoy, 2008)
Three years in Oklahoma and then back to east coast, Rutgers in NJ
4 © Hoy, 2014
Rutgers Studies in New Jersey
School Climate and Student Outcomes: Alienation and Self-Actualization
Alienation:
Normlessness
Powerlessness
Meaninglessness
Isolation
Self-estrangement
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Climate was related to student alienation in NJ high schools.
In general, the more open the school climate, the less alienated were the students.
In general, the more humanistic the school climate, the less alienated the students.
Open and humanistic schools were antidotes for student sense of powerlessness and
normlessness.
Students suffered less from a sense of powerlessness, normlessness, and self-estrangement or
isolation (Hoy, 1972; Hartley & Hoy, 1972; Rafalides & Hoy, 1971).
Self-actualization
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Humanism of school climate related to student level of self-actualization (Diebert & Hoy, 1977).
But graduate students and administrators want to know if climate was related to student
achievement.
We started to look in each sample of schools, but to no avail.
Preliminary evidence suggested –No Relations! Correlations Yes, but with controls—No
Openness and Humanism in school climate were not related to student achievement.
Summary of Findings Next
5 © Hoy, 2014
Summary of Climate Studies
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
School Climate does capture the feel of the school.
Openness and humanism seem to have positive effects on
students—less alienated, more committed, greater
confidence, and higher self actualization.
But neither the openness of the climate nor the humanism
of teachers was related to academic performance.
Every climate study we did at RU, where we could, we
checked its influence on academic performance, but with
SES included as a control, there was no relation.
School climate was related to affective student outcomes,
but not related to academic outcomes; SES overwhelmed
everything when it came to achievement.
6 © Hoy, 2014
Why No Relation between Climate and
Student Achievement?
James Coleman’s classic national study of American Public
Schools (1966) was also discouraging because he also found:
“Only a small part of (student achievement) is the result of
school factors, in contrast to family background differences
between communities.”
Together with my own research and Coleman’s findings, I came
to believe that organization and school climate had little to do
with school achievement; achievement primarily in the hands of
teachers in the classroom.
Thus, I turned my attention to research to different areas.
7 © Hoy, 2014
Detour: New Research Directions
1.
Bureaucratic structure was directly related to teacher alienation.
2.
Bureaucratic structure was negatively related to innovation and change.
3.
Bureaucratic socialization of new teachers—more bureaucratic and custodial.
4.
Key principal behaviors to develop loyal teachers:
1) Consideration
2) Initiating structure
3) Leading by example
4) Emotional detachment
5) Hierarchical independence.
6) Authenticity
5. Patterns of Administrative Succession for Principals.
Outsiders
versus
Insiders
Change
Status Quo
Higher Satisfaction
Lower Satisfaction
More Influence
Less Influence
More Emotional Detachment
Less Emotional Detachment
High Faculty Morale
Lower Faculty Morale
8 © Hoy, 2013
Return to the Quest
Ron Edmonds’s Challenge to Coleman: Case Studies of Urban School.
Edmonds found and argued that high achievement was a function of:
–
–
–
–
–
Strong Principals
High Expectations for Students
Emphasis on Basic Skills
Orderly environments
Frequent, systematic evaluations
One or two cases don’t really prove much—Could the findings be generalized?
Another look at School Climate: A New Perspective—Organizational Health
9 © Hoy, 2013
Organizational Health
Organizational Health Inventory (OHI)
• School-Community Interactions
Institutional Integrity
• Principal Teacher-Interactions
Principal Influence
Consideration
 Initiating Structure
Resource Support
Morale
• Professional Interactions
• Teacher-Student Interactions
Academic Emphasis
One factor—Health Index= combination of the seven aspects of health.
No relation between overall health of school climate and achievement, controlling for SES.
Multiple Regression—use individual tests rather than index. We finally found one property of
schools that made a difference on student achievement when controlling for SES (family
background and community differences in wealth).
Academic Emphasis of the School was related to Student Achievement—the relation held
for all levels—elementary, middle, & high schools—20 years.
10 © Hoy, 2014
The First Generation of Trust Studies—Rutgers
(Hoy & Kupersmith, 1984,1985)
TRUST: A generalized sense held by the work group that the word or promise of
another could be relied upon (Rotter)
Measures of Collective Faculty Trust:
1. In Colleagues
2. In Principal
3. In District
Faculty Trust related to many important attributes:
Authentic leadership of the principal
Morale of faculty
Openness of climate
Health of school
Subjective measure of effectiveness
BUT NOT to ACHIEVEMENT, controlling for SES.
