Teacher and Principals’ Beliefs about Self-Efficacy and the Effects on Student Learning
During School Improvement: Perspectives from the Field
Dissertation
Submitted to Northcentral University
Graduate Faculty of the School of Education
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
by
TERESA A CONLEY
Prescott Valley, Arizona
March 2015
Approval Page
Teacher and Principals’ Beliefs about Self-Efficacy and the Effects on Student Learning
During School Improvement: Perspectives from the Field
By
Teresa A. Conley
Approved by:
_______________________________________________ ________________
Chair: Dr. Ann Armstrong, Ed.D.
Date
Certified by:
______________________________________________ ________________
Dean of School:
Dr. Rebecca Wardlow, Ed.D.
Date
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative multi-case study was to explore and describe urban
teachers’ and principals’ self-efficacy throughout a change process by understanding each
group’s beliefs about their strengths and abilities to promote student learning, while also
dealing with the process of school improvement. The target populations for this study
were teachers and principals in grades three through eight from urban settings,
specifically from schools that were or had been in corrective action and experiencing a
school improvement change process. A sample of 13 teachers and principals were
solicited for participation through Internet sites established for the purpose of
professional learning networking. This study utilized four data sources: The Teacher
Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), the Principal
Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004), the US Department of
Education data of schools in need of improvement, and semi-structured interviews of
teachers and principals using the Critical Incident Technique. This study investigated the
relationship of school improvement through climate and culture change from the position
of the teachers and principals, unveiling tacit knowledge and perspectives which may
have been overlooked in cultivating and promoting school improvement leading to little
or no progress. Nine elements were identified by participants as being critical to them
when trying to be effective while operating under the pressure of corrective status. These
nine elements – climate and culture, time, self-efficacy, experience, expectations,
relationships, professional development, money, and motivation – emerged with
additional subthemes providing a closer lens into what teachers and principals believe to
be important for climate and culture change within their individual contexts. A hierarchy
of basic or practical needs evolved from the results which provides a framework for
guiding school and district leaders when making decisions around climate and culture
change in low performing schools. Additionally, this knowledge can be used in
developing professional development to improve the self-efficacy of teachers and
principals for sustainable and continuing school improvement efforts.
Acknowledgements
First I want to acknowledge my husband, Jim. Thank you for your support, your
understanding, and your patience. I also thank you for being a partner in this journey,
always pushing me to get the next step completed, and for believing and knowing that I
would make it to the end. I love you and thank you for your patience and understanding
during this endeavor.
Second I would like to acknowledge Dr. Ann Armstrong without whom I would
not have been able to complete this journey. Thank you for always being there and for
your immediate feedback to my questions. I felt that you were truly invested in my
success and was always available for me when I needed you the most.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the administration of Northcentral University.
Although I often felt frustrated and defeated, there were adjustments made to enable me
to continue my journey and be able to follow through to the end. Thank you for not
giving up on me and for supporting my effort to complete this dissertation.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 3
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 4
Nature of the Study ....................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 8
Definition of Key Terms ............................................................................................... 9
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 12
Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journal Research ....................... 13
Teacher Self-Efficacy ................................................................................................. 15
Impact of Low Teacher Efficacy ................................................................................ 22
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Expectations ..................................................................... 27
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Motivation ........................................................................ 32
Principal Self-efficacy ................................................................................................ 40
Impact of Low Principal Self-Efficacy ....................................................................... 43
School Improvement ................................................................................................... 45
Climate and Culture .................................................................................................... 57
Ultimate Goal—Student Achievement ....................................................................... 62
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 63
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 65
Chapter 3: Research Method ............................................................................................. 70
Population ................................................................................................................... 71
Sample......................................................................................................................... 72
Materials/Instruments ................................................................................................. 72
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis ................................................................. 77
Assumptions................................................................................................................ 82
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 83
Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 84
Ethical Assurances ...................................................................................................... 85
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 86
Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................... 88
Field Test .................................................................................................................... 89
Sample Criteria ........................................................................................................... 89
Participant Recruitment .............................................................................................. 90
Sample Participants ..................................................................................................... 91
Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 102
Results ....................................................................................................................... 105
Review of the Main Findings .................................................................................... 174
Summary ................................................................................................................... 190
Chapter 5: Implications ................................................................................................... 192
Limitations ................................................................................................................ 193
Validity of findings ................................................................................................... 194
Implications............................................................................................................... 195
Guiding Question Implications ................................................................................. 196
Discussion of Findings in Relation to Research Literature ...................................... 201
Recommendations for Practice ................................................................................. 208
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 211
References ....................................................................................................................... 213
Appendixes ..................................................................................................................... 232
Appendix A: Letter of Consent ....................................................................................... 233
Appendix B: Instruments and Permissions for Use ........................................................ 234
Appendix C: Interview Guides ....................................................................................... 238
Appendix D: Requests to Post Recruitment Notice for Study Participants and Permission
Letter ............................................................................................................................... 240
Appendix E: Recruitment Statements ............................................................................. 244
List of Tables
Table 1 Search terms for Literature Review ................................................................... 14
Table 2 Start Codes .......................................................................................................... 81
Table 4 Demographics of participants ............................................................................. 93
Table 6 Emerging themes .............................................................................................. 104
Table 7 Frequency of Responses per Theme ................................................................. 105
Table 8 Climate and Culture .......................................................................................... 106
Table 9 Climate and Culture/Principal Responses......................................................... 107
Table 10 Climate and Culture/Teacher Responses ........................................................ 107
Table 11 Time ................................................................................................................ 111
Table 13 Time/Teacher Responses ................................................................................ 115
Table 14 Self-efficacy .................................................................................................... 118
Table 15 Self-efficacy/Principals ................................................................................... 119
Table 16 Self-efficacy of Teachers ................................................................................ 125
Table 17 Experiences ..................................................................................................... 131
Table 18 Experiences/Principals .................................................................................... 131
Table 19 Teacher Experiences ....................................................................................... 136
Table 20 Expectations .................................................................................................... 141
Table 21 Expectations/Principals ................................................................................... 142
Table 22 Teacher Expectations ...................................................................................... 146
Table 23 Professional Development .............................................................................. 153
Table 24 Professional Development/Principals ............................................................. 153
Table 25 Professional Development/Teachers............................................................... 156
Table 26 Relationships ................................................................................................... 160
Table 27 Relationships/Principals.................................................................................. 161
Table 28 Relationships/Teachers ................................................................................... 164
Table 29 Money ............................................................................................................. 165
Table 30 Money/Principals ............................................................................................ 166
Table 31 Money/Teachers.............................................................................................. 168
Table 33 Motivation/Principals...................................................................................... 169
Table 34 Motivation/Teachers ....................................................................................... 171
Table 35 Years in School Improvement ........................................................................ 179
Table 36 Survey Results ................................................................................................ 184
Table 37 Interview response rates per theme ................................................................. 185
Table 38 Frequency of Responses per theme ................................................................ 196
Table 39 Research question with supporting themes ..................................................... 197
List of Figures
Figure 1. Studies Conceptual Framework. ....................................................................... 64
Figure 2 Triangulation of Data. ........................................................................................ 79
Figure 3. The Conley Hierarchy for supporting principals and teachers during school
improvement. .................................................................................................................. 209
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Since the inception of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) urban school
personnel across the United States have worked to improve student achievement and
close the learning gaps that exist among the varying student populations (Good &
McCaslin, 2008). If schools fail to improve student achievement and close the learning
gaps, severe sanctions such as losing funding, restructuring staffs, or closing schools are
imposed (NCLB, 2001; Orr, Berg, Shore, & Meir, 2008).
Though there have been some improvement in these schools, there remain pockets
of schools still struggling to meet the standards established by NCLB (Center on
Educational Policy, 2008; Duncan, 2012; Lachlan-Haché, Naik, & Casserly, 2012)
despite thousands of dollars being spent on professional development, instructional
programs, hiring new staff, or restructuring schools using specialty programs (Center on
Educational Policy, 2008). In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) recognized the need to add additional supports to the accountability standards
put into place by NCLB (Lachlan-Haché et al., 2012). This Act provided financial
support to the lowest 5% of persistently low-performing schools through a program
called Education, Jobs, and Reform. The program required school districts to apply for a
School Improvement Grant, now known as the SIG grant, and to implement very specific
programs. These grants were good for 3 years and provided schools with funding to
provide professional development for teachers and principals. However, schools had to
demonstrate turnaround within those 3 years. There are schools still remaining within
urban areas of the country that have not met this challenge and are faced with
restructuring or closure (Lachlan-Haché et al., 2012).
Teachers are the most influential adults in a student’s academic career (Jerald,
2
2007; Kennedy & Smith, 2012; Shaterian, Asadzadeh, Ahadi, & Jomehri, 2011;
Takahashi, 2011; Tucker et al., 2005; Yenice, Evern, & Ozden, 2012). Teachers have the
most contact with students throughout the school day, and as a result, build influential
relationships with their students (Brackett, Reyes, Rivers, Elbertson, & Salovey, 2011;
Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Tucker et al., 2005).
Principals influence student performance, though in more indirect ways (Kurt,
Duyar, & Calik, 2012; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Lindahl, 2007). Their influence stems
through creating a safe learning environment that provides time on task for learning and
implementation of supports to enhance academic growth (Kurt et al., 2012; Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2008; Lindahl, 2007; Urick & Bowers, 2013). But when school staff are held
accountable for ensuring that even their lowest or most challenging students are as
proficient as less vulnerable peers, the pressure of the challenge begins to take a toll on
both teachers and administers (McCullers & Bozeman, 2010). Changes in instruction,
how the school must begin to operate, and what teachers and principals are expected to
do create an atmosphere of anxiety and stress, often resulting in further poor performance
(Kruse, 2008; Orr et al., 2008).
Teachers must possess a strong belief in their ability to have a positive impact on
student learning to bring about high student achievement (Klassen & Chiu, 2010;
Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Principals must possess a strong belief in
their ability to lead teachers, parents, and students in improving academic performance
(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). The sanctions put in place by NCLB and supported
through ARRA may be responsible for creating negative effects on the self-efficacy of
teachers and principals (McCormick, Ayers, & Beechy, 2006) and may be doing more
harm than good (Orr et al., 2008).
3
The rest of this chapter will discuss the problem, the purpose, the nature of the
study and the significance of the proposed study. The research questions are presented
and specific key terms defined.
Statement of the Problem
The general problem was that urban schools remain in corrective status despite
targeted professional development to improve instruction (Clarke, 2009; Evans, Thorton,
& Usinger, 2012; Finnigan, 2012; Good & McCaslin, 2008; U.S. Department of
Education [U.S. DOE], 2010). Much research attributed the failure of school
improvement initiatives on such variables as lack of sustained resources (Clarke, 2009),
failure to fully implement before changing to a new reform design (Kruse, 2008), teacher
modifications to implementation to better fit their own teaching styles (McIntyre & Kyle,
2006), mixed capacity to teacher professional development (Kruse, 2008), cultural
mismatch in the initiatives and the student population of a school (Smyth & McInerney,
2007; Willis, 2010; Wrigley, 2011), and a lack of belief in urban students’ ability to meet
high expectations for learning (Good & McCaslin, 2009; Rubie-Davies, 2007; Weinstein,
2002). Additionally, school reform had been found to have a negative effect on teacher
self-efficacy through loss of autonomy (Konings, Brand-Gruwel, & van Merrienbaer,
2007; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), fear of the unknown or unfamiliar practices
(McCormick et al., 2006), changes in teacher roles (Zimmerman, 2006), or conflicts in
vision or philosophy between teachers and the reform practices they are being asked to
implement (Margolis & Nagel, 2006). However, research focusing on teachers’ and
principals’ beliefs in their ability to make a difference while operating under these
sanctions is quite limited. The specific problem this study addressed was the gap in the
research on school level responses to high stakes accountability policies that are essential
4
to understanding the reason why so many schools continue to operate in corrective status
and what steps school leaders believed from their experiences need taken to improve
student achievement and learning in these schools.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative multi-case study was to explore and describe urban
teachers’ and principals’ self-efficacy throughout a change process by understanding each
groups’ beliefs about their strengths and abilities to promote student learning while also
dealing with the process of school improvement.
This qualitative multi-case study included teachers, principals, and assistant
principals from urban districts that had operated in a status of school improvement.
Performance data retrieved from the National Center for Educational Statistics (Sable,
Plotts, & Mitchell, 2010) served to provide information on urban school districts and
identify where these pockets of low performance were occurring. The use of professional
learning networks were utilized to recruit participants creating a sample population from
various regions across the United States.
Research Questions
Research on teacher self-efficacy and principal self-efficacy has shown that
teachers are overloaded with having to implement innovative instruction while taking on
additional responsibilities (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009), while principals often lack the
individual supports or resources necessary for leading school improvement unique to the
context of their own schools (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). This qualitative
method, multiple-case study design was informative for district and school administrators
for future professional development opportunities.
Guiding question. How are teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about their ability to
5
influence student learning impacted while implementing school improvement practices?
SQ1. What factors or experiences do teachers and principals see as having an
impact on their sense of self-efficacy either negatively or positively during these
changes?
SQ2. What knowledge, skills, or abilities do teachers and principals believe are
necessary, yet are missing, to improve their classroom and leadership practices to
positively impact student learning?
Nature of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative multi-case study was to explore and describe urban
teachers’ and principals’ self-efficacy throughout a change process by understanding each
group’s beliefs about their strengths and abilities to promote student learning, while also
dealing with the process of school improvement. This investigation used a qualitative
multiple-case study design employing the critical incident technique to explore the
constructs of teacher and principal self-efficacy as they were perceived by teachers and
principals in the context of the urban classroom during the change process while
implementing school improvement initiatives. Qualitative research designs take place in
natural settings where events are interpreted from the perspective of the participants
(Freeman, de Marrais, Preissle, Roulston, & St. Pierre, 2007). Using a qualitative method
allowed for rich dialogues with teachers and principals, leading them to interpret the
phenomenon of teacher or principal self-efficacy within the context of their individual
circumstances.
Use a multiple case study design for this investigation allowed for similar cases to
be reported on a single phenomenon within different contexts, thus adding strength to the
findings (Yin, 2013). Each teacher and principal experienced self-efficacy differently
6
within the context of the school improvement process specific to their urban setting.
Each of the teachers and principals who participated in the study became unique, single
units making each a different case (Yin, 2013). The use of critical incident technique
presented the phenomenon in a way that could be explored more deeply within the three
areas of teacher and principal self-efficacy as described by Tschannen-Moran and
Woolfolk Hoy (2001) and Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004).
This study utilized four data sources. The primary data source was the in-depth
semi-structured interviews using an interview guide created with the Critical Incident
Technique. The Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), the Principal Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (PSES; TschannenMoran & Gareis, 2004), along with the U.S. DOE data of school in need of improvement
(SINI) was used to determine the location of the school districts where the participants
worked as well as to determine the self-efficacy level where each participant perceived
themselves to be. The data collected through the two validated surveys and the data
retrieved from the U.S. DOE were used for convergence of evidence and along with the
data from the in-depth interviews were triangulated to produce accurate results (Yin,
2013). Yin (2013) emphasized that it is critical to triangulate case study data produced
through multiple sources.
The TSES is a well-established instrument used for the last decade to measure
teacher self-efficacy both nationally and internationally. The PSES, though not as
established, has been used internationally and adapted as well (Federici & Skaalvik,
2011), and has a proven record of validity. The TSES and PSES were administered
online through the online survey service, SurveyMonkey™. The target populations for
this study were teachers and principals in grades first through eight from urban settings,
7
specifically from schools that were in corrective action or had been at one time and had
experienced the school improvement change process. A sample of 13 teachers and
principals were solicited for participation through Internet sites established for the
purpose of professional learning networking as well as social media sites. A review of
the U.S. DOE database of the top 100 largest urban school districts took place as means
of identifying the pockets of low performing schools. Low performing school districts
are required to select one of four intervention models to be considered for the SIG. Each
model is structured with the goal of turning around school performance in terms of
student achievement. An additional analysis of the list, which identified which
turnaround model was selected by these low performing schools, served to identify which
schools within the reported districts had been in school improvement status for a number
of years and were cross-referenced with the surveys taken by teachers and principals as a
means of supporting survey findings.
Critical incident technique, known as CIT, is used to focus on critical events that
may impact performance either positively or negatively (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson,
& Maglio, 2005). CIT has been described as a systemic, inductive, and open-ended tool
that is naturalistic and allows participants freedom of expression when relating
experiences (Sharoff, 2008). Using a list of start codes, participant responses were placed
into categories to analyze and identify those incidences that appeared critical to
promoting certain behaviors. The research questions guiding this study were answered
via the personal experiences and perceptions of teachers and principals to identify those
behaviors that either hindered or promoted high efficacy as well as identifying which
skills and competencies teachers and principals felt were important, yet lacking, within
the context of their unique situation within the school improvement process.
8
The use of multiple data sources for measuring the same phenomenon has been
found to be a highly effective means of supporting findings on a single phenomenon
through triangulation of data (Yin, 2013). By bringing together the various data sources,
triangulation addressed the problems of construct validity because the different data
sources not only report on the same phenomenon but ultimately support the findings of
each of the other sources (Yin, 2013).
Significance of the Study
Schools often implement similar or even identical programs and policies, yet do
not achieve similar or identical outcomes (Kruse, 2008). Many schools have continued in
SINI status for a number of years (Lachlan-Haché et al., 2012). There is an abundant
number of studies that link school climate and culture to improved teacher self-efficacy
(Drago-Severson, 2012; Fullan, 2001; Kruse 2008; Roney, Coleman, & Schlichting,
2007; Vesley, Saklofske, & Leschied, 2013; Wahlstrom & Seashore Louis, 2008).
Additionally, there are studies that address principal leadership and self-efficacy for
bringing about turnaround in school performance (Fullan, 2006). This study investigated
the relationship of school improvement through climate and culture changes from the
position of the teachers and principals, unveiling tacit knowledge and perspectives that
may have been overlooked in cultivating and promoting school improvement, leading to
little or no progress. The opinions, concerns, and ideas of teachers and principals need to
be a part of the school improvement process (Tobin, Muller, & Turner, 2006; Wheatly,
2005) when implementing new strategies and promoting climate and culture changes.
This study produced such knowledge that can then be used in developing targeted
professional development for the improvement of the self-efficacy of teachers and
principals for sustainable and continuing school improvement efforts.
9
Definition of Key Terms
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This program evolved
out of a need to reinvent NCLB. This program provided funding to low-performing
schools, those which were in the lowest 5% of performance in their district, to put in
place school improvement models to turnaround their school performance and improve
student learning. An outgrowth of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, the ARRA provided funding through SIG that classified schools at
different tiers of need (Lachlan-Heché et al., 2012)
Principal self-efficacy. A principal’s sense of self–efficacy is the judgment or
perception a principal has about his or her ability to structure a course of action to
produce desired outcomes within the school he or she leads (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis,
2007).
Principal Self-Efficacy Scale (PSES). This scale was designed in an effort to
capture the construct and elements of principal self-efficacy. This instrument was
designed after the TSES and was designed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy
(2007). The PSES measures three elements of principal self-efficacy: efficacy for
management, efficacy for instructional leadership, and efficacy for moral leadership
(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004).
School In Need of Improvement (SINI). Under NCLB, schools that fail to meet
Annual Yearly Progress for 2 consecutive years are labeled SINI. These schools face
specific consequences for each year they remain in school improvement status (U.S.
DOE, 2010).
Self-efficacy of classroom management. Factors that are attributed to selfefficacy of classroom management include the ability to control disruptive behavior, to
10
get students to follow classroom and school rules, to redirect and calm disruptive or noisy
students, to make expectations clear for all students, to establish routines, and to establish
a classroom management system (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001)
Self-efficacy of instruction. Within the TSES factors that are attributed to selfefficacy of instruction include the ability to use a variety of assessments, to reteach using
alternative methods or explanations, to create higher order questions (providing rigor and
student discourse), and to answer difficult questions and provide challenges for capable
students or use alternative strategies for less capable students (Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001)
Self-efficacy of student engagement. Factors that are attributed to self-efficacy
of student engagement include getting students to believe they can successfully complete
assignments, the ability to motivate students who show little or no interest in their
schoolwork, to assist families in helping their student do well in school, to improve
understanding for failing students, to promote student creativity, and show an ability to
get through to the toughest students (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001)
Teacher Efficacy Scale (TSES). This is a Likert scale that measures teacher
self-efficacy in three areas: self-efficacy of instruction, self-efficacy of student
engagement, and self-efficacy for classroom management (Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The scale has a rating code from 1 (nothing) through 9 (a great
deal).
Teacher self-efficacy. A teacher’s belief in how effectively he or she can
successfully design and deliver instruction that impacts student learning (TschannenMoran, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
11
Summary
Pockets of schools still struggle to meet accountability mandates put into place by
NCLB. In 2009, the ARRA recognized the need for additional support. Financial
support in the form of SIG was given to failing schools in the lowest 5% for performance.
To qualify for the grant schools had to select one of the five turn around models required
by the Federal Government. The pressure of these programs for schools to improve has
taken a toll on the motivation and self-efficacy of teachers and principals (Gross, Booker,
& Goldhaber, 2009; Isler & Cakiroglu, 2009; Lee & Wong, 2004; McCormick et al.,
2006). Teachers are the most influential person in a student’s academic career (Jerald,
2007; Kennedy & Smith, 2012; Takahashi, 2011). Principals have an indirect, though
powerful, effect on student learning by creating a safe and orderly environment
conducive to learning (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Niesche & Jorgensen, 2010; Williams,
2010).
This study used a multi-case study design to explore and describe the levels of
urban teacher and principal self-efficacy during a school improvement process. The
primary source of data collection used in-depth interviews through the CIT. Transcripts
of participant responses to the questions in the CIT were used to analyze data and identify
the actions or ideas considered crucial to raising the levels of self-efficacy in teacher and
principals to bring about authentic school improvement. Data were collected using the
TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and the PSES (Tschannen-Moran &
Gareis, 2004) for convergence purposes and was triangulated with the interview
responses providing support for what urban teachers and principals believed to be
important to them for bringing about effective school improvement.
12
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The general research question to be studied in this investigation was how
teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about their ability to influence student learning impacted
while implementing school improvement practices? Along with this general question
were two sub-questions: SQ1: what factors or experiences do teachers and principals see
as having an impact on their sense of self-efficacy either negatively or positively during
these changes and SQ2: what knowledge, skills, or abilities do teachers and principals
believe are necessary, yet are missing, to improve their classroom and leadership
practices to positively impact student learning? Fullan (2001) suggested that there exists
tacit knowledge among teachers experiencing change that could be found to be
fundamental to the success or failure to school reform. Teachers also experience a
change or flux in their levels of self-efficacy when experiencing school improvement
(Wheatly, 2005). Teacher self-efficacy has a direct effect on student achievement in the
area of motivation, instruction, and classroom management (Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Principal self-efficacy for leading change has a direct impact on
teacher self-efficacy; thus, having an indirect, yet powerful, impact on student
achievement (Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2004). Additionally principal self-efficacy
has a direct effect on the climate and culture of a school (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis,
2004), which is the heart of school improvement (Deal & Peterson, 1998).
