Measuring Efficacy for Culturally Responsive Classroom
Management
S. Michael Putman
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
SoTl Project Report
sputman@uncc.edu
Abstract
Classroom management represents an area of concern for both preservice and practicing teachers,
especially those working with diverse groups of children in urban environments. Given the current
educational context and focus on preparing candidates to work in such environments with all children,
it is critical to engage in examinations into preservice and practicing teachers’ knowledge, skills and
dispositions, including their beliefs about themselves as teachers, relative to both classroom
management and diversity. This research encompassed validation efforts for an instrument to
measure efficacy for culturally responsive classroom management – the Culturally Responsive
Classroom Management Self-Efficacy Scale (CRCMSE). The researcher administered the selfefficacy scale to a sample (N = 380) of preservice and inservice teachers in North Carolina and
Texas. An examination of the psychometric properties of this 35-item measure suggests that it
consisted of one factor and is highly reliable. Evidence of construct validity was obtained with two
existing measures – Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale and the Teachers Sense of
Efficacy Scale. The results of a correlational analysis lend credence that the culturally responsive
classroom management self-efficacy scale is indeed measuring self-efficacy beliefs. The implications
for teacher education and research are discussed.
1. Introduction
Teaching in 21st Century classrooms presents a number of challenges to teachers due to
pressures to increase student achievement while balancing the complexities associated with the
changing composition of today’s student population. In essence, the student population has become
more diverse, while the teaching population has remained primarily composed of white, middle class
females. With this knowledge in hand, attention needs to be directed at better preparing teachers to
enact culturally responsive practices within their classroom management. This includes examinations
of teachers’ beliefs regarding their abilities in this area. Several instruments exist that are intended to
measure these general efficacy beliefs (see Siwatu, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001);
however, none specifically examine culturally responsive classroom management. To fill this gap in
research, an instrument was developed to measure efficacy for classroom management and cultural
responsiveness. This research was conducted to examine the instrument. Questions guiding this
study were: What is the underlying factor structure of the CRCMSE Scale? How much variance is
accounted for when the factor structure of the scale is examined? How reliable are the scores on the
CRCMSE Scale? What is the relationship between preservice teachers’ scores on the CRCMSE
Scale and the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale and the Teacher Sense of Efficacy
Scale?
1.2 Literature Review
Derived from social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), teaching efficacy represents a teacher’s
analysis of a teaching situation and perceived ability to carry out the tasks necessary to be
successful. Efficacy for teaching represents an important component in subsequent behaviors –
teachers who demonstrated high levels of efficacy were more likely to implement effective methods of
instruction (Ashton & Webb, 1986); persist during difficult teaching situations (Woolfolk, Rosoff, &
Hoy, 1990); and to be successful at maintaining student engagement (Ashton & Webb). These
teachers were also more likely to seek ways to improve their teaching methods through alternative
methods of instruction (Ashton & Webb). On the other hand, a poor sense of efficacy has been
associated with non-differentiation of instruction, lack of interest in collaboration with other teachers,
and negative views toward inclusion (Soodak, Podell, & Lehman, 1998).
The generalized notion of teacher efficacy has important implications for the beliefs and
behaviors of teachers, yet research has also demonstrated that the teaching efficacy is multifaceted
and complex (Gibson and Dembo, 1984). In essence, teachers may not feel efficacious in all areas of
teaching. The resulting body of work has postulated a domain-specific structure that has shown that
the factors directly within teachers’ control, such as classroom management, demonstrated a
significant influence on teaching outcomes (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Research from
this perspective has shown a relationship between the efficacy beliefs of teachers and their
predilection to use certain management strategies as part of a behavioral intervention. Emmer and
Hickman (1991) found higher scores on efficacy measures were associated with interactive
management strategies and positive expectations for student behavior. Teachers who demonstrated
greater efficacy were also less likely to refer children for placement in alternative contexts (Hughes,
Barker, Kemenoff, & Hart, 1993). Finally, teachers with a higher sense of efficacy have more
confidence in their classroom management skills and are more successful at maintaining on-task
behavior from students (Ashton & Webb, 1986). On the other hand, Lin and colleagues (2001) found
teachers to be least confident in managing children who were deemed “challenging.” This situation
may be more common with cultural incongruence that manifests itself when teachers work with
children culturally different from themselves.
Weinstein, Tomlinson-Clarke, and Curran (2004) remind us that “the literature on classroom
management has paid scant attention to issues of cultural diversity” (p. 26). Given that many teachers
note feelings of a lack of preparedness for working with diverse populations, this is an important
consideration that has broad educational implications. When teachers are already concerned with
issues surrounding classroom management, teaching in urban settings where students’ cultures,
languages, and ethnicities may be highly diverse may intensify apprehension (Milner, 2008). This can
contribute to a disconnect between teachers and students and cause management conflicts in the
classroom. The tension of impending disciplinary issues may inhibit the use of successful
management strategies, limiting success (of both teachers and students) and decreasing overall
teaching efficacy.