It was on to Ohio State. Thus, far only one school variable has been identified that
predicts academic achievement controlling for SES.
11 © Hoy, 2014
Trust: The Second Generation—Ohio State
a more refined definition of trust
Megan Tschannen-Moran (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, 1998; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran,
1999, 2003; Tschannen-Moran, 2004; Forsyth, Adams, & Hoy, 2011).
TRUST: Trust is a state in which individuals and groups are willing to make
themselves vulnerable to others and take risks with confidence that others will
respond to their actions in positive ways, with:
Benevolence, Predictability, Competence, Honesty, and Openness.
Faculty Trust in:
In Colleagues
In Principal
New Dimensions
In Students
In Parents
Surprise!!!
Faculty Trust in Students and Parents is one thing, not two (Bryk & Schneider, 2002).
Faculty Trust in Students and Parents was related to Student Achievement
controlling for SES.
Relationship is true regardless of school level (elementary, middle, high school).
Also true in other countries—for example, including Taiwan.
Second organizational property to make a difference in achievement (1998).
12 © Hoy, 2014
Collective Efficacy—Ohio State
Roger Goddard-A Study of Collective Efficacy of Elementary Schools (Goddard, Hoy, &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2000; Goddard, 2001, 2002).
Grew out of the work of Albert Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control(1997),
who claimed efficacy could be framed as a collective as well as an individual
construct.
In fact, he maintained that collective efficacy was more important than SES in
predicting student achievement.
COLLECTIVE EFFICACY: teachers as a whole (as a collective) have a sense that
they can organize and execute decisions and influence the activities that have
positive effects on students.
Developed a reliable and valid measure of the collective efficacy of a school.
Collective Efficacy was related to achievement regardless of SES and just as important
or more so than SES.
Collective Efficacy was the third property of schools that predicted student achievement
controlling for SES and other demographic characteristics of schools (next)
13 © Hoy, 2014
Collective Efficacy—Ohio State
Relationship is true regardless of school level (elementary, middle, high school).
Also true in other countries.
These three school properties are the three characteristics that make a difference in
school achievement beyond SES.
• Academic Emphasis
• Collective Trust [in Students and Parents]
• Collective Efficacy
What about the three properties working together?
Three properties added together should explain more variance in achievement-But they
don’t because they are so highly correlated with each other.
HOW TO RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM?
14 © Hoy, 2014
Academic Optimism: A New Construct
(Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006)
The elements of academic optimism and
their reciprocal relation to each other.
Academic
Emphasis
Faculty
Trust
Collective
Efficacy
Academic Optimism is the uniting of these three concepts into an integrated whole.
Efficacy is the belief faculty can make a positive contribution to student learning:
teachers believe in themselves.
Trust is the belief that students, parents, teachers can cooperate to improve student learning:
teachers believe in their students.
Academic Emphasis is the academic enactment of these beliefs:
teachers act to improve academic success of students.
Academic Optimism is the collective belief that that:
The faculty can make a difference--cognitive facet (efficacy).
Students can learn--affective and emotional side (trust).
Academic performance can be achieved--behavioral enacted (academic optimism).