The following literature review will present research on teacher self-efficacy and
principal self-efficacy, the effects of the school improvement process on teacher selfefficacy and principal self-efficacy, the experience of leading and teaching in SINI, and
the effects these constructs have on student achievement and learning. The research
presented in this literature review indicates the need to investigate how much influence
13
teacher and principal self-efficacy has on the reform efforts of urban SINI schools. The
review will also consider research on climate and culture and show how the creation of a
positive school culture influences an organization’s effectiveness (Wahlstrom & Seashore
Louise, 2008). The literature will demonstrate a need to consider principal and teacher
self-efficacy as a contributing factor to the success or failure of the school improvement
process in urban schools and present effective practices for raising self-efficacy.
Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journal Research
There is an abundant amount of research on school reform effects on teacher
motivation, self-efficacy, and well-being. There are also a large number of studies on the
area of effects of climate and culture on teacher self-efficacy along with several studies
on leadership. However, there does not appear to be many studies that address the effects
of teacher and principal self-efficacy on the school improvement process.
The following literature review includes over 300 articles that were retrieved from
university databases ProQuest, Sage Publications, Teacher College Record, Science
Direct, and EBSCOhost and include such journals as Teaching and Teacher Learning,
The Journal of Educational Leadership, The Journal of Classroom Interactions,
American Educational Research Journal, the NAASP Bulletin, and The Journal of
Educational Administration. Additional journals that addressed leader efficacy,
motivation, and self-efficacy included Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Social Behavior and Personality, Journal of Staff Development, The International
Journal of Business and Social Sciences, and Current Psychology. Included in this
search were also various book publications in the area of leadership, climate and culture
change for improvement, and teacher perspectives on student learning, effects of
expectations and context on teaching and learning, and theories on motivation. Search
14
terms used included teacher self-efficacy, teacher expectations, principal self-efficacy,
school leadership, school improvement, school reform, student achievement,
organizational change, and varying combinations of each. Three pieces of
documentation came from the U.S. DOE database. Table 1 shows the search terms used
singularly and in combinations when developing this literature review and conceptual
framework.
Table 1
Search terms for Literature Review
E-books
Dissertations
& Thesis
Scholarly
Journals
Trade
Journals
Conference
Papers
Teacher self-efficacy
2,175
25,537
5,183
454
77
Teacher expectations
36,184
104,116
33,988
8,260
0
Teacher self-efficacy
and teacher expectation
0
23,278
2875
183
35
School Improvement
0
178,175
99,924
37,684
0
Teacher Self-efficacy
and School
Improvement
2,002
20,368
2,194
132
0
Teacher self-efficacy
and student achievement
1,904
21,158
3,056
215
31
Teacher motivation
30,857
96,928
28,253
4,306
0
Teacher Self-efficacy
and teacher Motivation
2,088
22,654
3,376
178
59
School Climate and
Culture
44,181
73,681
23,527
3,811
0
Teacher self-efficacy
and school climate and
culture
1,649
12,061
3,376
178
1
Teacher self-efficacy
and instruction
1,669
21,098
2,913
176
39
Teacher self-efficacy
and student engagement
1,729
17,932
1,956
128
35
Search Terms
15
E-books
Dissertations
& Thesis
Scholarly
Journals
Trade
Journals
Conference
Papers
Principal Self-efficacy
and School
Improvement
2,124
17, 430
1,026
60
16
Principal Self-efficacy
and student achievement
1,878
17,087
1,167
89
11
Principal self-efficacy
and climate and culture
1,715
10,290
482
20
7
Principal Self-efficacy
and Teacher Selfefficacy
1,749
17,397
1,373
114
0
School Leadership and
Teacher Self-efficacy
1
3
1,286
0
0
School leadership and
teacher motivation
1
6
5,460
0
0
School leadership and
climate and culture
1
8
9,162
0
0
School Leadership and
School improvement
1
9
20,015
0
0
Search Terms
Teacher Self-Efficacy
The theory of self-efficacy grew out of the Bandura’s research on the topic
(1977). He argued that personal behavior was based on performance-based experiences.
He posed that individuals are cognizant of their own behaviors in given settings and
continually make judgments about those behaviors and react accordingly. He defined
efficacy as an expectation of one’s ability to successfully implement behaviors needed to
bring about a desired outcome. He further found that self-efficacy was context specific
and could be improved within context based on four sources (a) mastery experiences, (b)
vicarious experiences, (c) verbal persuasion, and (d) emotional arousal. Mastery
experiences have been found to be the most effective means of raising self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1977, Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
16
Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) postulated that teacher self-efficacy
is an abstract construct not only because it is not something that is concrete, but also
because it is a perspective of each individual teacher on how effectively he or she is able
to influence student learning despite student personal backgrounds or deficits. Selfefficacy is not a function of individual ability but is a judgment of one’s ability to
successfully achieve a predetermined outcome (Yenice et al., 2012). Teacher selfefficacy is influenced by many factors both internal and external to their immediate
instructional environment, including student conduct, unfamiliarity with content,
administrative mandates, district reform initiatives, and parent support (TschannenMoran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Locus of control may add to teachers’ low sense of selfefficacy (Al-Fadhli & Singh, 2006). When teachers perceive they have no control over
internal or external factors that affect their teaching, they are less motivated to improve
their practice (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). However, people with beliefs in internal
control believe their own behaviors are effective as a result of their experiences; whereas,
people who believe external factors are in control will make little effort to change or
improve even the smallest things (Yenice et al., 2012). Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk
Hoy (2007) studied the self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service and in-service teachers, finding
that context factors seemed to support high self-efficacy among pre-service teachers
where contextual factors had little importance to in-service teachers. Siwatu (2011)
explored how well prepared pre-service teachers felt about teaching in suburban schools
compared to being prepared to teach in urban schools. Pre-service teachers felt better
prepared to teach in suburban schools because these were closer to their own experience,
yet felt unprepared to teach students who were English Language Learners. Siwatu
called for providing self-efficacy building activities and creating a system of supports for
17
pre-service and novice teachers.
Following the theories of Bandura, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001)
developed an instrument to measure teacher self-efficacy in three areas: self-efficacy for
instruction, self-efficacy for student engagement, and self-efficacy for classroom
management. Like Bandura, they found that individuals with a high sense of efficacy
would persist through obstacles and put forth great effort to accomplish their goal
whereas, an individual of low efficacy would not. Their instrument, The Teacher Sense
of Self-Efficacy Scale, placed teacher self-efficacy on a continuum, which placed selfefficacy not only at different levels but showed that one could have high self-efficacy in
one area and not in another. This promoted further studies of teacher self-efficacy in
varying contexts for instruction in specific content matter (Cantrell & Callaway, 2007,
2008; Corkett, Hatt, & Benevides, 2011; Isler & Cakiroglu, 2009).
Efficacy for instruction. It is important to determine teacher sense of selfefficacy to promote and develop students’ sense of self-efficacy (Yenice et al., 2012).
Efficacy for instruction refers to the teacher’s ability to effectively deliver instruction to
all students along with using a variety of assessments, reteach using alternative methods
or explanations, create higher order questions providing rigor and student discourse,
answer difficult questions, and provide challenges for capable students or use alternative
strategies for less capable students (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
Teachers’ instructional behaviors can greatly influence student work habits by
encouraging them to participate in classroom activities (Turner & Patrick, 2004).
Perceived teacher support is important for students at risk for academic failure (Mercer,
Nellis, Matinez, & Kirk, 2011).
Research has shown that students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged often
18
have weaker teachers, who use less conceptual instruction and more procedural
instruction; whereas, students who are from higher socioeconomic backgrounds generally
have stronger teachers who deliver instruction that is conceptual and uses high-order
thinking (Desimone & Long, 2010). However, teachers who have strong self-efficacy for
teaching school populations of higher socio-economic status may not be as effective in
schools with high poverty rates (Pretorius, 2012).
The developmental characteristics of students should be the deciding force when
teachers make daily decisions about appropriate teaching strategies (Teague, Anafara,
Wilson, Gaines, & Beavers, 2012). It has been argued that teacher effectiveness may be
the single most important factor leading to school improvement (Pretorius, 2012).
Teaching practices, good or bad, impact student learning three to four years after the
student has left the classroom (Pretorius, 2012). By the time students reach secondary
school it is too late to correct years of educational neglect (Pretorius, 2012). Students
should be active participants in their education; therefore, it is important that instruction
is relevant to their academic needs and learning styles (Teague et al., 2012).
Efficacy for student engagement. Efficacy for student engagement has no clear
definition and is an obscure concept (Tyler & Boelter, 2008). Student engagement has
been shown to be a multidimensional construct involving many facets of students’
motivation and interest in school and academics (Zyngier, 2008). Factors that are
attributed to self-efficacy of student engagement include getting students to believe they
can successfully complete assignments, motivating students who show little or no interest
in their schoolwork, assisting families in helping their student do well in school,
improving understanding for failing students, promoting student creativity, and showing
an ability to get through to the toughest students (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
19
2001). Additionally, Teachers who are able to create a pro-social classroom environment
develop expectations for student behavior despite individual differences, model care and
interest toward their work, and provide students with constructive feedback boost student
engagement and interest in learning (Mojavezi & Tamizs, 2012). Student perceived level
of teacher support is critical for student motivation and school success (Mercer et al.,
2011).
Relationships between teachers and students influence the classroom climate
(Mojave & Tamizs, 2012). Students who feel supported and cared for by the teacher
have been found to be more engaged in learning; however, students who perceive the
teacher as being cold and distant display poor academic performance and poor social
behavior (Mojavezi & Tamizs, 2012). Conversely, research has found that teachers often
do not feel responsible for engaging students but rather expect students to be receptive to
instruction thereby becoming engaged (Harris, 2011). Schools under the pressure of
accountability may have difficulty creating and sustaining a nurturing environment (Lee,
2012).
Student motivation is key to student engagement in learning and their academic
self-efficacy (Mercer et al., 2011). Schools have a great influence on students’
engagement by promoting or suppressing students’ opportunity for engagement (Lee,
2012). During school reform, teachers experience resentment toward added tasks, the
change in curriculum, and required professional development resulting in a misalignment
of teacher–student interactions for teaching and learning, resulting in lowered teacher and
student motivation (McCaslin, 2008). Motivation is effected by interactions between
people’s active nature and their social environment and can be suppressed or supported
by a person’s active nature (Deci & Ryan, 2008). It is important that teachers create an
20
effective learning environment where their own motivation influences student motivation
and engagement in their learning (Muller & Hanfstingl, 2010).
Lee (2012) postulated that students who disengage from school have poor
academic performance, have behavior problems, and a higher dropout rate. He further
argued that academic failure and dropping out are the result of years of school
disengagement. Lower levels of student engagement lead to higher levels of classroom
disruptions, absenteeism, and school drop-outs (Tyler & Boelter, 2008).
There are two types of student engagement (Lee, 2012). Behavior engagement is
described as the participation in academic and nonacademic activities at school (Lee,
2012). Emotional engagement is when students have a sense of belonging and can
identify with the school (Lee, 2012). Students who have a strong relationship with their
teachers are more behaviorally and emotionally engaged with their learning (Lee, 2012).
However, teachers may be causing a decrease in student behavioral engagement for
academics by focusing too much on participation in schooling such as preparing for class
and following routines and procedures (Harris, 2011).
Kelly and Finnigan (2003) argued that minorities and disadvantaged students will
have lower levels of engagement. Disadvantaged students are more likely to have weaker
reading and writing skills effecting their level of engagement in classroom activities and
tasks (Kelly & Finnigan, 2003), thus leading to reduced academic growth. Relationships
between student and teachers influence classroom climate. When teachers create and
encourage a pro-social classroom students are more strongly interested in school
(Majovazi & Tamiz, 2012). Further, when students feel supported and cared for they are
more engaged in learning as opposed to students who perceived the teacher to be cold
and distant (Majovazi & Tamiz, 2012).
21
Efficacy for classroom management. Efficacy of classroom management
includes the ability to control disruptive behavior, get students to follow classroom and
school rules, redirect and calm disruptive or noisy students, make expectations clear for
all students, establish routines, and establish a classroom management system
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Roache and Lewis (2011) found there are
two styles of classroom management. A coercive style of management uses punishment
and exhibits aggressive teacher behavior, whereas a relationship building style uses a
positive and respectful form of discipline, positively influencing defiant behavior.
Roache and Lewis concluded that teachers who used a more positive and inclusive
classroom management style produced students who are more responsible for their own
behaviors and the behavior of their peers. They went on to say teachers who used a more
aggressive punitive approach actually caused negative student behaviors. Teachers who
exhibit a coercive style of classroom management were positively linked to low selfefficacy, where teachers who built positive relationships with their student exhibited high
levels of self-efficacy (Roache & Lewis, 2011). Students value teacher characteristics
that include having good classroom control, involvement with students and their
circumstances, respect, fairness, and showing kindness and caring (Vesley et al., 2013).
Teacher self-efficacy (in concert with the emotional state of the individual)
regulates choices, effort, and persistence in the face of obstacles (Siwatu, Frazier,
Osaghae, & Starker, 2011). People with high belief in their capabilities (i.e., high selfefficacy) tend to approach difficult tasks as challenges rather than as problems or
obstacles and set out to master these challenges (Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008). Schwarzer
and Hallum (2008) found these efficacious individuals are seen as being more organized,
develop positive relationships with students, are better at problem solving, and are more
22
resilient and willing to try again if they fail at a task. Conversely, teachers with a
lowered sense of self-efficacy tend to feel they have no control over these circumstances
and tend to exert less effort toward instruction (Takahashi, 2011). Teachers with low
self-efficacy tend to avoid difficult tasks, focusing instead on their own deficiencies and
their perceived inability to approach a problem (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Further,
low student achievement negatively affects teacher self-efficacy; depressing it over time,
resulting in a sense of failure that in turn leads to a loss of faith in their ability to
influence student achievement (Takahashi, 2011).
The relationships students have with their teachers also affect their learning (Yeo,
Ang, Chong, Huan, & Quek, 2008). Yeo et al. (2008) found warmth and supportiveness
toward students from teachers was strongly linked to students’ achievement and a
positive sense of community. Teachers must believe that their behaviors can influence
student learning and begin to build caring relationships with their students to generate
positive classroom interactions and a culture of high expectations and support for student
achievement (Hughes, Wu, & West, 2009). Teacher behaviors and interactions with
students can either enhance or diminish student achievement and their social–emotional
growth (Muller & Hanfstingl, 2010; Rim-Kaufman & Hamre, 2010). If teachers do not
believe they are competent to carry out instructional changes or if their teaching
philosophies conflict with the reforms they are being asked to implement, students and
their learning will be negatively affected (Rubie-Davies, 2007).
Impact of Low Teacher Efficacy
Although there has been limited examination of the impact of low teacher selfefficacy on educational reform efforts and what attributes need to be in place to raise the
level of teacher self-efficacy (Chong, Klassen, Huan, Wong, & Kates, 2010;
23
Schwackhamer, Koellner, Basile, & Kimbrough, 2009), more recent studies have
considered individual teacher self-efficacy and its effects on student learning (TschannenMoran & Johnson, 2011).
Teacher self-efficacy is influenced by internal and external factors, including
student conduct, unfamiliarity with content, administrative mandates, district reform
initiatives, and parent support (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). NCLB
(2001) has forced school leaders to move quickly to improve teachers’ classroom
performance as a means of improving student achievement. This demand has added
stress for teachers who may already be experiencing low self-efficacy or for teachers who
believed they had high self-efficacy but are now faced with doubt as they are required to
implement new, unfamiliar practices that may not be consistent with their own
philosophy of how students learn (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). When teachers feel they
have no control over internal or external factors that affect their teaching, they are less
motivated to improve their practice (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). A teaching staff with
high efficacy will also have a high locus of control and are more likely to collaborate in
making instructional decisions for students, while a teaching staff with a lowered feeling
of control may be less motivated to engage in such collaboration (Al-Fadhli & Singh,
2006; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010).
Low teacher self-efficacy can negatively affect student behavior as well as student
learning. Narvaez, Khmelkov, Vaydich, and Turner (2008) found a link between teacher
self-efficacy and students’ moral development. Teachers with low self-efficacy felt that
they had little influence over student behavior. Negative teacher–student relationships
are often fueled by mistrust and conflict, which has a negative effect on student learning
(Split, Koomen, & Thijs, 2011). Conversely, teacher classroom behavior has been linked
24
to teacher self-efficacy with regard to positive student outcomes, including moral
behavior (Narvaez et al., 2008).
Another aspect of low teacher self-efficacy is that it leads to teacher burnout
(Grayson & Alverez, 2008). This relationship has been found in urban schools where
efficacy, expectations, and overall confidence in teaching ability are all low (Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2010). Teachers in these environments become physically and emotionally
drained and feel unsupported (Margolis & Nagel, 2006). When schools, as organizations,
experience perceived negative organizational politics, there are greater interpersonal
conflicts and the values of the school are not appropriately voiced or reinforced (Chan et
al., 2008).
Teacher self-efficacy is not how capable one is, but rather how capable one
believes him or herself to be (Erdem & Demirel, 2007). Teacher burnout and
dissatisfaction are a result of teachers who are functioning with perceived low selfefficacy in their present situation or of teachers who see themselves as being ineffective
even though they are (Moé et al., 2010; Shwarzer & Hallum, 2008). Low student
achievement, for example, can lead to a cycle of dissatisfaction (Takahashi, 2011).
Similarly, events that take place in the classroom add to the effects on teacher selfefficacy (Martin, Sass, & Schmitt, 2011). Events related to student engagement and
classroom management influence how teachers approach instruction (Martin et al., 2011).
Teachers who are effective with one population may not be as effective with a different
population of students (Hong, Green, & Hertzell, 2011). Additionally, low salaries and
frequent reorganizations add to the dissatisfaction felt by teachers. Teachers also become
dissatisfied when they experience a decrease in their self-efficacy if they believe they are
not capable of handling difficult tasks as a part of their job (Verešová & Malá, 2012).
25
Teacher burnout and dissatisfaction, however, can be remedied.
Cagle and Hopkins (2009) conducted a review of literature on the research of
teacher self-efficacy and concluded that school leaders can “turn around” marginal
teachers by tapping into the four sources for improving self-efficacy: (a) mastery
experiences, (b) vicarious experiences, (c) social persuasion, and (d) physiological states
(Albert Bandura, as cited by Cagle & Hopkins, 2009), leading to improved student
learning. They postulated that administrators could use these four factors when
monitoring marginal teachers to aid in improving teacher self-efficacy therefore resulting
in improved student achievement. They suggested that principals work with teachers in a
differentiated manner catering to where they see a weakened sense of self-efficacy and
working with marginal teachers to help strengthen and improve their self-efficacy.
Teacher sense of self-efficacy is context specific (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2001) therefore providing support through one of the four elements for raising selfefficacy would bring about higher levels of teacher confidence and ability in the which
they are performing marginally.
Teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy are more likely to create a masteryfocused classroom environment (Cho & Shim, 2013). Mastery oriented learning
environments promote student interaction, emphasize student effort to master a task, and
believe that learning is an active process (Kelly, Heneman, & Milanowski, 2002). In
contrast, performance oriented classrooms focus on formal assessments of skills, grades,
and performance (Kelly et al., 2002). Mastery-goal-oriented students or teachers exert
more effort and persistence in learning and mastering skills (Turner & Patrick, 2004).
Performance-oriented individuals will only attempt tasks that they know they can be
successful with and will avoid those tasks that they view as difficult or impossible for
26
them to successful complete (Kelly et al., 2002; Turner & Patrick, 2004).
Teacher self-efficacy has been found to be context specific (Yeo et al., 2008) and
shown to be a major source of motivation and commitment in every aspect of teaching
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, as cited in Moé, Pazzaglia, & Roconni, 2010). As
a result, teachers will assess the context in which they have to perform a task and will
make judgments about their ability to complete the task based on the context or situation
they are faced with (Takahashi, 2011). For example, when teachers are faced with an
ethnically diverse classroom they experience frustration when they do not know how to
work with students from nontraditional backgrounds (Sirota & Bailey, 2009; Siwatu et
al., 2011; Sosa & Gomez, 2012). These teachers tend to display low self-efficacy
compared to teachers of more traditional backgrounds (Takahashi, 2011). Likewise,
teachers who are struggling in their personal adjustment can negatively affect classroom
learning and individual student well-being, thus compromising the overall educational
system (Vesley et al., 2013). This threat can also undermine the collective efficacy of a
school (Chong et al., 2010).
The effects of teacher self-efficacy are not only experienced within the classroom
but also within the school as a whole (Chong et al., 2010; Smadar & Koslowsky, 2009).
Collective teacher efficacy is belief by the teaching community of a school that the
faculty as a whole can promote high student achievement through academic emphasis and
innovative instruction (Smith & Hoy, 2007). A teaching staff with high collective
efficacy will also have a high locus of control and are more likely to collaborate in
making instructional decisions for students, while schools with a lowered feeling of
control are less motivated to engage in such collaboration (Al-Fadhli & Singh, 2006).
Collective teacher efficacy has been shown to bring about a positive school
27
climate, improved student achievement, improved teacher sense of self-efficacy (Smith &
Hoy, 2007), as well as teachers taking responsibility for student learning (Takahashi,
2011). In a study of academic optimism, Smith and Hoy (2007) found that collective
efficacy and academic press were the driving force behind successful urban schools.
They suggested that academic press and collective efficacy were in a reciprocal
relationship with each reinforcing the other. Collective teacher efficacy has also been
found to have a positive effect on individual teacher self-efficacy (Chong et al., 2010;
Smadar & Koslowsky, 2009). However, individual teacher self-efficacy adds to or takes
away from the strength of the collective efficacy (Smadar & Koslowsky, 2009).