Instead, teachers need to develop and use management techniques that account for cultural
differences that are present in diverse classrooms. Weinstein, Curran, and Tomlinson-Clarke (2003)
termed this construct “culturally responsive classroom management” (p. 269). Principles associated
with culturally responsive classroom management include:
 developing knowledge of students’ cultures
 establishing relationships with children
 using communication processes that are culturally congruent
 assertiveness
 clearly stating expectations that are regularly enforced (see Brown, 2004; Weinstein et al.,
2004)
Culturally responsive management frameworks also “incorporate elements of students’ home,
personal, and community lives into the classroom” (Monroe & Obidah, 2004, p. 259). When the
teachers possess (or have the skills and opportunities to acquire) the knowledge, skills, dispositions,
and beliefs that are necessary to meet the needs of and be responsive to their students, equitable
classroom management and learning opportunities for all students are possible.
2. Methods
2.1 Participants
The participants for this research were 380 preservice and inservice teachers in North Carolina and
Texas. As the effort was directed at the validation of the instrument, specific demographic information
is not reported.
3. Materials and Procedure
3.1 Procedure
The procedure for this research encompassed three phases. In the first phase, the instrument
was developed using Bandura’s (1977, 2006) theoretical guidelines for constructing self-efficacy
scales, including using a criterial task to inform item development. In this context, the criterial task
was comprised of the essential skills and knowledge that are clearly identifiable among teachers who
engage in culturally responsive teaching and who have adopted culturally responsive classroom
management practices. To identify these tasks, an extensive literature review was conducted and the
culturally responsive classroom management competencies were developed.
The identification of the criterial task enabled writing self-efficacy items that were aligned with
the competencies. Specific attention was directed to varying the degree of task difficulty varied
among the items to avoid ceiling effects (Bandura, 1997) and shed light on the types of tasks that
individuals are most and least confident in their ability to execute. Once the items were created, it was
determined that the scale for responses would range from 0-100. This decision was based on Pajares
and colleagues’ (2001) work that demonstrated this range was psychometrically stronger than a
traditional Likert scale.
In phase two, the CRCMSE Scale was administered to a sample (N = 30) of preservice
teachers. This small-scale data collection was a necessary step that assisted in fine-tuning the
instrument for large-scale data collection. The pilot study also provided an opportunity to collect
valuable information from participants to assist in improving questions and response format and
reducing redundant items. In the third phase of the study, the researcher sought to examine the
answer the primary research questions through its administration of the CRCMSE to the
aforementioned sample.
3.2 Materials
Culturally responsive classroom management self-efficacy scale. The Culturally Responsive
Classroom Management Scale was used to elicit information on efficacy to execute execute various
classroom management practices which are often associated with culturally responsive teachers.
The scale consisted of 35 items in which participants were asked to rate how confident they were in
their ability to execute specific culturally responsive classroom management by indicating a degree of
confidence ranging from 0 (no confidence at all) to 100 (completely confident). Responses to each
item are summed to generate a total score.
Culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy scale. The Culturally Responsive Teaching SelfEfficacy Scale (Siwatu, 2007) was modified and used to elicit information from preservice teachers
regarding their self-efficacy to execute specific teaching practices and tasks that are associated with
teachers who have adopted a culturally responsive pedagogy. The scale consisted of 40 items in
which participants were asked to rate how confident they were in their ability to execute specific
culturally responsive teaching by indicating a degree of confidence ranging from 0 (no confidence at
all) to 100 (completely confident). Responses to each item are summed to generate a total score.
Teacher Sense of efficacy scale. Teacher Sense of Efficacy (TSE) Scale (Tschannen-Moran
& Woolfolk Hoy, 1998) was used to assess preservice teachers’ perceptions of their capabilities to
execute general teaching practices. For the purposes of this study, only the classroom management
subscale was used. This subscale consists of eight items in which participants were asked to rate
how confident they were in their ability to successfully accomplish specific classroom management
tasks by indicating a degree of confidence ranging from 0 (Nothing) to 9 (A Great Deal). Responses to
each item are summed to generate a total score.
4. Analysis
Data analysis proceeded in three steps. First, a descriptive analysis of the items on CRCMSE Scale
was completed. Second, a principal axis analysis was performed, including an analysis of the
suitability of the data for factor analysis. Finally a correlational analysis was used to determine the
relationship between scores on the CRCMSE, CRTSE, and TSE Scales.
5. Results and Discussion
5.1 Results
The means for items on the CRCMSE Scale ranged from 67.99 (SD = 22.55) to 90.70 (SD
=11.78). Participants’ CRCMSE was highest for their perceived ability to: “encourage students to
work together on classroom tasks, when appropriate” (M = 89.50, SD = 11.15) and “clearly
communicate classroom policies” (M = 90.70, SD = 11.78). Item-specific means were for their
perceived ability to: “communicate with students' parents whose primary language is not English” (M =
67.99, SD = 22.55) and “establish two-way communication with non-English speaking parents” (M =
68.12, SD = 22.27).