15 © Hoy, 2014
Academic Optimism and School Achievement: A Theoretical Model
Urbanicity
Socioeconomic
Status
Mathematics
Faculty Trust in
Students and Parents
Collective Efficacy
Academic Emphasis
Academic Optimism
Student
Achievement
Science
Priori Student
Achievement
Mathematics
Science
16 © Hoy, 2014
A Test of the Academic Optimism and Student Achievement Model
(Hoy, Tarter, Hoy, 2007)
Mathematics
Faculty Trust in
Students & Parents
Collective Efficacy
Academic Emphasis
1.00
.75
.99
Academic Optimism
Student
Achievement
.90
.92
Science
17 © Hoy, 2014
A Test of the Academic Optimism and Student Achievement Model
(Hoy, Tarter, Woolfolk Hoy, 2006)
Urbanicity
Socioeconomic
Status
.02
.20
Mathematics
.19
Faculty Trust in
Students & Parents
Collective Efficacy
Academic Emphasis
1.00
.75
.99
Academic Optimism
.21
Student
Achievement
.90
.92
.60
Science
Priori Student
Achievement
.97
Mathematics
.96
R2=.67**
Science
18 © Hoy, 2014
Principals Creating A Culture of Academic Optimism and Student
Achievement: A Path Model (McGuigan & Hoy, 2006)
Faculty Trust in
Students and Parents
Collective Efficacy
Enabling Structure
Academic Optimism
Socioeconomic
Status
19 © Hoy, 2014
Academic Emphasis
Student Achievement
A Test of Enabling Structure, Academic Optimism, Achievement Model
(McGuigan & Hoy, 2006)
Faculty Trust in
Students and Parents
Collective Efficacy
.98
Enabling Structure
.96
.37**
Academic Optimism
Academic Emphasis
.95
.54**(Math)
Student Achievement
.21 (Math)
Socioeconomic
Status
Math R2=.48**
20 © Hoy, 2014
Why Does Academic Optimism Lead to Higher Student Achievement?
&Study
of Trust in Chicago (Bryk & Schneider, 2002)
School Conditions that Promote Learning and Achievement
1. Teachers’ “can do” Attitude and Internalized Responsibility
2. Outreach to Parents
3. Professional Community--Collaborative Work Practices and
Commitment to Improve Teaching and Learning.
4. High Expectations and High Academic Standards
21 © Hoy, 2014
Why Does Academic Optimism Lead to Higher Student Achievement?
School Conditions that Promote Achievement
Bryk & Schneider (2002)
Study of Trust
Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy (2006)
Study of Academic Optimism
1. Teachers’ “can do” Attitude and
Internalized Responsibility
Collective Efficacy
22 © Hoy, 2014
Why Does Academic Optimism Lead to Higher Student Achievement?
School Conditions that Promote Achievement
Bryk & Schneider (2002)
Study of Trust
Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy (2006)
Study of Academic Optimism
1. Teachers’ “can do” Attitude and
Internalized Responsibility
Collective Efficacy
2. Outreach to Parents
3. Professional Community
Collaborative Work Practices and
Commitment to Improve Teaching
Faculty Trust in
Parents and
Teachers
23 © Hoy, 2014
Why Does Academic Optimism Lead to Higher Student Achievement?
School Conditions that Promote Achievement
Bryk & Schneider (2002)
Study of Trust
Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy (2006)
Study of Academic Optimism
1. Teachers’ “can do” Attitude and
Internalized Responsibility
Collective Efficacy
2. Outreach to Parents
3. Professional Community
Collaborative Work Practices and
Commitment to Improve Teaching
Faculty Trust in
Parents and
Teachers
4. High Expectations and
High Academic Standards
Academic Emphasis
24 © Hoy, 2014
Why Does Academic Optimism Lead to Higher Student Achievement?
School Conditions that Promote Achievement
Bryk & Schneider (2002)
Study of Trust
Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy (2006)
Study of Academic Optimism
1. Teachers’ “can do” Attitude and
Internalized Responsibility
Collective Efficacy
2. Outreach to Parents
3. Professional Community
Collaborative Work Practices and
Commitment to Improve Teaching
Faculty Trust in
Parents and
Teachers
4. High Expectations and
High Academic Standards
Academic Emphasis
25 © Hoy, 2014
A
C
A
D
E
M
I
C
O
P
T
I
M
I
S
M
How Does Academic Optimism Lead to Higher Student Achievement?
Feedback
GOAL THEORY
Goals are:
• Specific
• Challenging
• Attainable
• Embraced
Collective
Efficacy
Academic
Emphasis
Culture of
Academic
Optimism
Motivation
•
•
•
•
Responsibility
Effort
Persistence
Resilience
Student
Achievement
Trust in
Parents &
Students
COOPERATION
• Students
• Teachers
• Parents
Relational
Trust
Feedback
Dynamics of School Properties to Promote Student Achievement
26 © Hoy, 2014
Conclusions
• There is strong evidence that academic optimism is a latent construct
consisting of 1) academic emphasis, 2) collective trust in parents and
students, and3) collective efficacy.
• Academic Optimism is directly related to school achievement even after
controlling for SES and earlier achievement.