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Expectations
Much of the expectations literature described how teachers hold lowered
expectations for urban, ethnic or racial minority students, or for students who come from
a lower socioeconomic status (Payne, 2011; Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003; Rhee,
2010; Weinstein, 2002), which in most cases are the urban, racial or ethnic minority
students. Payne (2011) explored ways to change how teachers think about racial or
ethnic minority students to raise those expectations. From a different perspective, selfefficacy literature stresses that teachers who have low self-efficacy for working with
ethnic or racial minority students will blame the student for their own lack of success,
thus holding them to a lower expectation for learning (Sirota & Bailey, 2009; Sosa &
Gomez, 2012; Tucker et al., 2005). Teachers of students of low socioeconomic status
may experience low self-efficacy, feeling that they do not possess the skills needed to
effectively teach this population and that their efforts will have little or no influence on
student learning (Auwater & Aruguete, 2008). This perception becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy, resulting in lowered efforts to influence student learning. Although teachers
28
are told all students can learn, their own experiences tend to tell them otherwise (Sirota &
Bailey, 2009). Leading sociology specialists, Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) identified
what is now known as the Pygmalion effect, showing that teacher expectations tended to
cause students to perform as the teacher expects. Forty years later, this finding remains
valid (Halvorsen, Lee, & Andrade, 2009). Teacher expectations affect how students
perceive their own ability to learn (Tenebaum & Ruck, 2007).
Teacher self-efficacy has been found to have a great effect on teacher
expectations. Although teacher expectancy is related to teacher self-efficacy, it is quite
different (Kelly & Finnigan, 2003). Teacher expectancy is the belief about the extent that
effort is likely to lead to specific student outcomes (Kelly & Finnigan, 2003). Teacher
expectations and practices are linked to student motivation (Wooley, Strutchens, Gilbert,
& Martin, 2010). However, students perceive teacher expectations differently
(Weinstein, 2002).
Teacher expectancy has been found to be the strongest predictor of school
improvement (Kelly & Finnigan, 2003). In their 2003 study on the effects of
organizational context on teacher expectancy, Kelly and Finnigan (2003) focused on
teacher expectancy as determined by their own beliefs about how their efforts effect
student achievement and the effects of school based-performance reward programs.
Their study included the variables of characteristics of the school, teacher knowledge and
skills, teacher attitudes, and organizational context such as principal leadership and
professional learning community. Using a qualitative design, Kelly and Finnigan
constructed two survey instruments with questions that were selected from prior research
on the motivational impact of school-based performance reward programs. These
surveys were distributed to more than 8,000 teachers in both Kentucky and Charlotte–
29
Mecklenburg resulting in a little over 3,500 participants completing the surveys. The
results showed teacher attitude, organizational context, and school demographic variables
were significant in predicting teacher expectancy. Teacher characteristics did not show
to be predictors of teacher expectancy. Fairness, feedback, principal support,
professional community, and reward history predicted teacher expectancy over teacher
knowledge and skills, goal clarity, resource alignment, and student SES. Kelly and
Finnigan ultimately found that though teacher expectancy was perhaps the strongest
factor in student achievement, expectancy did not originate from teachers but rather from
what was expected of teachers themselves. The pressure of high accountability sanctions
for not meeting targets overshadow the teacher characteristics often needed to support
high expectations and meaningful relationships with students.
High teacher self-efficacy leads to higher teacher expectations for their students
(Rubie-Davies, 2007) resulting in teachers taking responsibility for student learning.
Students whose teachers have low expectations of them develop a lowered self-image and
tend to exert less effort, which in turn causes teachers to give them less challenging
assignments (Rubie-Davies, 2007). It is important for teachers to realize how they
influence their students’ learning through their own self-efficacy beliefs (Corkett et al.,
2011). Students will have low self-efficacy if they believe they are not able to perform
the task being asked of them. Similarly, students will be resilient in their self-efficacy by
forming strong relationships with teachers who possess a high sense of self-efficacy
(Sosa & Gomez 2012). Teacher–student relationships substantially impact student selfefficacy and student academic performance (Tyler & Boelter, 2008). Rubie-Davies
(2007) postulated that children experience varying classroom environments both
academically and socio-emotionally, and that these environments shape students’ self-
30
image and ability to learn. She found that differences in classroom environments
contributed to differences in student learning. Teachers who hold low expectations of
students do not take responsibility for the students’ failure to learn, instead blaming the
students and their families (Cantrell & Callaway, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2007). However, Weinstein (2002) postulated that if teachers embrace the
knowledge that children have multiple abilities that are malleable and that all can meet a
specified standard, they will expand their teaching strategies and offer a wider range of
performance opportunities. She argued that this change in attitude will shift
responsibility for failure from the student to the teacher. Weinstein further contended
that if teachers believe their actions and efforts have a limited effect on the successful
learning of their students, they may lower their expectations and revise their instruction to
reflect those low expectations to bring about what they perceive as successful experiences
for them (de la Torre Cruz & Casanova Arias, 2007).
Low expectations depress student learning (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003).
Children interpret the unspoken meanings underlying teacher behaviors in teachers’
actions and nonverbal cues as a way the teacher identifies their level of smartness
(Weinstein, 2002). It is through these interpretations that children begin to delineate the
differential treatment as relative difference in their abilities compared to their classmates
(Weinstein, 2002).When students believe that their teachers care about them and their
learning needs, they perform better. Yeo et al. (2008) suggested that unless teachers
convey a sense of caring that reaches the students’ psychological and social needs,
students will fail to perceive them as sources of instrumental help. Bosack, Vega,
McCaslin, and Good (2008) explored how teachers supported students’ autonomy and
how students reacted to the support. They found that students who felt supported by their
31
teachers were more successful. Expectations of the teachers were not directly stated in
the study but the study implied levels of expectations for student ability and use of
autonomy. Their study showed that although teachers allowed student autonomy and
time to interact with peers in an instructional setting, such opportunities were limited and
did not allow for extension of what students had learned nor did the teachers allow for
student reflection on their learning of the topic. Similarly, research has found that
teachers tend to provide more opportunities to learn to students seen as more capable than
to students identified as struggling (Weinstein, 2002).
Teachers who exhibit high levels of efficacy persevere despite students’ low
socioeconomic status and take responsibility for their students’ learning (Halvorsen et al.,
2009), holding all students to higher standards and working to ensure that each student
fulfills those expectations. Sensitive and warm teacher–student interactions improve
academics and behavior (Hughes et al., 2009) leading to heightened self-efficacy for both
the teacher and the student. However, if teachers and principals have not been properly
equipped with the knowledge, resources, and support necessary to encourage all children
to reach their full potential, then their own self-efficacy will be lowered resulting in
lowered student performance (Weinstein, 2002).
Teachers with high expectations for student learning make more instructional
comments and give more feedback on student performance than those with low
expectations (Rubie-Davies, 2007). The latter group of teachers used fewer instructional
comments, substituting procedural statements and giving little or no feedback on student
performance. By supporting learning goals that focus on the demands of the task rather
than on performance through the promotion of cooperation over competitiveness teachers
will add dimension to student engagement and willingness to expand their effort to meet
32
hard challenges (Weinstein, 2002). Improvement in both teacher self-efficacy and
teacher expectations are needed to bring about an increase in student learning.
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Motivation
Like teacher expectations, teacher self-efficacy also affects how much effort a
teacher will put forth to implement instruction. Teacher motivation is another area that
strongly impacts student achievement (Muller & Hanfstinl, 2010) and is linked to teacher
self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Self-efficacy is the belief or
perception of an individual on his or her ability to implement actions or behaviors needed
to reach a desired outcome (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Motivation is
fueled by self-efficacy. Motivation is a person’s desire to put forth effort and actions
required to reach specific outcomes (Vancouver, 2008). Teacher motivation is as an
important factor in creating an effective educational system (Muller & Hanfstingl, 2010).
Motivation is the driving force behind personal actions and work (Shah, Rehman,
Akhtar, Zafar, & Riaz, 2012). All people want to feel competent, autonomous, and
related to others (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Employee morale is high when employees are
properly motivated, which can take an organization to prosperity or conversely to
downfall if they are not properly motivated (Shah et al., 2012). When these needs are
supported through the social environment, such as the organization, motivation is
optimally supported (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Perceived organizational support contributes
to overall job satisfaction (Bolger & Nir, 2012). Administrative support and handling of
problems along with caring for employees boosts job satisfaction and increases
motivation (Shah et al., 2012).
Motivation theory is an outgrowth of self-determination theory (Lam & Gurland,
2008). Self-determination is the extent an individual has eternalized a task or taken
33
ownership (Lam & Gurland, 2008). Self-determination theory states that there are two
types of motivation—extrinsic and intrinsic (Moran, Diefendorff, Kim, & Liu 2012).
Extrinsic motivation involves external influences such as tangible rewards. Intrinsic
motivation is motivation that is derived from personal values or interests.
Dweck (2000) identified two types of motivation—helplessness and mastery.
Helplessness is behavior that is motivated through a desire to appear successful and avoid
failure (Dweck, 2000). People who demonstrate learned helplessness are motivated to do
only those tasks that they know they can be successful with, while people who are
motivated through mastery will put forth great effort to master a skill in the face of failure
(Dweck, 2000). Mastery motivated people will work through their failures until they
have achieved mastery (Dweck, 2000). Self-efficacy involves a person’s judgment of
perceived skills and effort necessary to reach a desired outcome (Bandura, 1977;
Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Motivation, therefore, is influenced by a
sense of self-efficacy (Vancouver, 2008). The amount of effort an individual puts forth
toward that task and his or her self-efficacy for a task determines the amount of
motivation she or he has for the task (Kroth, 2007).
Self-determination theory further proposes that people seek to fulfill basic
psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Bieg, Rickelman, Jones,
& Mittag, 2013; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Milyavskaya & Koestner, 2011). Therefore, the
environment is an important factor because there will either be support or a lack of
support opportunities to fulfill these needs (Bieg et al., 2013). Deci and Ryan (2008)
contended that positive feedback promotes intrinsic motivation by providing positive
competent information, thereby satisfying the need for feeling competent. Feeling
competent about enacting behavior will lead to full internalizing the regulation of the
34
behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Negative feedback will undermine the development of
intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2012). People seek goals that allow for support for
their need for satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Additionally, Deci and Ryan (2000)
determined that extrinsic motivation over an extended period of time will diminish
intrinsic motivation, replacing it entirely. The use of monetary or tangible rewards for
performance will create a sense of being controlled as opposed to the feeling of autonomy
and doing things because of internal feelings of satisfaction and enjoyment (Deci &
Ryan, 2000)
Maslow (as cited in Kroth, 2007) believed that needs exist as a hierarchy and that
the most basic needs must be satisfied before moving up the hierarchy. Once needs and
expectations have been satisfied, positive motivation will become stronger (Karsli &
Iskander, 2009). Skilled teachers’ efficacy may be lowered if they are not motivated to
perform their jobs due to job stress, unfriendliness, belief in their competence by
themselves or others, and working in conditions not conducive for teaching and learning
(Shah et al., 2012).
Bandura (1977) stated that motivation is the activation and persistence of
behavior. Motivation is grown from further successful reinforcement of the behavior.
Dweck (2000) supported the theory that people define who they are through their belief
systems, their values, and their goals and that when people experience life events they
either have a positive or negative reaction toward that event, which may be perceived
consciously, but often, will be perceived subconsciously. Known as social cognitive
theory, Dweck described this as a meaning system approach to motivation, personality,
and self (Dweck, 2000). She believed the goals that people set for themselves influence
the types of behaviors in which they will engage in pursuit of their goals, as well as how
35
they feel in the pursuit. Additionally, these beliefs can be influenced or changed either
directly through explicit means or indirectly through inherent messages in the form of
feedback (Dweck, 2000).
Milyavskaya and Koestner (2011) described motivation as being on a continuum
from originating within one’s self to being driven by outside pressures. Self-motivation,
or motivation that originates within one’s self, is called autonomous motivation.
Motivation originating from outside pressure is considered integrated motivation.
Having needs satisfied leads to autonomous motivation (Milyavskaya & Koestner, 2011).
Positive motivation is produced when expectations are realized and needs are satisfied
(Karsli & Iskender, 2009). Once needs have been met and expectations are realized,
motivation will become stronger to accomplish a task. Conversely, failure to have needs
met or when expectations are not fulfilled, lower motivation results (Karsli & Iskender,
2009). Autonomous motivation allows people to be causal agents and choose behaviors
or actions that they believe to be in their own best interests (Stroet, Opedenakker, &
Minnaert (2013).
The context or environment in which a person is operating determines which
actions are needed and how those actions will be employed (Vancouver, 2008). Teachers
appeared to be more satisfied and motivated in their positions in schools where the
community had better economic and social possessions (Shah et al., 2012). Teachers
working in larger schools where there is a better opportunity for professional growth, a
smaller workload, and perceived administrative support appeared to be more motivated in
their work (Bolger & Nir, 2013; Shah et al., 2012). When employees experience a sense
of appreciation and feelings of being cared for, this enhances their motivation and
commitment (Bolger & Nir, 2013). Working conditions in the form of administrative
36
support, school facilities, and class size appear to be more important to teachers than
salary or student demographics (Johnson, Kraft, & Papay, 2012).
Alam and Farid (2011) explored factors that produced low or high motivation
among secondary teachers. They found that among the factors affecting teacher
motivation was self-confidence. They recommended that teachers not be assigned to a
new or unfamiliar position until they have had the training needed to experience success
with the position. Additional studies in motivation include studies of principal leadership
and teacher motivation (Eyal & Roth, 2010), the relationship between teacher burnout
and motivational factors (Fernet, Guay, Senécal, & Austin, 2012), and the relationship
between job satisfaction and motivation among teachers (Karshi & Iskender, 2008).
Research has also shown that teacher motivation has a strong influence on student
motivation (Atkinson, 2000). In what she described as a blind study, Atkinson explored
the relationship between teacher motivation and student motivation. Data were collected
using two methods, one using a survey that was administered to 66 students and the
second used semi-structured interviews with four teachers. Atkinson wanted to
determine whether there was a link between teacher and student motivation and whether
there were certain factors that attributed to motivation or demotivation within each group.
Atkinson postulated that teachers are the driving force for sustaining, enhancing, or
decreasing student motivation and that it is important to try to find those factors that
influence this drive. She found that there was a positive relationship between teacher
motivation and student motivation, showing that positive teacher motivation led to
positive student motivation, while teacher demotivation led to lowered levels of student
motivation. Her results also showed a correlation between teacher motivation and
curriculum design and curriculum process. These two factors create a judgment by
37
teachers as to how easily the curriculum can be executed and followed. Her results,
though too small to generalize, did support previous research that teacher motivation is
key to motivating students to become engaged in their learning and to achieve.
Atkinson’s research, though somewhat limited, supported the belief that teachers who
have low motivation because of their perception of inability to execute the curriculum
leads to low student motivation as well. Though there are many other factors that affect
teacher motivation, curriculum design and curriculum processes are areas that all teachers
experience in their daily work with students and are perhaps the most easily identifiable
areas affecting teacher motivation.
Individuals learn from on-going social interactions (Martin & Dowson, 2009).
They learn about themselves and how to fit into a social group by developing beliefs,
orientations, and values consistent with their environment (Martin & Dowson, 2009).
Teacher motivation is important in establishing the educational context through which
student motivation is cultivated and reinforced (Atkinson, 2000). Student relationships
with teachers have the most influence on student mastery or avoidance of tasks (Martin &
Dowson, 2009; Narvaez et al., 2008). Teachers who attribute student success to effort
will induce pride in students, thus motivating them to put forth effort (Martin & Dowson,
2009). Teachers who see poor student performance as a lack of ability will induce a
negative effect within the students, suppressing students’ motivation to achieve (Martin
& Dowson, 2009).
Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, and Geisjsel (2011) suggested that teacher
motivation is made up of three components; expectancy, value, and affective
components. Expectancy is self-efficacy. A teacher has a predetermined expectation for
success that determines how much effort will be put toward achieving the goal. Value is
38
how much interest and importance a desired goal has for the teacher toward completing a
task. The affective component refers to teachers’ emotional reaction to do the task or
toward the school in general. Teachers who are uncertain about their role in school
reform or how it will affect their own well-being will operate in a routine way, avoiding
risks and wanting to keep things status quo and within their control (Thoonen et al.,
2011). It has been suggested that NCLB encouraged competent and committed teachers
to unite with their marginal colleagues against outside intrusions from the principal
resulting in coalitions that could threaten attempts to improve student learning (McCaslin,
2008). Teachers have not been given the impression that they are the solution to the
problem of school improvement, but rather that they are the reason for school
improvement, resulting in a feeling of disrespect and unworthiness (Fullan, 2006). This
disrespect leads to a lack of motivation to change and creates a downward discrimination;
that is, disrespected teachers will pass that disrespect on to their students and their parents
(Fullan, 2006).
Motivation is the driving force behind change and feeling and emotions are key to
motivation (Fullan, 2006). Principals must find ways to motivate teachers (Kroth, 2007).
Principals should view their organizations as social ecosystems that they can influence
but not control (Kroth, 2007). The influence comes through relationships built by the
principal with the teachers (Fullan, 2000). Principals must build relationships
individually (Barnett & McCormick, 2004) by becoming familiar with teachers’ desires,
personal and professional goals, and individual situations; becoming genuinely interested
in their followers’ successes (Kroth, 2007).
Relationship oriented leadership focuses on the motives of each individual team
member in an effort to show support and assist in their goals, resulting in trusting
39
relationships and organizational commitment (Sahertian & Frisdiantara, 2012). However,
in forming these relationships a perception of favoritism must be suppressed or it may
lead to resentment by others and the feeling that leadership is not treating everyone
equally (Barnett & McCormick, 2004). In addition, these relationships need to be such
that the principal has the courage to let teachers know of their deficiencies in the
classroom. If principals fail to express concern for teacher classroom practices out of
respect for the teacher, it may be interpreted that the current classroom practices are
acceptable and therefore teachers will not be motivated to reflect on how effective their
instruction is or to experiment with new innovations in the classroom (Thoonen et al.,
2011).
When teacher actions are not considered by the administrator it results in a
negative effect on their motivation (Karlsi & Iskender, 2009). Teachers with positive
motivation need to know their efforts are appreciated, where teachers with negative
motivation are looking for ways to have their needs and expectations met (Bolger & Nir,
2013). Not motivating teachers and involving them in decision making can be
detrimental to effective instruction (Karlsi & Iskender, 2009). Teachers who experience
job dissatisfaction become demotivated and may be the weak link affecting the success of
educational programs (Eres, 2011).
Student self-efficacy and motivation for learning are directly impacted by teacher
self-efficacy and motivation (Atkinson, 2000). Teachers’ motivation is fueled by their
belief in their ability to have a positive influence on student achievement (TschannenMoran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Their self-efficacy is fueled by support, recognition on
effort, and autonomy given by the principal (Sahertian & Frisdiantara, 2012). Principals
meet these needs through the relationships they build with teachers to bring about a
40
climate of learning (Fullan, 2000). Principal self-efficacy therefore, becomes another
important factor in the school improvement process and is explored further in the
following section.
Principal Self-efficacy
Principals are expected to lead change and restructuring efforts in a time of
constantly changing framework (Eres, 2011). It is important that principals of SINI
possess a strong belief in their ability to lead such change. Tschannen-Moran and Gareis
(2004) described principal self-efficacy as a principal’s judgment of his or her capability
to shape a specific course of action to bring about desired outcomes. Principal selfefficacy, like teacher self-efficacy, is context specific. Many times what may prove to be
effective for one school may not be so for another (Lindahl, 2007), supporting the
proposition that school improvement should be looked at as a unique process (Evans et
al., 2012; Willis, 2010), that require principals with a strong sense of self-efficacy
(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011).
There is very little in the way of research on the construct of principal self-efficacy, yet
what research there is has found that principal self-efficacy is a key factor in bringing
about school improvement (Federici, 2013).
According to self-efficacy theory, principals with a high sense of self-efficacy
will be successful in helping teachers set goals and desired outcomes, face challenges
with enthusiasm, problem solve, accept failure only to be persistent until they succeed,
and will promote a sense of high self-efficacy among teachers and students (TschannenMoran & Gareis, 2004). Conversely, principals with a lowered sense of self-efficacy will
feel stressed, lack the motivation to continue through the school improvement process,
and will tend to keep things status quo rather then put forth the effort to implement new
41
practices (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Additionally, the larger the school the
harder it is to manage academic success, staff, student affairs, school facilities, and
school community affairs (Yusoff, n.d.).
Although it has been found that principals have an indirect effect on student
learning (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Niesche & Jorgensen, 2010; Williams, 2010) they
have a direct effect on teachers’ self-efficacy (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; TschannenMoran & Gareis, 2004). Teachers have the most direct effect on students and their
learning and having a strong sense of self-efficacy, persistence, and dedication is
important to bring about improvement (Finnigan, 2011). However, research has found
that leadership is vital for successful school turnaround and is a highly desirable resource
for teachers yearning to improve (Finnigan, 2011; Price, 2012; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011).
Therefore, principals need to possess a sense of strong self-efficacy to persevere against
the challenges that come with the process of school improvement (Leithwood & Jantzi,
2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011), such as resistance to
change from teachers, parents, and students, failures or setbacks, problems that plague
students living in poverty, limited resources, and the politics associated with making
community connections (Good, 2008).
Principal self-efficacy is still a new and under researched construct (Kurt et al.,
2012; Federici, 2013; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). However, there have been
studies that have identified areas of principal self-efficacy (Federici & Skaalvik, 2012;
Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004) developed the
Principal Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (SES) and posited three areas where principals and
school leaders show self-efficacy: self-efficacy for management, efficacy for instructional
leadership, and efficacy for moral leadership. Federici and Skaalvik (2012) identified
42
eight areas or dimensions of principal self-efficacy in their Norwegian PSES:
instructional leadership, economic management, municipal authority, parental relations,
relations with the local community, administrative management, teacher support, and
school environment.
The district leadership influences outcomes by directly influencing perceptions,
behaviors, attitude, values, responsibility, and accountability at the school level
(McFarlane, 2010). This influence directly effects principal self-efficacy through the
type of relationship and support with the leadership at the district level (McFarlane,
2010). Principal self-efficacy is directly influenced by principal perception of leadership
roles of their immediate superiors (McFarlane, 2010).
McFarlane (2010) investigated the impact of school district leadership,
specifically the superintendent, as perceived by principals at the elementary, middle, and
high school levels. The quantitative study utilized an online survey of 253 principals
throughout three large urban school districts. The model for leadership characteristics
was taken from Kouzes and Posner’s 5 Practices of Exemplary Leadership Practices
(Kouzes & Posner as cited by McFarlane, 2010). These practices; model the way, inspire
a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart, were
used by McFarlane as essential practices needed by school leaders, both at the district and
building levels, to bring about a change in climate and culture and have a positive impact
on school improvement. Using a descriptive and inferential analysis, McFarlane found
that among the five practices, superintendents as well as principals held modeling the
way and enabling others to act high as having an impact on school improvement.