The 35 items on the CRCMSE Scale were subjected to a principal axis factor analysis. Prior
to performing the factor analysis, the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of
the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of .3 above. The KMO statistic was
.95 and the Bartlett test of sphericity was statistically significant (p < .001), thereby upholding the
factorability of the correlation coefficients.
Three criteria were used to determine the number of factors to rotate: the a priori hypothesis
that the measure was unidimensional, the scree test, and the interpretability of the factor solution.
The principal axis factor analysis revealed the presence of four components with eigenvalues
exceeding 1, explaining 52.88%, 8.47%, 3.99%, and 3.63% of the variance, respectively. An
inspection of the scatterplot revealed a clear break after the second component. Due to the variance
in the number of possible factors that could be extracted, each of these factor solutions was
examined. The conclusion was reached that the CRCMSE Scale consisted of one factor. The one
factor solution explained approximately 52.88% of the variance, with factor loadings ranging from .58
to .82. The percentage of variance explained was just below the 53% average of factor analysis
studies (Henson & Roberts, 2001). Internal reliability for scores on the 35-item scale was .97, as
estimated by Cronbach’s alpha.
Evidence of validity was obtained with two existing measures – CRTSE Scale and the TSE
Scale. Correlation coefficients were computed among the scores on the three self-efficacy measures.
There was a strong, positive correlation between scores on the CRCMSE and CRTSE Scales (r = .77,
n = 370, p < .001). There was as also a moderate, positive correlation between scores on the CRTSE
and TSE Scales (r = .51, n = 379, p < .001). The findings from the correlational analysis provide
evidence of construct validity.
5.2 Discussion
The current study was designed to accomplish two tasks. First, this study was designed to
develop the CRCMSE Scale. The researcher was careful in following the guidelines Bandura (2006)
provided for developing self-efficacy instruments. In addition, the researcher ensured items contained
in the scale were reflective of the tasks associated with the practices associated with teachers who
have adopted culturally responsive classroom management practices.
Second, this study was designed to examine the psychometric proprieties of the CRCMSE Scale.
The results suggest that the measure consists of a single factor and is highly reliable.
Evidence of construct validity was obtained with two existing measures – CRTSE and TSE Scales.
As expected, scores on the CRCMSE Scale positively correlated with scores on the CRTSE and TSE
Scales. This finding lends credence that the CRCMSE contains items that are indeed measuring selfefficacy beliefs.
Based on the results of this study, the CRCMSE Scale will be a useful tool for teacher
educators who are interested in assessing preservice and inservice teachers’ CRCMSE beliefs and
designing interventions to increase their CRCM knowledge, skills, dispositions, and self-efficacy
beliefs. The CRCMSE Scale can also be used by researchers who are interested in studying the
nature of preservice and inservice teachers’ CRCMSE beliefs, tracking the development of these
beliefs, and using the scale as an outcome variable.
References
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student
achievement. New York: Longman.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for creating self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Selfefficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Brown, D. F. (2004). Urban teachers’ professed classroom management strategies: Reflections from
culturally responsive teaching. Urban Education, 39, 266-289.
Chambers, S. M. (2003). The impact of length of student teaching on the self-efficacy and classroom
orientation of preservice teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest
Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 477 509)
Emmer, E. T., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline.
Educational & Psychological Measurement, 51, 755-765.
Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 569-582.
Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2001). Exploratory factor analysis reporting practices in published
research. In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in social science methodology, Vol 6. Samford,
CT: JAI Press.
Hughes, J. N., Barker, D., Kemoff, S., & Hart, M. (1983). Problem ownership, causal attributions, and
self-efficacy as predictors of teachers’ referral decisions. Journal of Educational &
Psychological Consultation, 4, 369-384.
Lin, H., Gorrell, J., & Taylor, J. (2001). Influence of culture and education on U. S. and Taiwan
preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, 37-46.
Melnick, S. A., & Meister, D. G. (2008). A comparison of beginning and experienced teachers’
concerns. Educational Research Quarterly, 31(3), 39-56.
Milner, H. R. (2008). Disrupting deficit notions of difference: Counter-narratives of teachers and
community in urban education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1573-1598.
Monroe, C. R., & Obidah, J. E. (2004). The influence of cultural synchronization on a teacher’s
perceptions of disruption: A case study of an African-American middle school classroom.
Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 256-268.
Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. (2001). Response format in writing self-efficacy assessment:
Greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 33(4), 214-221.
Siebert, C. J. (2005). Promoting preservice teachers’ success in classroom management by
leveraging a local union’s resources: A professional development school initiative. Education,
125(3), 385-392.
Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1086-1011.
Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M. & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student and school attributes as
predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion. Journal of Special Education, 31, 480–497.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive concept.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Weinstein, C., Curran, M., & Tomlinson-Clarke, S. (2003). Culturally responsive classroom
management: Awareness into action. Theory into Action, 42(4), 269-276.
Weinstein, C., Tomlinson-Clark, S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of culturally responsive
classroom management. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 25-38.
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about
managing students. Teaching & Teacher Education, 6, 137-148.