• Academic Optimism is as strong predictor of achievement as SES;
Academic optimism can be developed, but SES cannot.
• Optimism in academic matters is a strong force for achievement.
• Trust in parents and students seems to liberate teachers to innovate in the
classroom without fear of retribution from parents.
•
Collective efficacy signals a “can do attitude” of faculty and enables
teachers to set and pursue challenging goals with students.
• Academic emphasis focuses behavior on academic matters and
mobilizes to teachers to action.
• Academic optimism is related to school achievement in other
countries and cultures [Jason (Hsin-Chieh) Wu—Wu, Hoy, & Tarter, 2013; Wu, 2013).
27 © Hoy, 2014
Implications and Applications
How can a culture of academic optimism be cultivated?
At least three paths:
1. Cultivate a Culture of Trust: In colleagues, In
administration, and most importantly in Students and
Parent—benevolent, open, reliable, competent, and honest.
Open and transparent teacher-student and teacher-parent
relations are the hallmarks of authenticity and trust.
• Reach out to parents in projects that require their cooperation
and involvement—newsletters, parent-teacher events,
celebrations of achievement.
• Make operation of school transparent and open to parents.
• Be honest with parents.
• Showcase achievement of schools and highlight competence
and accomplishment of teachers as well as students.
• Embrace students and work through difficulties with parents.
• Be predictably kind and compassionate about helping
students.
28 © Hoy, 2014
Implications and Applications
2. Develop Collective Efficacy in the School: The faculty as a collective
must believe that they can make a difference in the success of students.
Three major sources of efficacy: Mastery Experiences, Vicarious
Experiences, and Social Persuasion.
• Mastery: Structure experiences for teachers so they can have
successful direct experiences; place them in situations for success.
New teachers have schedules and situations where they can succeed.
Success breeds success, mastery, and efficacy—Experience success!
• Model: Give teachers models to emulate; provide examples and
stories of success; observe experts in action; provide vicarious
experiences for success—Provide models of success!
• Persuasion: Reinforce direct and vicarious experiences with
supportive persuasion—Motivate and coach success! You can do it!
Believe in yourself, set realistic goals, and achieve.
29 © Hoy, 2014
In Brief:
1. Experience Success (Mastery)
Provide direct experiences for success.
2. Model Success (Modeling)
Provide models for success.
3. Coach Success (Persuasion)
Persuade individuals they can succeed.
30 © Hoy, 2014
Implications and Applications
3. Focus on Academic and Intellectual Achievement: The faculty
must embrace the goal of academic achievement—the school leader
needs to be an intellectual leader.
• Celebrate intellectual achievements of faculty and students—
assemblies, honor societies, awards, trophies, ceremonies,
newspaper accounts, etc.
• Make academic achievement a major force of schooling—honor
rolls, letters of commendation, graduations with distinction, news
releases, etc.
• Hire intellectually curious teachers and nurture their curiosity.
• Make schools intellectually stimulating places to learn: Nurture
» Creativity
» Curiosity
» Reflection among students and teachers.
31 Hoy, 2014
Implications and Applications
Finally, what makes academic optimism of the school so important
in improving student achievement is its strong influence on
motivation—both teacher motivation and student motivation.
At the heart of such motivation is:
• Responsibility
• Effort
• Persistence
• Resilience
• GRIT
Academic Optimism enhances these
motivation forces.
32 © Hoy, 2014
Implications and Applications
Checks and Balances
Warning: Be concerned with all three elements of academic
optimism and not just one of the elements.
For example—Building an academic focus can come by rigid
adherence to procedures, which if not met, result in negative
sanctions or punishment. Yet building strong academic focus this
way may actually undermine trust and create an atmosphere of
secrecy. So if building increased academic emphasis reduces
openness and trust, DON’T DO IT.
Conversely, building trust can create a laissez faire atmosphere
can undermine academic emphasis-if so, DON’T DO IT.
Basic Rule: Use all three elements (trust, efficacy, and academic
emphasis) to check any attempt to improve academic optimism.
Don’t use any strategy that improves one aspect of academic
optimism at the expense of any other element.
33 © Hoy, 2014
A Brief Summary for Teachers and Leaders
• Cultivate Trust: Open and transparent teacher-student relations
provide a path to authenticity and academic optimism and student
achievement.
• Build Efficacy: Efficacy is the engine of change, reform, and
achievement.