However, the three superintendents who participated in the study differed in how they
enabled others to act. High scores were also given to school climate and culture,
43
particularly in one district, which led McFarlane to conclude that there are times when
transactional leadership, which is more controlling and more task oriented, may be a
better fit for urban districts faced with strict accountability, improving student
achievement, and the challenges of the 21st century. This study supported relationship
building and leadership support as being a necessary element in improving the selfefficacy and leadership skills of principals faced with leading school improvement.
Although principal leadership has been proven to have indirect effects on student
learning (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Niesche & Jorgensen, 2010; Williams, 2010) it has a
direct impact on teacher performance (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-Moran &
Gareis, 2004). Much like teacher self-efficacy, principal self-efficacy is influenced by
the amount of support, autonomy, and the relationships they have with the leadership at
the district level. Low principal self-efficacy will have a negative impact on teacher selfefficacy, which filters down to student achievement (Finnigan, 2012; Kurt et al., 2012;
Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011). The effects of low
principal self-efficacy leads to a lack of vision or sense of direction for the school and can
result in a negative climate affecting student achievement (Finnigan, 2011; Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004).
Impact of Low Principal Self-Efficacy
Leadership during the school improvement process is tantamount to leading a
company or corporation out of bankruptcy (Jones, 2006). The principal is the person who
makes decisions on every aspect of what is happening within the school, with teachers,
students, and parents (Good, 2008) and each decision has an effect on every other
decision (Thorton, Shepperson, & Canavero, 2007). He or she is the person responsible
for ensuring that the climate and culture of the school is one in which students are
44
learning, feel safe, and feel valued (Beets et al., 2008; Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, &
Pickeral, 2009; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). As a result, principals have a direct impact
on teachers who are most responsible for student learning and achievement (Finnigan,
2012; Kurt et al., 2012; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011).
Therefore, Principal self-efficacy is a construct that should not be ignored.
Principals who experience low self-efficacy feel a sense of failure, may be
anxious and overwhelmed by the multiple tasks and responsibilities that are a part of their
jobs, and tend to avoid tasks that require more effort to accomplish, such as ensuring
teachers are following school improvement initiatives (Federici, 2013; Tschannen-Moran
& Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011). Low principal self-efficacy creates a sense of
helplessness among teachers, who then experience low self-efficacy in trying to improve
student learning (Finnigan, 2011; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-Moran &
Gareis, 2004). Low teacher self-efficacy in turn leads to lowered teacher expectations of
their students and results in lowered student self-efficacy in their belief in their own
learning abilities (Kurt et al., 2012; McCullers & Bozeman, 2010; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011).
An interesting finding on low principal self-efficacy is that, unlike low teacher
self-efficacy, low principal self-efficacy is not a predictor of whether a principal makes
the choice to leave (Federici & Skaalvik, 2012). In their findings, Federici and Skaalvik
(2012) found that principals with high self-efficacy, who left their positions, did so to
pursue higher, more challenging ventures; while principals with low self-efficacy chose
to stay, not wanting to take the risk. Unfortunately, in an atmosphere of high
accountability for improvement, these principals with lowered self-efficacy resulting in
poor performance are the ones who are being replaced (NCLB, 2009) rather than
45
investing in strengthening their skills, thus strengthening their self-efficacy to lead their
school out of school improvement.
Principal self-efficacy needs to be supported and developed for principals to bring
about authentic and sustainable school improvement. School improvement is a
comprehensive, ongoing process, and having leaders with a high sense of self-efficacy,
motivation, and drive is important in not only bringing about improvement but also in
sustaining it over time. The next section will discuss the school improvement process as
it is today and how it affects teacher and principal self-efficacy.
School Improvement
School improvement became a focus of concern with the completion of the report
“A Nation at Risk” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1984), which
presented evidence that American students were behind in math and science compared to
their foreign counterparts. The report emphasized the need to increase students’
knowledge in these areas for the United States to continue to be competitive with other
nations, and thus the need to transform education in America became a major focus of
public policy. In 2001, President George W. Bush pushed through Congress the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which required that schools be held accountable for all
students and their achievement. Through a set of very specific criteria that came with
checks and balances, schools were required to ensure that a high percentage of their
students would graduate proficient in certain subject areas. Schools that fell below the
acceptable targets for performance were penalized and expected to put into place
research-based strategies to improve performance or face severe penalties, such as school
restructuring or school closure.
In 2008, the Center on Education Policy came out with a report on the progress
46
being made toward the goals set by NCLB. This study targeted five states and explored
the restructured status of schools labeled as SINI. The study showed that over the 7 years
there was a 50% increase in the number of schools that had entered restructured status; all
were urban schools. According to the study these five states provided support for their
SINI schools. Four provided professional development to help with instruction. Three
states offered on-site support over a 2 year period to their schools. Two other states
offered professional development for principals. Despite these supports, 19% of these
school remained in corrective status.
In 2009, Congress created a new program that was more bold and innovative for
turning around low performing schools. This program, ARRA (U.S. DOE, 2009),
brought financial support to schools ranked in the lowest 5% for performance. This
support came through the School Improvement Grant Program (SIG) Program which was
also titled Race to the Top. States were awarded this aid and were required to use the
funds to implement one of four turnaround models.
Since the implementation of Race to the Top in 2009 research has provided
insight into the school reform process. Among these studies were those that focused on
teacher and principal ability to navigate and manage school improvement. Good (2008)
explored the perspectives of principals operating at varying degrees of school
improvement. His interviews pulled in descriptions of the various contexts that
principals are faced with—management, instructional leadership, and moral leadership.
The outcome of this study revealed that principals believed that the issues that they faced
were not insurmountable but rather expressed the need for support and patience from the
policy makers as they worked to bring about the needed change.
Effects of the school improvement process on teacher self-efficacy. American
47
society had been satisfied with schools’ mission to teach all students basic skills and give
some of them the more exclusive skills necessary for college (Fullan, Hill, & Crevola,
2006). With the implementation of NCLB this mission changed and schools were
expected to prepare all students for postsecondary education. Implementing school
reform meant changing how business was done as well as changing the climate and
culture of a school to bring about improved performance (Wagner et al., 2006). Such
accountability has shown to be a source of teacher stress, which in turn contributes to a
low sense of self-efficacy among teachers (Margolis & Nagel, 2006). Even teachers with
high self-efficacy may be affected as they experience doubt about new, unfamiliar
practices that may not be in line with their own philosophies of how students learn
(Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). According to Valli, Croninger, and Buese (2012), research
that shapes education policy needs to consider multiple in-school factors and influences
in models designed to predict student outcomes. Teachers become resentful of losing
control over the way they teach, how they think, how they learn, and being held
accountable for making the performance targets set by federal mandates (Valli et al.,
2012).
Creating this type of change means changing the climate and culture of the school
and is far more difficult than changing a policy, program, or practice (Eaker & Keating,
2008). However true, sustainable change requires a change in what people believe and
how they think (Connors & Smith, 2011). When implementing reform, teachers
cognitively assess the complexity of the task, what they know about the task and the
environment where the task is to take place, leading to a judgment of how successful they
will be in achieving student learning (Takahashi, 2011). There is no single approach to
school improvement because schools have different wants and needs (Blankstein, 2010).
48
What may be successful in one school, may fail to have the same effectiveness in
another.
Finnigan and Gross (2007) used a mixed method approach to explore the
influence of accountability policies on teacher motivation. They sought to determine
how teacher motivation changed as a result of stringent accountability policies and which
policies affected their motivation levels. Qualitative data were collected through
interviews and focus groups. Additionally, a survey was administered. They
hypothesized that the threat of probation or to get off probation would motivate teachers
and principals to improve. They found that teachers who felt less pressure and stress of
the threat of job loss performed better and had higher expectations of students. Teachers
who were experiencing higher levels of stress and pressure to improve felt that the system
was unfair. External support caused a rise in test scores leading to higher expectations of
students. They also found that teachers were working harder without support resulting in
low expectations and low effort while as an organization there were no clear strategies for
organizational change and higher reliance on traditional professional development. The
authors suggested principals and district administrators should allow for targeted support
that fits the needs of the school. The focus should be on instructional content. New
policies may cause bigger problems if not approached correctly (Finnigan & Gross,
2007).
Finnigan and Gross (2007) found that teachers who initially believed their
students could achieve were less sure of their beliefs in the face of failure. Moreover,
teachers faced with changing accountability goals changed their own efficacy beliefs as
well. Finnigan and Gross also found a correlation between morale and motivation.
Decreased expectations and demoralization tended to overtake teachers’ motivation in
49
schools with the greatest student achievement difficulties. Although teachers were
motivated to respond to accountability policies and valued the goal of increased student
achievement, their expectations that they could accomplish the goal declined the longer
their school was in probation status (Finnigan & Gross, 2007).
Additionally, other studies have been conducted and concluded teacher selfefficacy is context specific (Cantrell & Calloway, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Johnson,
2011; Yeo et al., 2008). These studies found that teachers assess their ability within their
immediate situation in relation to their perceived internal strengths and deficits
(Tschannen-Moran & Johnson, 2011). This assessment of internal strengths and deficits
included considering a range of teaching tasks within the domains of self-efficacy for
instruction, self-efficacy for student engagement, and self-efficacy for classroom
management (Yeo et al., 2008). In the learning environment, a teacher may have a high
sense of self-efficacy in teaching one part of a curriculum but low self-efficacy in another
(McCormick et al., 2006). They may view this sense of low self-efficacy as a weakness
or an indication of low capability. School reform brings many changes to teachers who
may resist reform efforts if they anticipate that their former roles will change. Teachers
may fear loss of social connections that have provided them with comfort and security
(Zimmerman, 2006). Further, teachers may perceive that they will lose power or position
with the implementation of new reforms. Teachers often fear the unknown and are
unwilling to try something unfamiliar to them. McCormick et al. (2006) found that the
more a teacher knows what a new reform model will involve, the lower the teacher’s selfefficacy became. Additionally, conflicts in vision or relationships generated negative
staff morale and stymied school reform or change efforts (Margolis & Nagel, 2006).
For teachers to be successful within the new context of implementing innovative
50
instructional practices, teacher self-efficacy must be addressed (Cantrell & Calloway,
2008). Much of what takes place in schools is controlled by both internal and external
factors (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) that teachers feel they are unable to manipulate. For
example, decision-making or autonomy is considered a basic need. However, it is a need
that is diminishing worldwide as schools go through the reform process (Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2009). As a result, teachers feel they have no control or input in the teaching
methods they are being asked to implement (Konings et al., 2007) and experience
feelings of unworthiness along with feeling devalued by being associated with a
turnaround school (Fullan, 2006). These feelings may manifest as being less caring
toward their students (Fullan, 2006).
While research supports the effect of school reform on teacher self-efficacy and
teacher performance (Finnigan & Gross, 2007; McCormick et al., 2006; Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2007; Zimmerman, 2006), there has been little research in the overall success
or failure of these reforms (Gross et al., 2009). Gross et al. (2009) reported that the
effects of comprehensive school reform strategies did not have an overall effect on
student learning school-wide. To bring about real school reform, the emphasis on
improvement must be on every student individually. Further, it is important to
understand how school reform impacts and is impacted by the wider context of the school
environment where deep patterns of values, traditions, policies, and procedures exist
(Starr, 2012; Willis, 2010). Often school reform focuses more on school management
and operation systems rather than on introducing new instructional strategies and
authentic improvement in student learning (Honig & Rainey, 2012). Implementing
school reform procedures produces measurements of the progress toward improved
student outcomes. Such pressure leads to an unbalanced focus on the basics (Willis,
51
2010). Teachers attempt to retain what they have and to stay with what they know, what
is comfortable, and the status quo (Starr, 2012). This results in schools that have good
routines and practices in place but show no improvement in instructional effectiveness
(Fernandez, 2009). Students’ culture within their community is not recognized as being a
pivotal factor in their learning (Wrigley, 2011). Wrigley (2011) proposed when
implementing school improvement practices there is a need to look beyond just the
classroom and student scores and look at how a change in curriculum and a shift in
practices will mesh with the students’ real world.
Teachers with high self-efficacy work through the pressure associated with reform
and begin to create a new sense of balance and redefine the status quo (Starr, 2012;
Zimmerman, 2006). Additionally, teachers given more autonomy have shown to focus
on new structures and new instructional strategies, resulting in improved student
achievement (Honig & Rainey, 2012) culminating in higher levels of teacher self-efficacy
(Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Kurz, 2008). Although teachers who experience low levels of
self-efficacy are less likely to work through these pressures (Verešová & Malá, 2012),
there is the threat of high self-efficacy teachers leaving the profession due to an inability
to align their beliefs, values, and ethics to the new reforms or negotiate ways to teach
well within the reforms while doing what is best for their students (Sontoro &
Morehouse, 2011). Chiang (2009) investigated the likelihood of data manipulation
among sanctioned schools resulting in improved student test scores. He found that the
pressure to raise student test scores to avoid sanctions actually did lead to improved
scores; however, this was a temporary effect that did not carry over to middle school.
McIntyre and Kyle (2006), in their study of mandated reform, stated that the climate at
the school, district, or even the state level influenced what teachers do in the classroom.
52
They conducted classroom observations, group, and individual interviews over 18
months. Their goal was to determine why teachers either sustained reform
implementations or did not. They found that external factors as well as internal factors
that affect how teachers and principals operate must be addressed to bring about true
change for improvement. They went on to say that the voices of principals and teachers
need to be heard to better understand what is needed to address these factors.
Schools are complex social systems (Tobin et al., 2006), that contain underlying
unspoken feelings, opinions, or issues that surface only when people are aroused. Very
often, reforms address symptoms without reaching the underlying problem (Thorton et
al., 2007). Additionally, many variables that teachers must face each day add to the
problem of implementing new instructional methods that they are not familiar with
(Konings et al., 2007; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). Leading reform, therefore, becomes a
daunting task and one that requires a high sense of self-efficacy from the school
leadership.
Leading the school improvement process. Although there has been quite a bit
of research on leading school improvement, there has been very little on the effect this
responsibility has on principal self-efficacy (Federici & Skaalvik, 2011; Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2008; Orr et al., 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). When leading a school
through the improvement process, principals are responsible for meeting the demands and
the needs of not only the general populations of students, but also of all the subgroups
that exist within that population (Lindahl, 2007). These subgroups consist of students
with disabilities, English language learners, gifted, teachers, parents, and the community.
Principals play a major role in changing teacher beliefs about instruction and
students’ capability to learning (Finnigan, 2011). It has been found, however, that there
53
is no one leadership style that is better or more effective than another (Lindahl, 2007) and
that it is actually self-efficacy that determines the success or failure of a school leader
(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). Lindahl (2007) referenced it in this way, “It is not just what
one does as a leader that matters—it is how those actions are perceived in a specific
situation” (p. 327). Unfortunately, it is the perceived level of these actions that one must
hold to lead sustained improvement that has driven away many prospective school
leaders (Sanzo, Sherman, & Clayton, 2011). It is essential that principals make teachers
feel effective and confident to maximize teacher’s impact on student achievement
(Walker & Slear, 2011). To have such influence, principals need to understand how their
personal characteristics and behaviors affect teachers (Walker & Slear, 2011). Research
has found that work motivation and commitment to stay are strongly linked to principal
leadership (Fullan, 2006).
In contrast to Lindahl (2007), studies have been conducted on the most effective
types of principal leadership. Transformational leadership, though found to be highly
effective (Eyal & Roth, 2010), has also been found to be ineffective if skills and
information are lacking among the educational staff (Eres, 2011). Transactional
leadership is about control and compliance to rules and regulations and leads to stress and
burnout among teachers (Eyal & Roth, 2010). Of the two, transformational leadership
leads to strong teacher self-efficacy because it promotes autonomy among teachers,
shared leadership, and encourages innovation (Eres, 2011; Eyal & Roth, 2010).
Principals are faced with the intersection of internal and external accountability
systems (Knapp & Feldman, 2011). Internal accountability are the systems and practices
put in place internally by the school staff while external accountability systems are those
practices mandated by Central Office and other outside agencies (Knapp & Feldman,
54
2011). Pressure is put on the principal by these external agencies to implement mandated
reform practices that may not be compatible with the internal systems already in place by
the staff (Knapp & Feldman, 2010). Very few schools have well developed internal
accountability systems (Fullan, 2006). If a principal chooses to take a path with the least
resistance and allows the staff to only meet the compliance standards at their minimum,
they may create an environment where very little sustained learning is taking place
(Knapp & Feldman, 2010). Though faced with these pressures, principals rely on district
leadership, specifically the superintendent who can positively or negatively influence
school culture, climate, values, team leadership motivation, and attitudes among the staff
(McFarlane, 2010). Good (2008) explored the perspectives of principals operating at
varying degrees of school improvement. His interviews pulled in descriptions of the
various contexts that principals are faced with—management, instructional leadership,
and moral leadership. The outcome of this study revealed that principals believed that
the issues that they faced were not insurmountable but rather expressed the need for
support and patience from the policy makers as they worked to bring about the needed
change.
Organizational success is determined through the vision developed and conveyed
by leaders and their ability to directly influence the behaviors of others (McFarlane,
2010). Principals directly influence outcomes by indirectly influencing perceptions,
behaviors, attitudes, values, responsibility, and accountability of their followers
(McFarlane, 2010). Although research has indicated school leadership has an indirect
effect on student learning, principals do impact teacher behavior directly (Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2008; Niesche & Jorgensen, 2010; Williams, 2010). Williams (2010) suggested
that principals who meet teachers’ hierarchical needs for acceptance, recognition, and
55
belonging (Maslow, as cited in Williams, 2010) by creating a collaborative, shared
leadership culture within their schools, will enhance the self-efficacy of teachers and
promote high student achievement (Williams, 2010). Enhancing teacher self-efficacy
through their work with teachers will promote self-confidence and a sense of
effectiveness in teachers that are essential for positively impacting student achievement
(Walker & Slear, 2011). Building the leadership of others in the organization allows for
continuity of good work and is the heart of sustainability (Fullan, 2006).
One way that principals promote this type of environment is by building
collective teacher efficacy (Brinson & Steiner, 2007). Collective teacher efficacy has
been found to have a strong influence on student achievement (Goddard, Hoy, &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2004; Klassen & Chiu, 2010). However, when a school is labeled as a
failure, it can create a barrier to the collaborative way of working (Orr et al., 2008). The
longer a school remains in a state of failure the more teachers’ and principal self-efficacy
are affected, engendering a cycle of failure (Takahashi, 2011). Often principals will
adopt goals and practices that differ from those within the school resulting in failure or
leading to programs that are only partially implemented or are misapplied (Kruse, 2008).
External accountability systems often overshadow the efforts of school-based
reform efforts. Principals may choose to take the path of least resistance, allowing the
teaching staff to be autonomous while only requiring them to comply enough with
external systems to get improved test scores (Knapp & Feldman, 2011). However,
principals who use these external accountability systems to intersect with internal
accountability systems will create a strong bond between the two systems resulting in
effective improvement (Knapp & Feldman, 2011). To create this bond, the principal
must rely on the support of the district leadership, specifically the superintendent
56
(McFarlane, 2010). Superintendents are able to build or break down school cultures
through the level of support and assistance they provide to schools (McFarlane, 2010).
Also, teaching staffs have strong individualistic practices that create major organizational
learning resistance since a staff that once believed they were successful in their work are
identified as failing by external systems (Knapp & Feldman, 2011), producing feelings of
anxiety and resentment (Zimmerman, 2006). Principals of disadvantaged schools, along
with their teaching staffs, become frustrated with trying to meet the multiple goals to be
met within the course of a school year to avoid sanctions from the federal and state
governments (Sondergeld & Koskey, 2011). Yet, in the face of failure it is important for
principals to stay the course set for improvement and use failure as a motivation to learn
rather than a reason to discontinue (Fullan, 2006).
Several work place factors have been identified as having influence on teacher–
student relationships leading to improved student learning. These factors; teacher job
satisfaction, a sense of professionalism, and influence, trust, and opportunities to
collaborate need to be supported by school leadership to impact students and their
learning (Wahlstrom & Seashore Louis, 2008). Furthermore, employees will put forth
maximum effort if they have a superior who engages in relationship-oriented leadership
(Sahertian & Frisdiantara, 2012). Leadership is characterized by one-to-one relationships
between the leader and follower and less as between leader and whole group (Barnett &
McCormick, 2004). However, teacher roles have changed dramatically and teachers are
often asked to relate to their students differently and at times to enact pedagogy and
instructional practices that conflict with their own philosophy of teaching (Valli & Buese
(2007). Fear of the unknown, failure to clearly and completely communicate change to
employees will raise resistance levels (Puhlak & Alas, 2012). Leadership is a social
57
process that occurs through others (Hannah, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2012).
Principal behavior shapes the climate and culture of a school (Price, 2012; Starr,
2012) and principal self-efficacy dictates what those behaviors will look like (TschannenMoran & Gareis, 2004). The higher or stronger a principal’s sense of self-efficacy, the
more likely he or she will cultivate a positive learning environment while also expediting
school improvement policies and practices (Federici, 2013; Federici & Skaalvik, 2012;
Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Principal leadership and support of teachers
promotes high teacher self-efficacy and performance while indirectly having the same
effect on student achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Garies, 2004). Though faced with
obstacles such as special student populations or restricted budgets, principals have been
found to view such obstacles as problems that need to be and can be solved to continue
moving forward (Good, 2008).
Climate and Culture
At the heart of any school improvement is climate and culture (Deal & Peterson,
2009). School culture, is the level of mutual trust, respect, openness, and commitment
the learning community has to student achievement (Johnson et al., 2012). Failing
schools often operate in toxic cultures, creating climates of distrust, poor student
performance, and a lack of positive behavioral expectations from students (Deal &
Peterson, 2009). The school principal has the difficult task of detoxifying the culture of a
school into a climate that is positive and thriving, driven by a culture of democratic and
moral leadership (Fullan, 2001). Creating a positive culture influences organizational
effectiveness (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Culture change is not something that can
occur through mandates but rather by displacing specific existing norms, structures, and
processes and modeling new values and behaviors to take their place (Fullan, 2006).
58
Students spend more time in school than at home, making school a primary
socializing force for them (Dessel, 2010). The school social system plays a role in
student achievement and behavioral outcomes (Osman, 2012). The perception of the
school environment has an influence on both student and staff behavior (Beavans,
Bradshaw, Miech, & Leaf, 2007). A positive school climate and culture has a positive
influence on teacher self-efficacy; where a toxic environment has the opposite effect,
resulting in lowered teacher self-efficacy (Beavans et al., 2007).
Climate is created from culture (Nazari, Herremans, Isaac, Manassian, & Kline,
2011). Schools with high student expectations and that maintain a safe and orderly
environment promote high student achievement (Henderson et al., 2005). Additionally,
teachers tend to have higher job satisfaction, higher self-efficacy, and commitment in
schools with healthy school climates (Henderson et al., 2005). The need for enhancing
and improving school climate is crucial to social learning and creating social
relationships that have a proven effect on student learning (Osman, 2012).
Osman (2012) found that schools that embrace social interactions among teachers
create a positive social environment for students and learning. Schools that exhibit more
custodial interactions may create an atmosphere of alienation for students and a
battlefield for teachers (Osman, 2012). Poverty and school violence create a perception
that a school is not a safe or welcoming place for students (Dessel, 2010). A school’s
culture can often be one that is hostile and fosters prejudice and harassment, preventing
learning (Dessel, 2010). Emotional health is strongly linked to achievement (Fullan
2006). Culture is the subconscious understanding among and between members of an
organization (Nazari et al., 2011). Therefore, positive, caring social relationships, where
students, parents, and teachers are valued and cared for are critical to creating a positive,
59
flourishing climate within a school (Lance, 2010). Elevating a child’s sense of safety at
school will allow the child to improve academically (Fullan, 2006).
School improvement means organizational change that often comes about due to
the organizational health of a school. Organizational health is determined by the climate
and culture that exists within a school. Climate and culture is essential to teacher selfefficacy and it is the responsibility of the principal to ensure a positive climate is in place
for effective teaching to take place (Dumay, 2011), which will result in improved student
learning. Cohen et al. (2009) concurred with this finding in their research on policy and
practice in relation to school climate. They found a gap in teacher education and climate
policy making. They suggested that educator training include instruction on the social
and emotional factors of a classroom and how to create relationships among students and
fellow teachers to bring about a positive school climate for learning.
Hofstede (1996), the current expert on culture, conducted extensive research on
climate and described culture as being a stratified construct that exists at national,
organizational, and individual levels. The author defined culture as patterns of the mind
for ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. She approached the concept of culture through
the various social contexts in which culture thrives and lives. She contended that culture
is context specific in that it is a collective construct partly shared with people who live or
work in the same social environment. It is this collective thinking that is shared among
the members that distinguishes one group from another (Hofstede, 1996). Culture is a
product of human beliefs, behaviors, and relationships; thus organizational culture is
steeped in rituals and symbols, rich embedded history, and because it is created and
preserved by its members, is difficult to change (Hofstede, 1996). Although strong
positive cultures are the goal of many organizations, there is an argument that having a
60
strong culture can lead to rigidity, creating a barrier to change—especially in cultures that
are toxic (Hofstede, 1996). As a result, culture change occurs with one person at a time
(Connors & Smith, 2011). As each person within an organization begins to acknowledge
the need for change, becomes accountable, and takes ownership, change will occur quite
quickly (Connors & Smith, 2011). However, the increased demands and pressures of
accountability lead to quick reactions rather than thoughtful and deliberate proaction
(Davies, 2002).
Changing climate one person at a time. Changing how people think is key to
changing culture (Conners & Smith, 2011). To change how people think, learning must
take place. The ability to change and adapt is the main function of organizational
learning (Tobin et al., 2006). An organization learns when the range of existing
behaviors are changed (Tobin et al., 2006). Organizational learning is identifying and
correcting problems to improve organizational effectiveness (Finnigan, Daly, & Stewart,
2012). Identifying problems is the first and most crucial step in an organization’s ability
to learn and change (Finnigan et al., 2012). It is important to identify the small problems
that chip away at the organizational effectiveness before they lead to failure of the overall
organization (Cannon & Edmonson, 2005). To overlook the small failures results in the
same problems continuing to exist and becoming embedded in the behavior and practices
within the classroom and the school. The ideals, experiences, actions, values, and
emotions become deeply rooted and embraced by the organization members (Fullan,
2001). Organizational culture is strong and no matter how welcoming, open, and caring
it appears on the surface, organizational culture will always protect itself through
employee resistance to change (Puhlak & Alas, 2012). Changing the culture means
changing the context; create new settings conducive to learning and then sharing that
61
learning, building mutual trust (Connors & Smith, 2011; Fullan, 2001). Culture and
climate can be changed by school leaders by taking deliberate actions such as redefining
roles or relationships, altering performance expectations, and using job assignments in
creative ways (Childress, Elmore, and Grossman, 2006). Cultural changes need time to
consolidate and become embedded within the hearts and minds of all members of the
organization (Fullan, 2006).
Leadership is crucial when creating culture change. Principal actions directly
shape the culture of their school (Price, 2012). Positive relationships between principals
and teachers have been found to promote higher levels of satisfaction and trust between
stakeholders, cohesion around school goals, and commitment from faculty (Dumay,
2009; Price, 2012). There is a need for principals to build a collaborative and democratic
process, sharing leadership with teachers, to bring about true and effective reform
(Beachum & Dentith, 2004). Although studies have found that leadership does not have
direct impact on student learning, the impact that it does have is monumental (Bell &
Kent, 2010). Principals develop the relationships that support and promote the
development of teacher beliefs in their ability to influence student learning (Tobin et al.,
2006). Principals who build relationships design support opportunities to improve
teacher self-efficacy and focus on school culture that promotes positive attitudes toward
change and improvement (Kruse, 2008). Teacher self-efficacy if highly volatile in
response to particular contexts thus improving the level of confidence is important to
improving student learning (Wahlstrom & Seashore Louise, 2008). Leadership that
supports teacher learning is critical to building strong positive school cultures (DragoSeverson, 2012).
The cultivation of high teacher self- efficacy supports a strong, healthy school
62
climate (Roney et al., 2007). Effective principals promote a positive school climate
though positive relationships with teachers and providing opportunities for teacher
leadership (Roney et al., 2007). Teacher leadership brings about teachers taking more
responsibility for decision making and activities outside the classroom, assisting in
reforms that impact organizational process, resulting in a collaborative, inclusive, and
responsive school climate (Beachum & Dentith, 2004).
Ultimate Goal—Student Achievement
The ultimate goal of school improvement is improved student achievement
(Payne, 2011). Improvement will only come through a change in not only how teachers
and principals act, but also in how they think (Connors & Smith, 2010). School reform
aimed at improving student achievement often uses performance-oriented goals, focusing
more on immediate outcomes, but not allowing the time for students to master the content
(Davies, 2002). Real reform needs to focus on the child and the needs of the child
(Lance, 2010). This is done through moral leadership (Fullan, 2001); valuing the child
first (Lance, 2010) through interested, warm, and caring teachers (van Uden, Ritzen, &
Pieters, 2013). It is through strong, caring relationships with teachers that students will
achieve (Yeo et al., 2008). By taking care of the well-being of teachers, school
leadership will be taking care of the well-being of the students (Vesely et al., 2013).
Reform that shapes educational policy needs to consider more than just the act of learning
but also the human variables, and should therefore, include teachers, principals, students,
and parents in decisions reform (Valli et al., 2012). It takes the combined efforts of the
principal and teachers to create a positive climate where all people are valued (Lance,
2010).
63
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual Framework for this study addresses seven concepts that are
interrelated; each affecting the other either directly or indirectly, but all having an impact
on student achievement. These concepts, school improvement, teacher self-efficacy,
principal self-efficacy, motivation and expectations, context and experiences, climate and
culture, and student achievement, act on each other with climate and culture being
perhaps the most controlling factor. Figure 1 shows the relationship between these
concepts and how they interact on each other.
64
Student
Achievement
Motivation/
Expectations
Climate/
Culture
Context/
Experiences
Principal
self-efficacy
Teacher
self-efficacy
School
Improvement
Figure 1. Studies Conceptual Framework.
Bandura described self-efficacy as the belief a person has in his or her ability to
execute the needed skills to bring about desired results. Teacher self-efficacy has been
found to have a direct effect on student achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk
Hoy, 2001). Principal self-efficacy has an indirect effect on student achievement
(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Principals effect achievement through creating a
positive, caring, culture in a climate conducive to learning (Deal & Peterson, 1999; Price,
2012). Climate and culture has been found to have a radiating effect on every aspect of a
school community and the people who work and interact within this community (Deal &
Peterson, 2009; Fullan, 2001). Climate and culture impacts teacher self-efficacy
(Dumay, 2011), which has been found to be responsible for teacher motivation and
65
expectations (Shah et al., 2012). Motivation and expectations effect student achievement
directly either positively or negatively (Atkinson, 2000). Self-efficacy is context specific
(Yeo et al., 2008) and therefore context is important as it is a factor of the climate of the
school.
This framework brings together self-theories and their contribution to
understanding the relationships that are built within the highly social context of the
school environment. It provides an understanding of how self-efficacy has a major
impact on the school improvement process and how relationships, climate and culture,
and context affect motivation and effort.
Summary
Teacher self-efficacy and principal self-efficacy have been affected by many
factors that may include, but are not limited to, student populations, parent involvement,
climate and culture of the school, and implementations of unfamiliar instructional
practices (Cagle & Hopkins, 2009; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2010; Zimmerman, 2006). Social learning theory purports that selfefficacy improves through four factors: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences,
social persuasion, and physiological events (Bandura, as cited in Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). There is much research that supports this theory in relation to
improved teacher or principal performance. However, there are still schools across the
country that persists in their need for improvement.
The literature review supports the possibility that teacher self-efficacy will be
affected by variables not voiced by teachers or noticed by school leadership. Teacher
self-efficacy plays an important role in student achievement. Its impact affects not only
student learning, but also the social-emotional climate of a classroom (Rubie-Davies,
66
2007). Forming positive and caring relationships with students leads to improved selfefficacy for both the teacher and the students (Yeo et al., 2008). Teachers who exhibit
low self-efficacy often hold low expectations of students from a low socioeconomic
status and fail to take responsibility for their students’ learning (Rubie-Davies, 2007).
Additionally, teachers often have a sense of low self-efficacy regarding teaching students
of varying cultural backgrounds (Siwatu et al., 2011; Takahashi, 2011).
Lowered teacher self-efficacy and expectations can result from the stress and
anxiety that surround the urgent need for swift school reform action (McCormick et al.,
2006). Teachers may have high self-efficacy in one area of instruction but not in another
(McCormick et al., 2006), leading them to exert less effort in what they view as their
weakness. Further, teachers experience a fear of the unknown, not knowing what change
will mean for their social roles or their power in the school setting (Zimmerman, 2006).
When teachers know more about what a reform model entails their self-efficacy may
drop even lower (McCormick et al., 2006). Schools are complex social systems, full of
underlying unspoken feelings, opinions, or issues that surface only when people are
aroused (Tobin et al., 2006). Reform can address the symptoms without uncovering the
underlying problem.
Teacher efficacy has three components; self-efficacy for instruction, self-efficacy
for student engagement, and self-efficacy for classroom management (Tschannen-Moran,
& Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Although each component feeds into the other, teachers may
show strength for one but not for all (McCormick et al., 2006). Teacher self-efficacy also
influences student self-efficacy (Hughes et al., 2009; Muller & Hanfstingl, 2010; RubieDavies, 2007; Sosa & Gomez, 2012; Yeo et al., 2008). Teachers who have high
expectations for learning, form warm, caring relationships, and create mastery oriented
67
classrooms produce students who themselves have a high sense of self-efficacy, form
caring relationships, and become mastery oriented (Martin & Dowson, 2009).
Motivation and expectations are also influenced either positively or negatively by
teacher self-efficacy (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). Teachers who believe they do not
have the ability to execute skills needed to positively influence student learning will lack
the motivation to exert effort to produce positive outcomes, whereas teachers who believe
they have the ability to positively influence student learning will be motivated to put forth
effort to reach their goals. Teachers with high self-efficacy will hold students to high
expectations for learning, engagement, and behavior (Corkett et al., 2011; Rubie-Davies,
2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Teachers with low self-efficacy will
have low expectations for students and will hold students exclusively responsible for their
own successes or failures (Cantrell & Callaway, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
Principal self-efficacy is important in leading teachers in improving student
learning (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Principals that exhibit high levels of selfefficacy are able to raise the self-efficacy of teachers; enabling them to persist in their
mission to educate all children (Kruse, 2008; Kurt et al., 2012; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008;
McCullers & Bozeman, 2010; Orr et al., 2008; Thoonen et al., 2011; Tschannen-Moran
& Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011). Leading a SINI is a monumental task that has
been compared to leading a large corporation (Jones, 2006; Tschumy, 2005). Principals
face resistance from teachers, students, and parents (Lindahl, 2007; Starr, 2011) while
attempting to implement turnaround strategies, make community connections to bring in
vital resources, and manage the everyday operation of the buildings (Lindahl, 2007).
Principals who exhibit a high sense of self-efficacy will orchestrate a system or
framework in which he or she is able to successfully balance these many responsibilities
68
(Federici, 2013). These principals see failure not as failure but as a means for learning
and a challenge for success (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). Principals who have low selfefficacy, however, find these duties and responsibilities to be overwhelming while trying
to implement turnaround strategies and choose to keep things at status quo rather than
putting forth the effort into pushing teachers, students, and parents to accept the change
(Federici, 2013; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). The four
factors for improving self-efficacy holds true for all people. If principals have
experienced mastery of their craft through successes in student achievement, parent and
community involvement, and teacher buy in, his or her level of efficacy will raise
(Federici & Skaalvik, 2012; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). However, if not, then
self-efficacy will be low.
School reform creates a change in climate and culture (Eaker & Keating, 2008).
Climate and culture are at the heart of school improvement (Deal & Peterson, 1999).
Principals are responsible for creating the climate and culture of schools and do so
through one-on-one relationships (Dumay, 2011; Fullan, 2001; Price, 2012). Research
has found that climate and culture change occurs through principal–teacher relationships
(Tobin et al., 2006; Kruse, 2008; Wahlstrom & Seashore Louise, 2008). It is through the
creation of positive school climate that principal leadership has an indirect effect on
student achievement (Bell & Kent, 2010). When students feel safe and form caring
relationships with teachers, they will excel in their learning (Sosa & Gomez, 2012).
However, students can become alienated and disconnected if they perceive the teacher as
hostile and uncaring (Mojavezi & Tamiz, 2012). A school climate and culture effects
teacher self-efficacy as well. If teachers fail to feel supported, have poor working
conditions, and are socially isolated, they experience low self-efficacy, which effects
69
student learning (Wahlstrom & Seashore Louise, 2008). Positive school climate and
culture is created through strong self and collective efficacy, producing a safe and orderly
environment that values students, parents, and teachers (Lance, 2010).
The research presented in this literature review indicated the need to investigate
how much influence teacher and principal self-efficacy have on the reform efforts of
urban SINI. Teacher self-efficacy is the driving force behind the climate and culture of a
classroom (Narvaez et al., 2008), just as the principal is the driving force behind the
climate and culture of the school (Dumay, 2009; Niesche & Jorgensen, 2010; Thoonen et
al., 2011; Williams, 2010). A better understanding of the role that teacher and principal
self-efficacy play in student achievement and school improvement may lead to a
collective impact on the climate and culture of a school. The literature provides a basis
for investigating the critical incidence for preventing high self-efficacy and the effects it
has on the improvement process of urban schools in SINI status from the perspective of
teachers and principals and how this ultimately affects student achievement.
70
Chapter 3: Research Method
The specific problem was that urban schools remain in corrective status despite
targeted professional development to improve instruction (Clarke, 2009; Evans et al.,
2012; Finnigan, 2009; Good & McCaslin, 2008; Deke, J., Dragoset, L., Bogen. K., &
Gill, B., 2012).
The purpose of this qualitative multi-case study was to explore and describe
urban teachers’ and principals’ self-efficacy throughout a change process by
understanding each group’s beliefs about their strengths and abilities to promote student
learning, while also dealing with the process of school improvement. The questions
answered in this study were:
Guiding question. How are teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about their ability to
influence student learning impacted while implementing school improvement practices?
SQ1. What factors or experiences do teachers and principals see as having an
impact on their sense of self-efficacy either negatively or positively during these
changes?
SQ2. What knowledge, skills, or abilities do teachers and principals believe are
necessary, yet are missing, to improve their classroom and leadership practices to
positively impact student learning?
Qualitative research designs take place in natural settings where events are
interpreted from the perspective of the participants (Freeman et al., 2007). Using a
qualitative method allowed for rich dialogues with teachers and principals, leading them
to interpret the phenomenon of teacher or principal self-efficacy within the context of
their individual circumstances. This multiple-case study design used the CIT to explore
the construct of teacher and principal self-efficacy as it was experienced by teachers and
71
principals in the context of the urban classroom during the change process during school
improvement initiatives.
Self-efficacy is a very personal construct and is not experienced in the same way
by any two people (Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). Teacher self-efficacy has been
called an “elusive construct” (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). It is a
construct that is tacit in nature and not easily identifiable without having rich dialogues
with teachers (Tobin et al., 2006; Wheatly, 2005). It is also a construct that is context
specific and is based on the perception of the person experiencing the variables present in
their immediate context (Johnson et al., 2012; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2001). Thus, each teacher or principal was experiencing self-efficacy differently within
the context of the school improvement process specific to their urban setting. Each of the
teachers and principals who participated in the study became unique, single units making
each a different case (Yin, 2013).
Using a multiple case study design for this investigation allowed for similar cases
to be reported on a single phenomenon within different contexts, thus adding strength to
the findings (Yin, 2013). The use of CIT presented the phenomenon in a way that can be
explored more deeply within the three areas of teacher and principal self-efficacy as
described by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001).
Population
The target populations for this study were teachers and principals in grades first
through eight from urban settings, specifically from urban elementary schools within the
United States that were or had been in corrective action and experienced the school
improvement change process. There are an estimated 1,228 schools which are in some
72
status of school improvement. Such a large population size allowed for a stronger sample
of participants with similar backgrounds and experiences.
Sample
The use of criterion sampling selection will produce a minimum sample size for
this study of between 13 to 20 teachers and principals who were solicited for participation
through Internet sites established for the purpose of professional learning networking as
well as through social media sites. Criterion sampling allowed for quality assurance
(Miles & Huberman, 1994) through the use of participants from similar backgrounds and
experiences. In the case of this study the criteria was urban school teachers and
principals in grades 1 through 8 who were going through or had gone through the school
improvement process. Determining an exact sample size for a multiple case study cannot
be answered using sampling logic or statistics (Yin, 2014). Rather sample size should be
based on the saturation of the information being sought or the number of replications
(Yin, 2014). Seeking a higher number of replications results in stronger rival
explanations for an incident (Yin, 2014). Therefore, the sample size could have
expanded as the study progressed. Possible sites included the Educator’s PLN, Edutopia,
and English companion, and social media sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn. The
requests for participants were posted on sites that gave permission or social media sites
where permission was not needed. The requests included the specified criteria for
participation.
Materials/Instruments
This investigation used a qualitative multiple-case study design using the CIT to
explore the construct of teacher and principal self-efficacy as it was perceived by teachers
and principals in the context of the urban classroom during the change process while
73
implementing school improvement initiatives. This study utilized five data sources: The
TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), the PSES (Tschannen-Moran &
Gareis, 2004), the U.S. DOE data of SINI in either Tier I or Tier II funding, and semistructured interviews of teachers and principals using the Critical Incidence Technique
(CIT). The primary data source was the in-depth semi-structured interviews using an
interview guide created with the CIT (see appendix C). Using data source triangulation
the data collected through the two validated surveys and the data retrieved from the U.S.
DOE along with the data from the interviews were brought together to create a
convergence of findings (Yin, 2013). Yin (2009) emphasized that it is critical to
triangulate case study data produced through multiple sources. He postulated that an
important advantage to using triangulation of data is the converging lines of inquiry that
produce more convincing and accurate findings supported through several different
sources of information.
The TSES is a well-established instrument used for the last decade to measure
teacher self-efficacy both nationally and internationally (see appendix C). This survey
uses a Likert-type rating scale, with points ranking from1 (nothing) to 9 (a great deal)
and measures three areas of teacher efficacy: efficacy of instruction, efficacy of student
engagement, and efficacy of classroom management. This 9 point scale has a validity of
.90 proving greater validity than previous surveys of its type (Gibson & Dembo, 1984;
Hoy & Woolfolk Hoy, 1993, as cited by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) tested this survey with three different
groups and found the factor reliability was measured using principal–axis factoring on
three subscales totaling 24 items. Efficacy for instruction rated .91, efficacy for student
engagement rated .87, and efficacy of classroom management rated .90. The TSES was
74
administered online through the online survey service, Surveymonkey™. The survey
link was included in the request for participants post on the professional learning
networks. The identities of these teachers were kept confidential through the use of a
numeric/letter coding system.
Principal Self-Efficacy is an under reported construct (Tschannen-Moran &
Gareis, 2004) that deserves attention (see appendix C). One of the most reported
effective improvement models is replacing the leadership of the school (U.S. DOE,
2010). This supports the importance of exploring how principal self-efficacy interplays
with the school improvement process. What is known about principal self-efficacy is that
it is similar to teacher self-efficacy such that high self-efficacy leads to more effort, more
optimism in face of failure, and more dedication to improving performance. What is not
known is what effectively creates a sense of high or low self-efficacy in principals while
leading school improvement.
The PSES uses a 9 point rating from 1 (none at all) to 9 (a great deal) and is an
18 item survey (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). The survey consists of three
subscales: self-efficacy for instruction, self-efficacy for management, and self-efficacy
for moral leadership. This scale rated high for internal reliability at .91 as measured by
Cronbach’s alpha of internal consistency. Additionally, each of the three subscales also
showed high reliability with self-efficacy for instruction at .86, self-efficacy for
management at .87, and self-efficacy for moral-leadership at .83. However, these three
subscales demonstrate a mild correlation to each other, r = .48 to .58. Like the TSES, the
PSES was administered online through Surveymonkey™. The link was sent via email to
principals who expressed interest in completing the survey after the interview. As with
the teacher participants, a numeric/letter coding system was used to keep the identities of
75
the principal participants confidential.
There are pockets of urban schools across the country that have been in a
continuing state of underperformance (Duncan, 2012, Jones, 2013). The U.S. DOE has a
database of the top 100 largest urban school districts. Within this database are listed the
schools from each of these districts that are in tier I or Tier II, as identified by the SIG
program. Tier I and Tier II schools are those schools that are among the lowest 5% of
performance within their states (ARRA, 2009). School districts were required to select
one of four intervention models to be considered for the grant. Each model was
structured with the goal of turning around school performance in terms of student
achievement. Many districts choose the turnaround model, which replaces the existing
staff and principal and provides embedded professional development. The
transformation model replaces only the principal and adds incentives for effective
teachers and leaders. This model also provides embedded professional development.
The restart model closes the school and restarts it as a charter school. The fourth model
closes the low-performing school, moving students to schools that are higher in
performance. An analysis of this list served to identify which schools within the reported
districts have been in SINI status for a number of years and were cross-referenced with
the surveys taken by teachers and principals as a means of supporting survey findings.