• Foster school Academic Emphasis: Celebrate academic successes—
academic emphasis focuses behavior on academic matters.
• Embrace Academic Optimism: Optimism leads to both increased
achievement and well-being for all.
• Develop GRIT: learn resilience, self-discipline, and perseverance.
• Accept Responsibility for learning: It is a key in effective motivation.
Keys to School Success: Trust, Efficacy, Academic Emphasis, Academic
Optimism, GRIT, Responsibility .
34 © Hoy, 2014
References
1. Appleberry, J.B. and Hoy, W.K. (1969), “The pupil control ideology of professional personnel in ‘open’
and ’closed’ elementary schools”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 74-85.
2. Bryk, A.S. and Schneider, B. (2002), Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
3. Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D. and York, R.L.
(1966), Equality of Educational Opportunity, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
4. Diebert, J.P. and Hoy, W.K. (1977), “Custodial high schools and self-actualization of students”,
Educational Research Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 24-31.
5. Edmonds, R. (1979), “Some schools work, more can”, Social Policy, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 28-32.
6. Forsyth, P. A., Adams, C. & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective Trust: Why Schools Cannot Improve Without It.
New York: Columbia TC Press.
7. Goddard, R.G., Hoy, W.K. and Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000), “Collective teacher efficacy: its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 479-508.
8. Goddard, R.G. (2001), “Collective efficacy: a neglected construct in the study of schools and student
achievement”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 3, pp. 467-76.
9. Goddard, R.G. (2002), “A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measure of collective efficacy: the
development of the short form”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 97-110.
10.Hartley, M.C. and Hoy, W.K. (1972), “Openness of school climate and alienation of high school students”,
California Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 17-24.
35 © Hoy, 2014
References
12. Hoy, W.K. (2001), “The pupil control studies: a historical, theoretical, and empirical analysis”, Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 424-41.
13. Hoy, W.K. (1972a), “Dimensions of student alienation and characteristics of public high schools”,
Interchange, Vol. 3 Nos. 4/5, pp. 38-51.
14. Hoy, W. K. (2012). School characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all students: A
40-year academic odyssey. Journal of Educational Administration, Vol., 51, 176-193.
11. Hoy, W.K. and Appleberry, J.B. (1970), “Teacher principal relationships in ‘humanistic’ and ‘custodial’
elementary schools”, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 27-31.
15. Hoy, W.K. and Kupersmith, W.J. (1984), “Principal authenticity and faculty trust”, Planning and
Changing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 81-8.
16. Hoy, W.K. and Kupersmith, W.J. (1985), “The meaning and measure of faculty trust”, Educational and
Psychological Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
17. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 425-446.
18. Hoy, W.K. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999), “Five faces of trust: an empirical confirmation in urban
elementary schools”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 184-208.
19. Hoy, W.K. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003), “The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust
in schools”, in Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G. (Eds), Studies in Leading and Organizing Schools,
Information Age, Greenwich, CT, pp. 181-207.
20. McGuigan, L. & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal Leadership: Creating a Culture of Academic Optimism to
Improve Achievement for All Students. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 203-229.
21. Rafalides, M. and Hoy, W.K. (1971), “Student sense of alienation and pupil control orientation of high
schools”, High School Journal, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 101-11.
36 © Hoy, 2014
References
22. Tschannen-Moran, M. and Hoy, W.K. (2000), “A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and
measurement of trust”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 547-93.
23. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust Matters: Leadership for Successful Schools. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
24. Wu, H. C., Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2013). Enabling school structure, collective responsibility, and a
culture of academic optimism: Toward a robust model of school performance in Taiwan. Journal of
Educational Administration, 51, 176-193.
Suggested Readings
Hoy, W. K. (2012). School characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all students: A
40-year academic odyssey. Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 176-193.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 425-446.
Forsyth, P. A., Adams, C. & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective Trust: Why Schools Cannot Improve Without It. New
York: Columbia TC Press.
Wu, H. C., Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2013). Enabling school structure, collective responsibility, and a
culture of academic optimism: Toward a robust model of school performance in Taiwan. Journal of
Educational Administration, 51, 176-193.
Wu, J. H. (2013). Academic optimism and collective responsibility: An organizational model of the dynamics
of student achievement. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(3), 419–433.
37 © Hoy, 2014