Critical incident technique, known as CIT, was first developed and used by John
Flannagan in 1954 for use in the study of industrial and organizational learning
(Butterfield et al., 2005) and has expanded over time into other areas such as education.
This technique is used to focus on critical events that may impact performance either
positively or negatively (Butterfield et al., 2005). CIT has been described as a systemic,
inductive, and open-ended tool that is naturalistic and allows participants freedom of
76
expression when relating experiences (Sharoff, 2008). Participant responses are placed
into categories to analyze and identify those incidences that appear critical to promoting
certain behaviors. A critical incident is described as a behavior or action that makes a
significant impact on an activity or phenomenon (Gremler, 2004). The research
questions guiding this study were all based in the personal experiences and perceptions of
teachers and principals, therefore justifying the use of CIT to identify those behaviors that
either hinder or promote high efficacy as well as identifying which skills or competencies
teachers and principals feel are important, yet lacking, within the context of their unique
situation within the school improvement process.
The CIT will be used in gathering interview responses and placing each into
categories to determine their importance to the phenomena. The CIT has a series of
credibility checks that were established through the University of British Columbia
(Butterfield et al., 2005). The technique requires cross checking of participant responses
and a frequency of 25% for a response to be considered a critical incident. Therefore a
series of four established credibility procedures will be employed. Point of exhaustion
determines that a reported incident is critical when it reaches a level where the answers
are coming back the same and no new information is being communicated by the
participants. Flowing from this check is one that determines if the incident being
reported to exhaustion is at a frequency of 25%. A third check to be used is where the
researcher makes assumptions about the research and then compares it to scholarly
literature to support the assumption. The categories are also compared to the literature
for support. A final check to be used is where the intent of the participants’ responses are
reported accurately. This cross checking method was performed by having responses
read back to the participant being interviewed. This allowed the participant to think
77
about the responses given and make changes or additions for accuracy.
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis
The use of multiple data sources for measuring the same phenomenon has been
found to be a highly effective means of supporting findings on a single phenomenon
through triangulation of data (Yin, 2013). By bringing together the various data sources,
triangulation addresses the problems of construct validity because the different data
sources not only report on the same phenomenon, but ultimately support the findings of
each of the other sources (Yin, 2013). However, caution must be taken to ensure
accuracy in the collection of all data so lines of inquiry are not lost (Yin, 2013). There
were five sources of data that were used in this study: (a) statistical data on school
performance obtained from the U.S. DOE database, (b) the TSES (Tschannen-Moran &
Hoy, 2001), (c) the PSES (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004), (d) an interview guide
focused on the self-efficacy perceptions of teachers, and (e) a second interview guide
focused on the self-efficacy of principals.
The TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and the PSES (TschannenMoran & Gareis, 2004) were administered online via Survey Monkey™. The links for
the survey were originally posted on the professional learning networks, which had given
permission to post, or sent through emails if participants communicated their desire to be
in the study via social networks. Data were collected from completed surveys to
determine the levels of self-efficacy of teachers and principals within urban schools
operating in corrective status. Additionally, interview guides were developed and field
tested by one principal and one teacher who were currently working in school
improvement status. These semi-structured interviews were used to gain knowledge and
information from the perspective of participants pertaining to how teacher and principal
78
self-efficacy affected the school improvement process and what these two groups
believed should be addressed to increase their level of self-efficacy.
Data collection was broken into three phases, each phase using a different means
to collect data that was triangulated to identify the critical incidents of teacher and
principal self-efficacy as reported by the participants. Phase 1 of this study consisted of
an analysis of government data listing schools that were in need of improvement. These
data were crossed referenced with the demographic information provided by teachers and
principals who choose to participate in the survey administered during phase 2 of this
study. Criteria for participation were included in the request for participants. Phase 2
included the TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and the PSES
(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004), which was administered online to 1st through 8th
grade teachers and principals of urban districts from across the country who participated
in professional learning networks. Phase 3 of this study consisted of interviews of
teachers and principals who had completed the respective self-efficacy scales and who
had been identified as teaching in one of the schools identified on the U.S. DOE list of
SINI. Demographics were also included in the interview guides to determine eligibility
for the study from those participants who chose not to complete the survey as well as to
confirm the information provided by those participants who did complete the survey.
Interviews of people who are experiencing the critical incidents are the heart of CIT.
Additionally, these teachers and principals were asked to self-report experiences, creating
vignettes of incidences.
Figure 2 shows the path of data collection culminating in the triangulation of data
A triangulation of all data sources was used to bring together all the information
gathered in this study and allowed for an accurate interpretation of the phenomenon of
79
teacher and principal self-efficacy in an atmosphere of high accountability. Triangulation
of data is used to validate the phenomenon and support the findings of the study (Yin,
2013). Triangulation is a vital part of the CIT to determine which incidents were critical
and in need of being addressed in the school improvement process.
U.S DOE
SIG Data
Triangulation
Phase 2:
Surveys
TSES
Sample
selected
through
PLNS &
Networking
Phase 3:
Interviews
PSES
Sample
selected
through
PLNS &
Networking
Teachers
Participants
selected
from survey
results
Principals
Participant
s selected
from survey
results
Figure 2 Triangulation of Data.
CIT gives a means for participants to “tell their story” or reflect on their
experiences (critical incidents; Fillis, 2006). CIT allows researchers to obtain a
retrospective story of an actual experience that a person has lived through (Fillis, 2006;
Sharoff, 2008). It also allows participants to focus on a specific event (Fillis, 2006;
Sharoff, 2008). The content of the stories or experiences were analyzed and then sorted
80
into categories that summarized the critical incidents (Gremler, 2004).
The goal of the analysis of categories and subcategories was to create a
classification system that provided information regarding the frequency and patterns of
factors that affect the phenomenon of interest (Gremler, 2004). Once analyzed,
researchers could interpret or make judgments of the behavior surrounding the incidents,
thus giving them value (Sharoff, 2008). CIT and this analysis promote understanding the
collective experience of people who are placed in socioeconomic or political contexts
(Fillis, 2006).
Interviews were digitally recorded and then later transcribed verbatim. Prior to
the interviews, preliminary start codes were developed from the research questions, the
conceptual framework, and the literature review (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The
framework provided the themes expected to be studied and the start codes set up
beginning categories and subcategories in which each event or response were grouped.
Transcriptions were uploaded into NVivo10, a software program for qualitative
analysis, to analyze the data (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). This program was
used to capture the voice of the interview participants as they related their exact
experiences with and perceptions about school improvement. Using the categories
produced through the start codes and interview responses, the additional use of an
evaluation coding system (Miles et al., 2014) broke the responses into critical or
noncritical incidents to understand which actions or behaviors teachers and principals
perceived were needed yet were missing from their skills and knowledge necessary for
school improvement. As new ideas began to emerge from interview transcripts, a
comparison was made with the earlier transcripts to identify similar ideas leading to new
codes being created and added for analysis. Table 2 shows the start codes that were used
81
for the classification of responses.
Table 2Start Codes
Description
School Improvement
Code
SI
School Improvement Year 1
SIYR1
School Improvement Year 2
SIYR2
School Improvement Year 3
SIYR3
School Improvement Year 4 +
SIYR4+
Teacher Self-Efficacy
Efficacy for Instruction
TSE
TSE-I
Efficacy for Student Engagement
TSE-SE
Efficacy for Classroom Management
TSE-CM
Principal Self-Efficacy
PSE
Efficacy for Instructional Leadership
PSE-IL
Efficacy for Management
PSE-M
Efficacy for Moral Justice
PSE-ML
Contexts
Con
Cultural
Con-Cul
Environmental
Con-Env
Social
Con-Soc
Experiences/Teachers
Instructional
Exper/T
Exper/T-I
Student Engagement
Exper/T-SE
Classroom Management
Exper/T-CM
Principal Support
Exp.er/T-PS
82
Colleagues
Experiences/Principals
Exper/T-Coll
Exper/P
Instructional Leadership
Exper.P-IL
Management
Exper/P-M
Moral Leadership
Exper/P-ML
Teacher Support
Exper/P-TS
Central Office Support
Exper/P-CO
Expectations/Teachers
Expec/T
Student Achievement
Expec/T-SA
Student Behavior
Expec/T-SB
Principal Support
Expec/T-PS
Parent Support
Expec/T-Par
Motivation/Teachers
Mot/T
Implementation of School Improvement Strategies
Mot/T-ISIS
Remain in position
Mot/T-RiP
Motivation/Principals
Implementation of School Improvement Strategies
Remain in position
Mot/P
Mot/P-ISIS
Mot/P-R
Assumptions
The use of online professional learning networks created a need to trust in the
people who chose to participate. It would be only by chance that the researcher would
know any of the participants. This then leads to the following assumptions. First, was
the assumption that people who participated in the study were who they said they were.
In other words, that teachers were indeed teachers and principals were principals and that
83
they had experience in urban schools that had been through school improvement at some
point or to some extent. The second assumption was that the answers on the surveys
were true representations of the perceptions of each participant and not what participants
felt the answer should be. For example, for the question ‘ how much can you help your
students think critically’ if a participant responded ‘ a great deal’ it was assumed this was
a true perception by this person and not what the person thought it should be, even if he
or she knew it to be something less. The third assumption was that each interviewed
participant was describing their experiences as accurately as possible and not imagining
what it could have been like or giving only partial accuracy and filling in the rest. This is
critical when using CIT to accurately identify events considered critical incidences.
Limitations
A potential threat to validity of the CIT noted in the literature (Butterfield et al.,
2005) is the potential for having vague recall of incidents from participants. Flanagan
(1954) suggested that if an incident appears vague, lacking in detail, or is somehow
incomplete, it should be left out of the data. Additionally, although it is required that all
participants are focused on the same issue and are asked the same questions, any change
in wording of the question could bring about major changes in responses (Sharoff, 2008).
This becomes the judgment of the recorder. However, as clearly laid out via the four
checks for validity, this threat becomes minimal (Butterfield et al., 2005; Gremler, 2004;
Sharoff, 2008). These checks are being used widely and consistently in research
involving the CIT (Butterfield et al., 2005) and have therefore proven to be a reliable
means to guard against this threat.
An additional limitation to this study could have been an insufficient number of
participants to determine lateral replication (Yin, 2013), as well as determination of
84
critical incidents (Butterfield et al., 2005). Yin (2013) described lateral replication as
being able to predict similar results. Teacher and principal self-efficacy, though an
individual experience, should produce levels of high or low self-efficacy per each
individual in similar or somewhat similar contexts; urban schools going through school
improvement. This also differs for different school contexts.
Delimitations
Delimitations to this study included the use of elementary grades first through
eighth. The study did not allow for high school. It focused in on the grades that held the
most accountability. Additionally, because urban school districts have a greater number
of schools remaining in school improvement over an extended period of time, suburban
schools were not considered in this study.
Another delimitation to this study was the conceptual framework. Self-efficacy is
a broad concept that pulls in a multitude of other theories and constructs. It moves
beyond motivation and contexts and has been shown to have effects on personal growth,
ability and skills (Bandura, 1977), beliefs, and life choices (Yenice et al., 2012). The
current framework worked within the realm of self-efficacy effects on climate, culture,
motivation, and contexts within urban schools in school improvement status.
Manpower was a delimitation of this study because of the use of one researcher to
conduct the data collection. Though cost efficient, it did put a constraint on the amount
of time needed to collect a greater amount of data. The use of one researcher also
restricted the number of participants. However, by going through the professional
learning networks to select the sample population, it opened up to teachers from all
regions in the United States allowing for a more generous number of teachers with a
wider range of experiences, thus providing a better chance of replication. To have
85
limited the sample to a specific region of the United States may not have provided a large
enough sample from which to collect data that identified critical incidences.
Ethical Assurances
Before beginning this study, an approved application to the IRB of the university
was received. It is required that all research first be determined safe for all participants
before proceeding (Creswell, 2009). A letter of consent outlining the purpose, procedure,
duration, and criteria to participate was provided in the online request for participants.
Participants must be protected from any mental, emotional, or physical harm while
participating in a study (Creswell, 2009). The risk involved in this study was minimal to
those who volunteered to participate; reduced to having one’s identity revealed to others
only if there were communication between participants.
The letter of consent (see Appendix A) was created to provide information about
the study. This letter informed the potential participants of the nature of the study, the
expected outcomes from the study, the extent and the duration of their participation, their
right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty, and any risk that may have
been involved if they did participate. Additionally, as required, it provided assurances
that participant responses would not be shared outside of the study unless permission was
given to do so. The letter further explained how the data would be disposed of after the
study and the timeline for doing so.
Surveys were administered online through professional learning sites. This
allowed the participants to complete the survey in the privacy of their home. Those
participating in interviews were given the choice of doing the interviews via webcam or
by phone. All participants were coded using a number-letter coding system. These codes
were cross referenced with school districts listed on the urban school roster obtained from
86
the U.S. DOE website. The school districts were coded as well using numerical codes.
All participant information and data were kept on a digital recorder as well as on the
researcher’s laptop. Once the study has been completed all information will be deleted
and destroyed after five years
Summary
The study of teacher and principal self-efficacy is still a fairly new area of
research (Federici, 2013; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2007). There is a need to study
these two constructs as they relate to the success of school improvement and student
achievement. Research has indicated that in many cases school improvement impacts
teacher self-efficacy negatively causing a lowering of student achievement (Honig &
Rainey, 2012; Takahashi, 2011). School improvement affects principals’ self-efficacy as
well, creating stress and avoidance behaviors (Good & McCaslin, 2008). Since principal
self-efficacy directly influences teacher self-efficacy (McCullers & Bozeman, 2010;
Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2007; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011) the need to study both
together as they relate to school improvement may be critical to developing paths to
relevant professional development.
The purpose of this qualitative multi-case study was to explore and describe urban
teachers’ and principals’ self-efficacy throughout a change process by understanding each
group’s beliefs about their strengths and abilities to promote student learning while also
dealing with the process of school improvement. The research design for this study was a
multi-case study design using CIT to collect and analyze data. There were three phases
to this study. In the first phase data were collected from the U.S. DOE Database of SINI
identified by their participation in the SIG program. Phase two was the administration of
two self-efficacy scales, the TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and the
87
PSES (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). The scales were administered through
professional learning networks online using SurveyMonkey™. The target population
consisted of all urban elementary teachers and principals for grades 1 through 8.
Multiple case studies follow a replication strategy (Miles et al., 2014; Yin, 2013) for
sample selection. The samples selected are based on conceptual grounds and create a
continuum of responses (Miles et al., 2014). Using the CIT, phase 3 of data collection
was the development of an interview guide from the survey responses. An evaluative
coding system was used to categorize participants’ responses using NVivo response
coding to supplement. Vignettes were also used to get a richer picture of participant
experiences.
88
Chapter 4: Findings
Although there have been much research conducted in the area of school reform
and school improvement, there still exists a gap in the research that does not explain why
schools in corrective status continue in that status for several years despite support,
funding, and professional development. The purpose of this qualitative multi-case study
was to explore and describe urban teachers’ and principals’ self-efficacy throughout a
change process by understanding each groups’ beliefs about their strengths and abilities
to promote student learning while also dealing with the process of school improvement.
Chapter 4 provides an analysis of data collected in the three phases of this study
as described in Chapter 3, with the primary data collected using the critical incident
technique. Descriptions and demographic information about each of the participants will
be included in this chapter along with the interview guide used for the semi-structured
interviews. Sample size and selection will be explained along with the recruitment
technique used to obtain the sample. Additionally, Chapter 4 will include a brief
description of the field test of the interview guides. The results of the interviews will be
presented in pre-determined themes and subthemes as well as emerging themes and
subthemes.
The following research questions were answered in this study:
Guiding question. How are teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about their ability to
influence student learning impacted while implementing school improvement practices?
SQ1. What factors or experiences do teachers and principals see as having an
impact on their sense of self-efficacy either negatively or positively during these
changes?
SQ2. What knowledge, skills, or abilities do teachers and principals believe are
89
necessary, yet are missing, to improve their classroom and leadership practices to
positively impact student learning?
The rest of this chapter will flow from the field test to sample criteria followed by
participant recruitment and participant descriptions. These will be followed by
methodology of data collection for each of the three phases with the results. Finally, a
triangulation of the data from these sources will be made.
Field Test
The two interview guides that were developed were field tested by one teacher
and one principal. Field testers were interviewed, and their responses were recorded.
They were asked to determine whether the questions appeared appropriate or redundant.
Both reported that the questions were appropriate and found no redundant questions in
the set. Therefore, the guides used for this study were not changed. Additionally, the
two field testers were asked to complete the Teacher Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale or the
Principal Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale for the purpose of determining how closely their
interview answers corresponded with their survey results.
Sample Criteria
The sample for this study was drawn from a population of educators who had
been through the school improvement process sometime in their career. The preferred
population was from urban districts since a majority of urban school districts are in
corrective status or have schools in their district in corrective status. The sample was
teachers and principals from large urban districts that are currently or have previously
been in corrective status and the school improvement process. Data from the National
Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) were used to determine whether the districts
from which these teachers were selected were in corrective status or had schools in
90
corrective status. The NCES compiles the statistics having to do with schools in the
United States. These statistics include test scores, attendance data, discipline data,
demographic and ethnic data, Federal loans or grants received by the school districts,
school and district rankings, graduation rates, and more. The data which were retrieved
for the purposes of this study were performance data obtained through specific criteria or
benchmarks set by the Federal Government. The demographic information provided by
participants included their location and/or their school district. This information was then
cross referenced with the data retrieved from the NCES list of schools in improvement
status to determine whether they were in or had been in school improvement.
Participant Recruitment
Recruitment of the sample participants took place through online professional
learning sites and social media sites. Recruitment statements were posted on three
professional learning sites; the Educatorpln, the English Companion, and
TeachersCorner. Educatorpln and English Companion required permission from the site
administrators, which was obtained before posting the recruitment statement.
TeachersCorner did not require permission because the site included a special link to post
such requests. Additionally, social media sites, Facebook, and LinkedIn were also
utilized, and requests for study participants were posted on both through a personal
account on each site. Recruitment posts included information for taking an online survey
through SurveyMonkey™. A total of 13 participants were recruited through this method;
6 principals and 7 teachers all ranging from 5 years of experience to over 30 years of
experience.
As a part of the recruitment, participants were asked to complete an online survey,
which was used to filter out those who did not meet the sample criteria. The survey was
91
accessed by 29 educators. Twenty-three out of the 29 (79%) were teachers, and six
(21%) were principals. Of the 23 accessed by teachers, only 6 (26%) were completed.
One teacher chose not to do the survey. As a part of the informed consent letter that
participants were asked to sign, participants were free to skip any questions they were not
comfortable answering. This one participant felt that she did not want to complete the
survey but did want to answer the interview questions. She requested to be able to write
her answers, so the questions were sent to her with the request for demographic
information. Of the 6 principals who participated, only 3 (50%) completed the survey.
The results from surveys were used to provide additional data on the self-efficacy levels
of the participants who completed them and to use their responses to ask clarifying
questions when necessary.
Sample Participants
The sample participants were selected from professional learning networks and
social media sites. Study participants were urban teachers and principals who had
experienced working under school improvement status for any period of time. Six
principals and seven teachers took part in this study. Of the seven teachers, three of them
were teaching in charter schools and one was teaching overseas. These four participants
had taught in public schools that had moved into corrective status. After experiencing a
year of corrective status, they chose to leave their schools and teach in charters or in other
countries.
Table 3 provides a list of the participants and includes the number of years each
participant had experienced working under corrective status, whether this experience took
place with their current school or was a previous experience. The table also includes the
enrollment and poverty level of each school from which the participant is relating their
92
stories.
Table 3
Participants’ Years in School Improvement and demographic information
SIS in Current
School
Years operated
in SIS
Enrollment
during SIS
Percentage of
Economically
Disadvantaged
Principal 1 (P1)
yes
1
360
99.0%
Principal 2 (P2)
yes
1
760
98.0%
Principal 3 (P3)
yes
4
417
99.3%
Principal 4 (P4)
yes
3
342
63.9%
Principal 5 (P5)
no
4
433
90.0%
Principal 6 (P6)
no
4
511
90.0%
Teacher 1 (T1)
yes
1
824
23.9%
Teacher 2 (T2)
no
1
524
37.0%
Teacher 3 (T3)
yes
4
693
98.4%
Teacher 4 (T4)
no
1
Teacher 5 (T5)
no
1
Teacher 6 (T6)
yes
4
511
90.0%
Teacher 7 (T7)
yes
4+
378
99.2%
Participant
Key: SIS = School Improvement Status
Two participants declined to supply specific information on the location of the
school districts where they experienced the school improvement process; however, they
did supply the state and the city. They did give reasons in their interview responses why
they left those districts.
Table 4 shows the participants race, gender, level of education, and years of
experience as an educator.
93
Table 4
Demographics of participants
Race
Gender
Level of
Education
Years of
Experience
Grade Level
P1
W
F
Doctorate
20-30
K-6
P2
AA
F
Doctorate
15-20
K-6
P3
W
M
Doctorate
15–20
K-6
P4
W
M
Masters
5–10
7-12
P5
AA
F
Masters
15–20
K-8
P6
W
F
Masters
15–20
7-12
T1
W
F
Masters
5–10
8
T2
W
F
10–15
5
T3
W
F
30+
1-3
T4
W
F
15–20
8
T5
W
M
10- 15
4
T6
W
F
Masters
15 –20
1
T7
AA
F
Masters
1–5
5
Participant
Masters
Key: W = White, AA= African American, F=Female, M=Male
A brief description of each participant follows with a quote from each about their
sense of self-efficacy and school improvement.
Principal 1 (P1) was a White female and was a principal in a large urban district
in the Midwest. She had 30 or more years as an educator with 26 as a principal, part of
which she was principal over a residential school. She had a high level of self-efficacy as
she related that her strength was having the ability to “build a strong team” and promote a
feeling of “family” by expecting teachers to work together to come to team decisions.
I make this school a family. That’s both good and bad in that we really protect
the adults and the kids in the school. I’m a really [sic] teacher advocate. I do
more for my teachers and staff than I do for my families or kids to a detriment.
94
But theory has always been if they [teachers and staff] are well-taken care of they
will take care of the kids.
She felt that she had just enough support from the Central Office and wanted to be left
alone to let the school family take care of educating the students without interference.
Her school was in Effective status before dropping this past year, placing it in school
improvement year 1. Her school has an enrollment of 376 and a poverty level of 99%.
Principal 2 (P2) was a Black female, who was a principal in a large Midwest
urban district. She had 30 years of experience in education. Her school was also in
Effective status until it dropped last year into school improvement year one. She
appeared to show a high level of self-efficacy for instructional leadership and school
management. She stated that her high point is “knowing instruction”:
I know what it looks like, tastes like, and feels like, so when I am conducting my
rounds I can give constructive feedback to teachers. . . . I told my Assistant
Principal that knowing instruction is the number one priority, and the other stuff
will fall into place.
Her school had an enrollment of 760 students, k–6 and a poverty level at 98% percent.
Principal 3 (P3) was a White male with 15 to 20 years of experience as an
educator and six years as principal in an urban school also located in the same district as
P1 and P2. His school had been in corrective status for 4 years or more. He believed:
the kids come, and they get loved, they get clothed; they get health care; they get
food and amongst all this stuff we try to give them an education. That’s the
culture. I want to bring in as many resources from the community as I can get my
hands on to benefit these kids and their families and give them exposure to things
95
they’ve never been exposed to. It’s something I am passionate about and hope it
continues. I set that tone with the teachers and the kids. . . . We try to save kids.
But his frustration lay with how the schools’ performance was measured by the state.
The system is set up to reflect what your students can do on a 2 1/2 hour test on a
reading and math test, and that reflects everything about your school. They don’t
talk about how many families you served or that you tried to save a kid that so
many other schools would try to squeeze out because of their test scores.
P3’s school was a K-6 school and had an enrollment of 292 students with a poverty level
of 99%.
Principal 4 (P4) was a White male principal of a school with seventh through
12th grades. He was from a large Midwest district as well. His school was a magnet
program and had an enrollment of less than 500 students. He had been in his current
position for 4 years. His school was in school improvement for 3 years before reaching
Excellent status 2 years ago. This past year, the school dropped back into corrective
status. He exhibited a sense of high self-efficacy about his ability to lead his staff to get
on board with best practices being promoted by the district.
Working with the county school improvement coaches we thought we were really
clicking and doing an effective job on teams, talking about data. Different teams
and different teachers had come up with some ways in talking about data and
getting students to set goals. Our research around goal setting shows
improvement in student achievement. Although the language was pushing back
on it, the implementation was there, and everybody established some sort of
system where they were getting students to set goals and reflecting on their work.
I really felt good about that, and I felt it had really moved some of the
96
conversations, and it was happening school wide. It helped me to see the value of
conversations and not backing off the goal, making some part of it nonnegotiable.
His school had an enrollment of 342 students with a poverty level of 63.9%.
Principal 5 (P5) was a Black female who was the principal of an elementary
magnet program, K-6, in a large Midwest urban district. She had previously been in a
school that was in corrective status for 4 years or more. She was moved out of the school
and after 5 years came back as the principal of her current school.
I developed a high sense of self-efficacy because the implementation [of
initiatives] were supported by monthly professional development and networking
with other Principals who were working through the process. We were allowed
release time with our staffs to complete the professional development and reflect
on the process of implementation.
She went on to express her disappointment that this time was not continued throughout
the school year. She went on to express:
The exterior team [from Central Office] would come in and tell you how things
were going to be done, and they monitor to make sure this is happening. You are
not the instructional leader, but rather you become the Principal Police.
Her previous school had an enrollment of 433 with a poverty level of 90%.
Principal 6 (P6) was a White female who was removed from her previous
assignment 2 years ago and was placed as an assistant principal at a Magnet school in the
same large Midwest school district. She believed:
School improvement is not about skills. It is about support, resources, and
transparency. There are limits on what you can do because the union and the
97
district are at odds and, as a result, there are no win–win scenarios. Climate and
culture often a tone of distrust and being ‘hung out to dry’ as a result.
Her previous school was a neighborhood elementary school, grades K-6. Her enrollment
was 511 with a poverty level of 90%.
Teacher 1 (T1) was a White female who had taught previously in a public school
in a different state in a large Southern district. She was currently in a district along the
East coast. She had 5 to 10 years of experience. Being responsible for teaching a class of
“low-level eighth graders,” she believed that using technology in her class was a high
point of her self-efficacy, being able to:
Figure out how to incorporate it daily into my classroom. They are doing it.
Their motivation level is rather low. To get them to do it is difficult. Anytime
kids have success it encourages me as well. So seeing them succeed makes me
look deeper.
She was part of a teaching team that serviced a total of 60 students, all who are
”lower-level” eighth graders. Though she stated that her school was not currently in
corrective status, she did share areas that she believed her ability to instruct her students
effectively and were best practices mandated by the district.
Teacher 2 (T2) was a White female who taught in a charter school in an urban
district in the Southern United States. She believed she had a high sense of self-efficacy
due to high ratings she had received on the new teacher evaluation system put into place
by the district. “I was the guinea pig for the new Teacher Evaluation System that was
going to be implemented this coming school year. I received a high rating after
observations, and it made me feel accomplished because of it.” However, she
experienced low efficacy due to a student survey that the district was also implementing
98
to allow students to have their say in how they felt their teachers performed.
Asking middle school students to rate my performance using various indicators,
many of which they could not understand and answer, and which were ridiculous,
resulted in low scores across the board. This seriously affected me and other
teachers. Knowing that these results will affect me next year is depressing.
The school in which she was teaching was a Middle School, but no other information was
provided by this teacher about the school.
Teacher 3 (T3) was a White female with 30+ years of experience as an educator,
much of which has been in the same large urban Midwestern school district. She was a
lead teacher in her building, responsible for ensuring that her team knew how to
implement the initiatives mandated by the district. The school in which she worked was
a large Magnet/neighborhood school with a large ESL population. The school enrolled
close to 700 students. She stated that because of the new initiatives that were to be
implemented in the schools, she had a high sense of efficacy because these initiatives
were made up of best practices that she had been teaching by most of her career.
I felt more confident because for most people it cramped their style, but for me it
was more like the style I love, which is more student time and less that the teacher
actually had to talk. I actually didn’t realize it at the time that I had leeway to
teach like this
However, she admitted that her low point was not being able to get all the
teachers on her team to understand and implement the strategies.
I work with different grade levels every year and some of the grade levels I get
assigned to are on the ball with me and are able to adapt and others, for some
reason, don’t understand what teacher stations look like or what student centers
99
look like and they struggle with it. I tried everything from modeling, setting it up
for them, doing it for them, and finally, I had to think ‘they have to take control of
this themselves’ so that was a low point.
Teacher 4 (T4) was a White female who taught eighth grade from a charter
school on the East coast with 15-20 years of experience. She chose to leave her previous
public school to be a part of a charter school pilot developed by the local university and
parent groups.
I was one of the teachers and parents on the board. It was a diverse group, and we
really felt we were able to take federal mandates and implement them in our
school in a way that was respectful of our students, parents, and teachers. We
were able to take whatever the State and Federal mandates were and implement
them in a way that best fit our visions and mission. We were able to implement
on the local level and not have to worry about local district control. We were able
to sit down together, share drinks, and talk about what we wanted for our
students. This was the first time I ever felt empowered.
She felt a sense of low self-efficacy when:
in recent years, it has become more difficult. Even county wide it has become
difficult to make decisions that are appropriate for students in the classroom. I
think about the students in the back of my mind and how they don't have a voice
about being educated by non-educators. Our state is very conservative. I was
concerned about if certain decisions, such as curricular decisions, were given to
non-educators. Honestly, over the last few years, things have gotten worse.
Autonomy has been lost. Decisions are being made by people with zero
100
experience in the classrooms and about students without any kind of real basis. It
has affected my sense of efficacy to some extent.
She did not provide enrollment information or socio-economic information about her
school.
Teacher 5 (T5) was a fifth grade, White, male teacher with 15 to 20 years of
experience. He had previously taught in a large urban district in the Southwest but had
left that district to teach overseas. He ascribed his high sense of self-efficacy to:
My class was mostly made up of Hispanic students, so the district was really
focused on that. What we used CBM and different tools. I think a high point for
me was going through the process of learning a new curriculum scope and
sequence. The new curriculum was well liked by the new teachers, and I had to
adopt it.
He then expressed his sense of low efficacy:
People are always coming in and mandating things that need to be done; you’re
always going to lose people. It lowers morale, and I think that’s the biggest
impact for me because it makes more work, and it makes it harder and you just
don’t see the direct benefit from it. It just seems like busy work when someone
higher up is mandating you to do something and you don’t know yourself how to
take ownership of it and you don’t see the direct impact it has on your students.
So I think it’s hard to go through with it.
Teacher 6 (T6) was a White female teacher who has 15 to 20 years of experience
as an elementary teacher. She was teaching first grade in a large Midwest urban school
district. She reported that her high point of self-efficacy came when she started to
implement the new Common Core State standards (CCSS) and liked the results she was
101
getting.
A high point was my ability to integrate the CCSS in science and social studies. I
felt that the CCSS were clear enough that I could logically and easily connect the
dots. We did reports using children's nonfiction books; read a LOT of books,
articles, excerpts on the SS/Sci content; answered text-dependent questions;
created Interactive Student Notebooks; created PowerPoints/Prezis on content
topics, etc. This boosted my self-efficacy because the more we did, the more
ideas I had, and the more I felt I improved with assigned tasks for the students.
However, she felt there was a lot that she believed caused her to have a lowered sense of
self-efficacy.
There have been many low points. The district seems to change things constantly.
The idea behind this is perhaps good—to learn, change, grow, do it better—but
the reality is that it seems like so little gets accomplished. It seems like we don't
really do anything in earnest.
Teacher 7 (T7) was a Black female and a fairly new teacher with just 1 to 5 years
of experience. She taught a fifth-grade class in a neighborhood school that was
redesigned and was located in a large Midwest urban district. She had been surplused
from her previous assignment in a school in the same district that was in Excellent status
with the state. Her sense of self-efficacy was evident as she explained a high point to her
career:
We are using tablets with students in Language Arts. We are piloting this
program with the district. Each student has their own tablet. It has proven to
provide high student engagement. I feel I am very strong with this. I enjoy using
102
the tablets for instruction and see a lot of student engagement with them. This
makes my instruction effective.
However, she sees her efficacy lowered because of a lack of resources to support the new
use of tablets.
I am not comfortable with the reading program. There are not enough resources.
I would probably use them (tablets) if there were more teacher resources. I think
this is a cause of low self-efficacy for me. Not enough resources. It is also
difficult to follow some initiatives. There are too many.
Data Collection
Data were collected for this study in four ways. First, through archival records
from the NCES; second, through two online surveys that measured self-efficacy beliefs
of teachers and principals; and last, through semi-structured interviews with participants.
The interviews were the primary source of data and were designed using the critical
incident technique, fashioned to gather what teachers and principals believed was missing
or needed when designing improvement initiatives.
The surveys were placed online using SurveyMonkey™ and were optional for
participants. Of the 13 participants, 9 (62%) completed the surveys. Data from the
NCES provided information about school districts across the country operating in
corrective status. This information was used to determine whether the participant came
from districts or schools in corrective status. Finally, the interviews were used to
determine what the participants considered to be critical to improving their schools and
should be considered by reformers, both locally and nationally.
Data were uploaded to NVivo 10, a computer program designed to sort, group,
and analyze qualitative data. The interview responses were first created from start codes
103
created from the literature review and the conceptual framework that grounded the study.
As analysis continued and more interviews took place, new themes began to emerge and
were added to the codes. Table 5 shows the start codes that came from the review of
literature and the new themes that emerged from the interviews are shown in table 6.
Table 5
List of Start Codes
Description
School Improvement
Code
SI
School Improvement year 1
SIYR1
School Improvement year 2
SIYR2
School Improvement year 3
SIYR3
School Improvement year 4+
SIYR4
Teacher Self–Efficacy
Self-efficacy for instruction
TSE
TSE-I
Self-efficacy for student engagement
TSE-SE
Self-efficacy for classroom management
TSE-CM
Principal Self-efficacy
PSE
Self-efficacy for Instructional Leadership
PSE-IL
Self-Efficacy for Management
PSE-M
Self-efficacy for Moral Leadership
PSE-ML
Contexts
Con
Cultural
Con-cul
Environmental
Con-Env
Social
Con-Soc
Experiences/Teachers
Exper/T
Instructional
Exper/T-I
Student engagement
Exper/T-SE
Classroom management
Exper/T-CM
Principal Support
Exper/T-PS
Colleagues
Exper/T-Coll
104
Description
Code
Experiences/Principals
Exper/P
Instructional Leadership
Exper/P-IL
Management
Exper/P-M
Moral Leadership
Exper/P-ML
Teacher Support
Exper/P-TS
Central Office Support
Exper/P-COS
Expectations/Teachers
Expec/T
Student Achievement
Expec/T-SA
Student Behavior
Expec/T-SB
Principal Support
Expec/T-PS
Parent Support
Expec/T-ParS
Motivation/Teachers
Mot/T
Implementation of School Improvement Strategies
Mot/T-ISIS
Remain in position
Mot/T-RiP
Motivation/Principals
Mot/P
Implementation of School Improvement Strategies
Mot/P-ISIS
Remain in position
Mot/P-RiP
As the data were collected from interviews, new themes emerged. Table 6 shows the list
of codes that emerged from the interviews.
Table 6
Emerging themes
Description
Expectations/Principal
For instruction
For Central Office Support
Expectations/Teachers
Code
Expec/P
Expec/P-I
Expec/P-COS
Expec/T
For colleagues
Expec/T-Coll
For Central Office Support
Expec/T-COS
Relationships/Principals
Rel/P
105
Description
Code
Community
Rel/P-Com
Teachers
Rel/P-T
Unions
Rel/P-U
Relationships/Teacher
Rel/T
Community
Rel/T-Com
Parents
Rel/T-Par
Professional Development
PD
Alignment to student needs
PD-AtSN
Embedded
PD-Em
On-going
PD-Og
Funding
PD-F
Support
PD-Sup
Resources/Funding
R/F
Time
Tim
Results
Table 7 shows the frequency of interview responses per theme. Themes with a
25% response rate or higher were considered pertinent to teachers and principals to
support their efforts in bringing about school improvement. Responses are listed from
themes with the greatest response over all to the least responses over all. Table 7 shows
the number of respondents (nr) and the percentage of respondents (pr). Themes that were
found in the Literature Review are also shown on Table 7.
Table 7
Frequency of Responses per Theme
Theme
Nr
pr
Found in Literature
Climate and Culture
11
85%
yes
Time
10
77%
yes
Self-efficacy
10
77%
yes
106
Experiences
10
77%
yes
Expectations
10
77%
yes
PD
9
69%
yes
Relationships
7
54%
yes
Money
6
46%
no
Motivation
5
38%
yes
Communication
3
23%
no
Resources
1
<8%
no
Context
0
0%
yes
Critical Incident requires themes to have a 25% response rate for them to be
considered important to the participants to reach desired outcomes. Therefore, as this
analysis progresses, tables will present only those themes or subthemes that have at least
a 25% response rate; making them pertinent areas for the participants, either as a whole
group or as separate groups.
Climate and culture. Climate and Culture ranked as the most relevant among
the themes. Eleven out of 13 participants (85%); 6 out of 6 principals (100%) and 5 out
of 7 teachers (71%), referred directly to the climate and culture of the school or gave
descriptions of feelings, insights, or scenarios that had some direct impact on climate and
culture.
There were three subthemes under climate and culture that emerged as important
from the interviews and from the literature. Table 8 provides a breakdown of these
subthemes for all 13 participants.
Table 8
Climate and Culture
Climate and Culture
nr
pr
107
Overall responses
11
85%
Improvement
5
38%
Student Behavior
3
23%
Moral
2
15%
Table 9 shows the principal responses compared to all 6 principals for each of the
subthemes under climate and culture while Table 10 shows subtheme responses by
teachers compared to all 7 teachers for each subtheme.
Table 9
Climate and Culture/Principal Responses
Principal Responses
nr
pr
Total responses
6
100%
Improvement
2
33%
Student Behavior
2
33%
Morale
0
0%
Table 10
Climate and Culture/Teacher Responses
Teacher responses
nr
pr
Total responses
5
17%
Improvement
3
43%
Student Behavior
1
14%
Morale
2
29%
The highest ranked incident under climate and culture was improvement.
Improvement in this case referred to the school improvement process and the effects it
can have on those who are having to experience it. Five of the 13 respondents (38%); 2
respondents were principals (15%) and 3 respondent teachers (43%) who shared their
108
feelings about school improvement and the impact it had on them.
P6, a principal who was moved to a different position in a different school, had
this to say, “School improvement is not about skills. It is about support, resources, and
transparency.” P3, a principal whose school had been in school improvement for 4 years
commented:
The kids come, and they get loved, they get clothed; they get health care; they get
food, and amongst all that we have to try to give them an education. That’s the
culture. They don’t talk about how many families you served or that you tried to
save a kid when so many schools want to squeeze them out because of their test
scores. I guess I have an attitude about playing that game, and I don’t play the
game well. I guess I play it with an attitude. It’s not right that your school is
being judged by a test on a day when a kid came in and took an attitude about it
because of a fight at home or something that happened in the neighborhood. So I
put band aids on little things to help the kids be successful on a 2 1/2 hour test.
Teachers also had strong feelings about school improvement and the effect it has
on the climate of the school. T7 stated, “There is a lot of pressure to implement
completely, keep data, keep up with low achievers, and then having people coming in
demanding improvement now!. This creates high-stress levels.” T5 stated directly that
morale was affected by mandates and extra work load. Though morale was a lesser
subtheme, it was impacted by the improvement process that had further consequences in
other areas. T5 had this to say:
It’s the same with every school. Always coming in and mandating things that
need to be done, you’re always going to lose people. It lowers morale, and I think
109
that’s the biggest impact for me because it makes more work, and it makes it
harder and you just don’t see the direct benefit from it.
Although below the required 25%, the second most important theme that emerged
among the subthemes was student behavior with 3 out of 13 (23%) respondents. One of
7 teachers (14%) responded to the effects of student behavior on climate and culture;
placing a low priority on this subtheme by teachers. However, 2 out of 6 principals
(33%) responded on student behavior, making it an important issue for this group.
P2 felt frustration over the lack of support from the District for disciplining
younger students.
The district ties our hands a lot to be able to improve your climate and culture.
You have to be creative along with the teachers. It’s not you; it’s along with
them. For example, at K-3 you can’t do anything with them. Students can bite,
kick, stab, and you can’t do anything with them, and you can’t punish them. They
don’t get punished until they get to fourth grade. This year I’ve had primary kids
who are just violent, punching, kicking, biting, scratching but the district doesn’t
do anything with them so what I’ve had to do, I’ve had to work with the teacher,
the parent, my mental health agency to try to get this child some help.
Also speaking about student behavior effects on climate and culture, P4 had a different
outlook on how behavior affects the climate and culture of his school.
One of the things that happens is that teachers kind of carry over our own
problems into our discipline of students, whether it’s our discipline at home or
experiences in our previous schools. That is a factor we have to overcome, and I
don’t believe everybody is on the same page as to what good correction of
students looks like, but over time we’re sort of norming. At 9th grade every year
110
since our existence, about one-half of our middle school students have come from
outside the school. So while one-half of our students came through our school
and have some experience of what our school is like, what our expectations are,
what our holidays are, and what’s important to us in 9th grade: It was almost like
we were starting over again every year. That has been a challenge.
T1, the only teacher with a response involving climate and culture and student
behavior, described how her school implemented the Positive School Culture program
(PSC):
We have had faculty meetings on it [PSC]. We have integrated some of it; we
have signs we hang up about what behaviors are expected. I haven’t had any
training on how to make that happen in my classroom. Some behavior systems
we put in place on our team have been positive. I did a lot of research on what
other schools are doing, and they are using PSC and their plans are similar to what
we ended up doing. To a certain extent, except instead of school-wide initiatives
it is just our team of teachers that are doing it.
The remaining subthemes under climate and culture—morale, trust, autonomy,
and voice—are all important in creating a positive climate and culture but were not seen
as critical incidents to this group.
Time. Time emerged with 10 out of 13 participant (77%) responses and ranked
as the second most important theme, along with Self-Efficacy and Experiences. Under
this theme, eight subthemes emerged. Of the eight subthemes, two scored greater than
25%. Management, with 4 out of 13 participant responses (31%), was ranked the highest
among the subthemes. Management refers to the ability to structure time to manage all
priorities that take place at the same time during the school improvement process. The
111
other area, Collaboration had only 3 responses out of 13 participant responses (23%) to
the broader theme of time. Although the response rate was below 25%, these three
responses all came from the seven teachers, giving it a 43% response rate, making
significant to this group. The remaining subthemes were well below the 25% response
rate and were not considered as being significant for the whole group. However, 2 out of
6 principals (33%) did comment in each of these lower areas, making them exclusively
significant to principals. Table 11 shows the rankings of each of the eight subthemes
under Time that came from participant interviews. Time was a theme that was found in
the literature.
Table 11
Time
Time
nr
pr
Overall responses
10
77%
Management
4
31%
Collaboration
3
23%
Implementation
2
15%
Basic Needs
2
15%
Climate and Culture
2
15%
Table 12 shows the responses for each of the principal participants. Of the 6
principals who took part in the study, 5 (83%) had something to contribute about the need
for more time to successfully turn their school around.
Table 12
Time/Principal Responses
Principal Responses
Overall responses
nr
pr
5
83%
112
Management
2
33%
Collaboration
0
0%
Implementation
2
33%
Basic Needs
2
33%
Climate and Culture
2
33%
Time management was an essential factor for the 2 of the 6 principals, scoring at
33%. P4 reflected:
Where’s the time going to come from? What’s good about it is we have to
structure our time, but what’s bad about it is it’s really hard to figure out and I
challenged my staff at the start of the year and asked which of the pieces we are
doing we think are important as we are adding a new piece, which are the
important pieces we set down? That’s the question. We can’t do all this, and we
can’t do everything plus one, plus one, and plus one. At some point there just
isn’t room for plus one and what is, being done is important, the accountability
piece is important, the evaluation piece is important, so which part do we set
down?
In a similar statement P2 said:
More time! If I had the time in the day with the teachers. I don’t have time in the
day to do teacher evaluation. Are you kidding! I have 50 teachers; that doesn’t
include the auxiliary people and extra staff. I have to see them four times in
observations. When do I have time to coach? When to I have time to help with
instruction, and if I have a new teacher, god forbid! One thing that bothers me is
that I don’t have the time to fine tune and show them how to help kids.
Principals also stated that they need more time to implement the new strategies,
113
procedures, routines, and/or mode of operation. P2 was concerned about the new online
testing requirement coming from the State. She stated:
With all the new stipulations on State and District criteria, I don’t think we fully
understand it. The state keeps changing every time we turn around. Next year we
do all of Ohio Academic Assessment online. Now, I have kids who don’t have a
computer at home, so their skills are low when it comes to typing, are you
kidding? They’re not to get it finished; it will take them all day, they’ll have to
learn to move the mouse, and navigate it when they’re looking at maps and stuff.
Are you kidding? But the State said no matter what we have to do it. We thought
we could get a delay but they said no, we are doing it full force. So next year we
are doing the OAA online. It’s going to be horrible; it’s going to murder us.
There’s no way we can keep up. I’ll never be able to keep up with the magnet
schools, I know that. I don’t have those types of parents. Those kids will zoom
by and do well; mine won’t. Mine are still looking for the letter K or the letter A
on the keyboard and everything else. We have computers, but our kids only get
computers every so often, they can’t get it every day. We have a computer lab,
but they can’t get it every day and they have computer stations in the rooms but
they only get it two or three times a week, but not every day. You could spend
the day rotating them every 30 minutes, but you can’t.
The third subtheme which emerged as important to principals was Basic needs.
Two out of 6 principals (33%) believed that the child’s basic needs must be met before
any learning can take place. P3 put it this way:
The system is set up to reflect what kids can do in a 2 1/2 hour test, and that
reflects everything about your school. EVERYTHING about your school! They
114
don’t talk about how many families you served or that you tried to save a kid
when so many schools want to squeeze them out because of their test scores. I
guess I have an attitude about playing that game, and I don’t play the game well.
I guess I play it with an attitude. It’s not right that your school is being judged by
a test on a day when a kid came in and took an attitude about it because of a fight
at home or something that happened in the neighborhood. So, I put band aids on
little things to help the kids be successful on a 2 1/2 hour test.
P6 stated, “Schools need to first meet the basic needs of all students (Maslow's
Hierarchy of Needs) to impact student achievement. In many cases, parents are not able
to meet these needs. Schools must take over.”
The development of a positive climate and culture was the final area where
principals felt they needed more time. School improvement requires a change in climate
and culture, a change in the way people think about students and their learning, and in the
types of relationships needed to bring about a positive learning environment. Two out of
6 principals (33%) believed changing the climate and culture of a SINI takes time; more
time than what was being expected of them. P4 commented on how the climate of the
school would finally take on a more positive tone due to the decreased influx of new
students at the 8th-grade level into the 9th grade after 5 years. He reported:
At 9th grade every year since our existence, about one-half of our middle school
students have come from outside the school. So while one-half of our students
came through our school and have some experience of what our school is like,
what our expectations are, what our holidays are, and what’s important to us in
9th grade, it was almost like we were starting over again every year. That has
been a challenge. But this coming school year I believe our 9th grade is going to
115
be almost totally populated by students who were just promoted from our 8th
grade. That’s an exciting opportunity for us to no longer say, “Oh this portion of
misbehavior and this portion of climate is because kids walk in here with no idea
of what we’re all about.” These kids are all going to be here knowing what we
are all about, and I think it will be transformative and I think we’ll see that next
year.
Table 13 shows the response frequencies of teachers to the theme of Time. Five
out of 7 (71%) provided their insights and beliefs on this theme. However, they only had
two subthemes that they believed to be critical to their success in impacting their
students’ learning.
Table 13
Time/Teacher Responses
Teacher Responses
nr
pr
Total responses
5
71%
Management
2
29%
Collaboration
3
43%
Implementation
0
0%
Basic Needs
0
0%
Climate and Culture
0
0%
The first theme, Collaboration, had a 43% response rate with 3 out of 7 teachers
responding. Collaboration was seen as time to meet with team members, colleagues, and
other educators from other schools to discuss best practices, experiences, resources, and
experiences with the expectation of gaining new knowledge and insight in how to go
about implementing new strategies and pedagogy.
T4 believed time for collaboration led to positive results. She commented,
116
I really think the time should be to plan and collaborate. I really think working
with other teachers is the professional development I found to be most helpful. I
did several trainings over the summer and was able to come back and share the
techniques in a faculty meeting, which was fantastic. I was able to present and
demonstrate something that was handed down from on high.
T5 also believed that collaboration with colleagues and time to reflect was
essential to teachers’ success in implementing new programs and strategies and expressed
the need to allow time to do such collaboration during the school day rather than after
school or on weekends. He expressed it in this way:
I would like time to reflect. I would like to be given time in my school day, even
if it’s every 6 to 9 weeks to reflect with my team. If it’s a half day or an
instructional period, it can’t be tagged on top. I don’t want to do it after school,
and I don’t want to come in on the weekend because then it just seems like work.
If they want buy in they need to bend a little bit on instructional time for that PD
because that’s basically what it is, right? A lot of reform is teaching the staff to
do something differently, which is professionally developing them. So, I would
need time to reflect, I would like to see it being done by someone who has been
doing it for a while, and who I can talk to and who is the local expert to send
those questions and then time to compare. If we can compare grade levels,
schools in the same district and schools in a different district or having a teaching
buddy in a different district who is doing the same thing. It could be beneficial
depending on the partnership, or it could be more labor, or it could just backfire;
then it would be more work.
T6 expressed her desire to have more time to collaborate with the intervention
117
specialist about how to best meet the needs of her students with special needs. She
stated:
I need more direct collaboration with the IS. We are working toward that, but his
priority the past 2 years was math and reading, not Social Studies or Science. We
never co-taught, planned together, created or modified an assessment together.
Time management was an important theme for 2 out of 7 (28%) teachers. For
many educators, having time to plan, gather resources, and still attend community and
school events has become a challenge. T3 put it this way:
The time of day you have to spend planning your own work doesn’t always allow
you to be at those events at night. You know there are coordinators for this and
coordinators for that, and they can’t be at all those things. We use to try to plan
multicultural days. I’d come on Saturday in the neighborhood, but I can’t do that.
I can’t get to all that stuff.
T4 felt strongly about having time to collaborate with her colleagues:
Any time you change curriculum it takes time to work through it. I love the
Common Core, I think it’s fabulous, but you have resources you need to pull from
and books you need to read; you need time to think about what you’re going to do
and how to implement them. The time support I could use. Time for
collaboration. Time in the classroom to build those relationships and to
collaborate on teaching and maybe not so much paper work.
Self-efficacy. Teacher and Principal self-efficacy also found to be of great
significance to implementing successful school improvement with 10 out of 13
participants (77%) giving a description of what they do well or what they could have
done better. Teacher and Principal Sense of Self-efficacy was a major theme in the
118
literature.
Table 14 provides the response data to the overall theme of self-efficacy. There
were four subthemes that emerged under this theme. Of the four, moral leadership was
the lowest ranked in importance for the overall group; however, it was significant for
principals. The subthemes of Instruction and Management had different connotations
between the groups. For principals, the subtheme of Instruction referred to instructional
leadership. For teachers, this subtheme translated into instructional strategies. Similarly,
the subtheme Management referred to school management for principals and classroom
management for teachers. The subtheme of Student Engagement was exclusive to
teachers only.
Table 14
Self-efficacy
Overall Responses
nr
pr
Total responses
10
77%
Instruction
10
77%
Management
4
31%
Student engagement
3
23%
Moral leadership
2
15%
Results from these responses were matched to the participants’ surveys. In 100%
of the cases, the surveys matched the responses given by the participants who took the
survey.
Under principal self-efficacy, all subthemes emerged as significant. Table 15
shows the number of responses (nr) and percentage of responses (pr) by principals for
each area of efficacy for Principal Self-efficacy. Four of the 6 principals (67%) gave
examples of their self-efficacy.
119
Table 15
Self-efficacy/Principals
Self-Efficacy/Principals
nr
pr
Principal Sense of SelfEfficacy
4
67%
Instructional Leadership
4
67%
Management
2
33%
Moral Leadership
2
33%
Found in Literature
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
Instructional leadership is defined as the ability to lead school personnel to make
decisions that impact instruction positively, to create a climate and culture conducive to
teaching and learning, practicing shared leadership with teachers, and promoting a shared
vision for the school. Four out of 6 principals (67%) related their beliefs in their own
self-efficacy for being an instructional leader while operating in school improvement.
For example, P1 spoke highly of her ability to create a family among her staff and
students:
I think one of my strengths has been being able to develop a team. I make this
school a family. That’s both good and bad. It’s good in that we really protect the
adults and the kids. I am a real teacher or staff advocate. I do more for my
teachers and staff than I do for my families and kids to a detriment. But my belief
has always been if the teachers are well taken care of, they will take care of the
kids. I basically develop the teams and develop the family and the high
expectations. We have high expectations for a vision.
She sees herself as a good developer of staff. P2, however, saw her strength as knowing
120
instruction.
I think the high point comes through my ability for knowing instruction. I know
what it looks like, tastes like, and feels like, so, when I am conducting my rounds
I can give constructive feedback to the teachers. I don’t mind giving them fluff
stuff but to help them at that moment, I need to give them constructive feedback
to what I am seeing and either they can spot me or tell me I missed a part of the
instruction or they can take the suggestions; but I think for me the high point is
instructions. So, as I am coaching I told my Assistant Principal that the number
one priority is instruction. The other stuff will fall into place, but you’ve got to
know good instruction. I’ve gotten gratification from teachers because they
finally have someone who works hard and knows instruction and could give them
valuable comments because if I didn’t know it they wouldn’t take me seriously,
and because I do know it and the comments I have made have proven successful
because our test scores came up.
P3 described a lowered sense of self-efficacy in his attempt to bring up student
test scores.
Probably presenting the initiative in its initial stages when it was first being rolled
out as more of a positive thing and spinning it in that way. I know a lot of
principals came into their buildings and said, “This is how you’re going to do
things now, there is no discussion, this is the way it’s going to be” and I know
upper management was OK with that because this is what they wanted to see. I
didn’t take that track because I don’t know that cramming things done people’s
throat is the best way to get buy in. It really is total reflection on me because I
didn’t buy into it completely and totally; and right or wrong, that was
121
communicated to the staff and its like, “you know we’ve got to do this let’s just
go forward and do it, we’re going to make the best of it.
He admitted more than once it was all on him that the school didn’t improve.
I think if I had taken the time and broke that down, it would have evolved, and
people would have taken it and run with it and maybe made it more diversified for
their own room. For me, it’s still a compliance piece—do you have this posted,
do you have this up, or how come this isn’t updated, and why aren’t you on
schedule? If the whole presentation had been done differently and again, that’s all
on me.
Self-efficacy for school management yielded 2 responses out of 6 (33%). School
management deals with the everyday operations of teachers, students, support staff,
parents, and administration. The routines, the policies, the practices, and the schedules
that occur daily within the school. P3 showed a high sense of self-efficacy and
accomplishment as he described how he was able to oversee the inclusion of a health
clinic in his school.
Establishing the health clinic was a huge initiative just because we have so many
kids who miss school due to health problems and parents don’t take the time to
take them to get medical help that they need; so, moving that clinic in here and
giving up that space and getting that all organized and established was a huge
piece for us. Going through the health department, Cincinnati Health Department
handled the grant writing end of things. We handled the logistics piece of things,
providing space so it could be a useful clinic. So, we now have a waiting area
with a reception; we got a lab, we’ve got two exam rooms that are fully
operational that are electronic with computers. You can type in the patients’ data
122
and have it right there, and she can ship things out for blood testing, and she can
write scripts for the kids who need prescriptions. It is really a one-stop shop. It
really is because instead of parents having to go out some place and kids are out
of school for days on end because “I just never get around to make the
appointment” we can pull the kids right out of class and do the physical and send
them right back. Or, we can, if parents have medical issues where the kid has the
flu or the sniffles they can stop in the Clinic and make an appointment and in
some cases be seen by the physician within hours, be treated, and be done. To go
through it the first time you hit the bumps in the road in trying to get everything
established. To go through it a second time I’m much more aware and have a
much better feel of the process now and all the road blocks that were present to
begin with. You just know what is coming now.
Unlike P3, P4 had a different perception of his ability to successful manage
programs in his school.
I could have been more proactive in terms of knowledge or skills, in an
organizational sense to manage up if you will, or manage over, to know which
rocks to look under to find what I needed. In sort of mopping up afterwards I
found out where I could have gotten that information sooner and if I had the
opportunity I could have anticipated those problems and perhaps had a more
productive conversation with the person involved. I think I lack some of the
personal discipline to shut out the daily business of the school to do the important
business of the school. I need to be more directly involved in team meetings and
individual teacher meetings and forcing the conversation toward data. Yet, I find
myself drawn into discipline issues or these other things that are important and
123
need to be handled. So when I choose, I choose the thing that is easiest for me to
do. If I have to do an announced teacher observation and an emergency comes
up, I might handle the emergency or handle a situation with a student and I think a
part of that might come from my discomfort in this new area; pushing and
meeting these deadlines and having these hard conversations. I gravitate toward
the thing that is easier so the skill that would help in that case is the ability to say,
“Hey, this meeting I want to talk about data or this observation I want to have a
teacher follow-up on what we are doing.” I just need to do that so I would say
that is a discipline or type of skill that is lacking for me.
Moral leadership, the third area of principal self-efficacy, is how the principal
practices equity and fairness among his staff and students. This area pulls in the
compassion principals often need to meet the socio-emotional and physical needs of their
students. Of the 6 principals who participated, 2 (33%) spoke of how they meet the needs
of their staff and students. For example, P3 discussed how he and the teachers took in a
student who was struggling at other schools.
I want to bring in as many resources from this community or from the Cincinnati
community as I can get my hands on that will benefit these kids and their families
and give them exposure to things they’ve never been exposed to. It’s something I
am really passionate about, and I hope continues. I set that tone with the staff and
the kids. Last year I had a parent call. Her son was in a charter a school, and he
had been staying with his father and was promoted to the 7th grade. She said he
is nowhere near ready for the 7th grade. He has behavior issues; his grades are
terrible, and he doesn’t know, he cannot go to junior high school and be
successful. Will you take him in? I know this school can help him. So I took
124
him in with all the issues he brought with him. The kid was a mess. He was a
complete disruption to class, but I knew we had the resources here to get him the
placement that he needed. So we sucked it up and I had to talk to the teachers and
tell them this is the deal but this is why we are doing this and for 2 1/2 months we
went through the process you have to go through to get a placement and mom was
so grateful. She said, “I knew you could do it!” We save kids that’s what we do
here.
P1 had a very different approach to meeting the needs of the teachers and students:
I think one of my strengths has been being able to develop a team. I make this
school a family. That’s both good and bad. It’s good in that we really protect the
adults and the kids. I am a real teacher or staff advocate. I do more for my
teachers and staff than I do for my families and kids to a detriment. But my belief
has always been if the teachers are well taken care of, they will take care of the
kids. I am not as involved with the parents but I advocate for the staff and that’
also both good and bad. I am a good developer; if you come here and you work
hard, you’ll want to work for me because I’ll give you the freedom to do that, and
you can develop you skills.
Six out of 7 teachers (86%) had responses that reflected their belief about their
self-efficacy for influencing their students. All the subthemes under teacher self-efficacy
emerged as being significant. Six of the 7 teachers (86%) whose responses fell under this
theme, believed they were strong with their instruction despite having to operate under
corrective status mandates. Additionally, 4 out of 7 teachers (57%) addressed student
engagement, while 2 out of 7 teachers (29%) discussed classroom management. Table 16
shows the number of responses (nr) and percentages (pr) given by teachers for each area
125
of teacher self-efficacy.
Table 16
Self-efficacy of Teachers
Self-Efficacy/Teachers
nr
pr
Found in Literature
Teacher Sense of Self-efficacy
6
86%
yes
Instruction
6
86%
yes
Student engagement
4
57%
yes
Classroom Management
2
29%
yes
Teacher self-efficacy for instruction showed that all six participants (100%) who
responded in this area believed they had the ability for effective instruction. T1 stated
she knew how to teach reading but felt she was still lacking something to be effective
with the group of students she was currently working with. “I just got my masters as a
reading specialist so I know I can teach reading but there is something I need more with
this particular group of kids and I haven’t exactly figured out what that is yet.” T2 took
great pride in that others found her to be an effective teacher.
I was the ‘guinea Pig’ for our new Teacher Effectiveness program—our growth
and evaluation system that is implemented this coming year. I received a high
rating after observations, and it made me feel accomplished (my rating) because
of it.
T3 worked in a school that had been in school improvement for 4 years or more. She
responded:
As a school in (academic) emergency, we had to implement a new framework
given by the district and as we got used to it I found out it was something I had
been doing already and as a lead teacher. My team and the ILT phased that in as
126
it was already set up, and the centers and the pieces were kept the same. Only the
time was different. Pieces of the lesson were to be kept shorter, and the student
time on centers, and the individual teacher centers were to become longer. For
some people, it cramped their style but for me it was more like the style I love,
which is more student time and less time that the teacher actually had to talk. I
actually realize it at the time that I had actually had the leeway to do that.
T5 stated he liked the new curriculum that his district had adopted, which came
easily to the new teachers. “I think a high point for me was going through the process of
learning a new curriculum scope and sequence. The new curriculum was well liked by
the new teachers. I had to adopt it.”
T6 made a similar response:
A high point was my ability to integrate the CCSS in science and social studies. I
felt that the CCSS were clear enough that I could logically and easily connect the
dots. This boosted my self-efficacy because the more we did, the more ideas I
had, and the more I felt I improved with assigned tasks for the students. I felt my
text-dependent questions improved—last year I really wanted to start using them,
so I did, but very insecurely.
T7 felt a sense of high self-efficacy because she was able to use technology
effectively in her classroom and see positive results.
We are using tablets with students in Language Arts. We are piloting this
program with the district. Each student has their own tablet. It has proven to
provide high student engagement. I feel am I very strong with this. I enjoy using
the tablets for instruction and see a lot of student engagement with them. This
makes my instruction effective.
127
The second sub-theme that was pertinent was student engagement with only 4 out
of 7 teacher participants (57%) who spoke about their ability to engage their students
effectively while implementing school initiatives. Of these four teachers, three (43%)
described a sense of high self-efficacy in this area, while one (14%) described a lowered
sense of self-efficacy. T2 believed that the CCSS, promoted by the Federal Government,
actually helped improve the student engagement in her classroom.
I think the CCSS have strengthened my teaching. I feel there is more 'rigor' (hate
that word!) as we are achieving higher level things overall. For example, in the
past I would have never attempted a research paper (a lot of work for 8 graders!),
but it has been very successful and students have returned to me later to say it
really assisted them.
T6 responded similarly stating the CCSS were easy to use and that her students were
doing more this year because she was able to be more creative.
We did reports using children's nonfiction books; read a LOT of books, articles,
excerpts on the SS/Sci content; answered text-dependent questions; created
Interactive Student Notebooks; created PowerPoints/Prezis on content topics, etc.
Last year students did the report, but this year students did the written report and a
PowerPoints/Prezis with research.
T7 commented that through the introduction of iPads for students to use in their
learning not only proved to be a source of her sense of high self-efficacy but also
increased student engagement in her classroom.
We are using tablets with students in Language Arts. We are piloting this
program with the district. Each student has their own tablet. It has proven to
provide high student engagement. I feel am I very strong with this. I enjoy using
128
the tablets for instruction and see a lot of student engagement with them. This
makes my instruction effective.
T1 appeared to have a lowered sense of self-efficacy when it came to student
engagement. She stated several times during the interview that she was working with a
group of students who were reading below grade level, were not able to focus, and were
not very motivated. She reported that she tried various ways to get her students engaged
and reading only to fail and become frustrated.
There's one program we have that the county wanted us to start using and for my
students 99% of them are reading below grade level and this particular program
they (the county) bought is very difficult for them because the passages are like
Nathaniel Hawthorne, Mark Twain, Weathering Heights, it’s very different for
them and seeing them struggle with that I am of course less likely to use that
program. I tried everything I could, banging my head against the wall, to get
them (the students) to use the program. They didn't like it, they thought it was
childish; it took too long to load; they used every excuse not to have to use this
(program). It was frustrating for me to get them to use it and frustrating for them
at various levels. The low point is fighting to get them to try something they don't
like.
Self-efficacy for classroom management emerged as being significant to 2 out of
the 7 (29%) teacher participants. Both of these teachers projected a sense of lowered
self-efficacy for managing student behaviors and smooth routines in their classrooms. T1
believed she was not getting enough support for unruly students in her class. She
reported the following:
129
The principal thinks she is supportive because she says she understands how
difficult it is to work with these students, but in reality her message is often “If
there’s a problem, it’s your problem” and that’s just deflating to hear as a teacher.
If kids are talking during class her response is, “Well, if they respected you and
were engaged they wouldn’t do that” In theory you’re right but we are talking
about 13 and 14 year old girls and boys who can’t stand to be out of touch with
each other for more than 10 seconds. We’re talking about kids who are not
successful in school and have never been successful in school, some of them. So
it’s a lot to sell them on school. Being able to say the problem is not entirely the
teacher’s problem, would go a long way. Being able to say if they are being
disrespectful to your class, what do you need us as administrators to do? I need to
be able to send students from class, so the rest know here’s what happens when
you disrupt in class. Not to discipline by fear but to show there’s natural
consequences. We seem to take away natural consequences.
In a later response, T1 had this to say:
Some days, having an extra teacher in the room would help because one thing the
principal wants is for us to run more small group instruction where teachers runs a
small group while other students do something else because in whole group
students tend to say ‘the teacher isn’t talking to me’. The problem with the
students I’m working with at the moment is they’re not capable of doing
independent work real well. Their behavior, decision making, etc. is not
conducive to completing independent work. I almost have to do whole group
because anytime I try to do small group the rest are going nuts.
T6 admitted that classroom management and student behavior issues are a
130
weakness for her because she herself was never a problem and really couldn’t
comprehend misbehavior. She explained it this way:
Classroom management. It doesn't come naturally to me. I have been upfront
about my struggles with it, but my current administrator said I need to figure it out
and not be "a victim.” There are several reasons why it's hard: I was always an
eager and well-behaved student, and I don't intuitively understand the
misbehavior.
Experiences. Experiences had 10 out of 13 participants (77%) responding.
Experiences were defined as times when principals or teachers recall other times when
they may have had positive or negative experiences that may have affected their selfefficacy, motivation, or expectations. Experiences are also context specific, so no two
principals or teachers will have similar responses. However, it is important to know that
experiences do have an effect on self-efficacy. The more positive the experience, the
more likely a principal or teacher is likely to try to replicate the same scenario using the
same tactics. The more negative the experience, the more a principal or teacher is likely
to engage in avoidance behaviors to not have the same bad experience.
Four subthemes emerged from under Experiences. Three themes; Central Office
Support, Instructional Leadership (ability), and Principal Support, had a response rate of
less than 25%; however, when broken down by principals and teachers, these themes
came across as essential to both groups. Table 17 shows the response rates for all
participants.
131
Table 17
Experiences
Experiences
nr
pr
Found in Literature
Overall responses
10
77%
yes
Colleague Support
6
46%
yes
Central Office Support
2
15%
yes
Instructional Leadership
2
15%
yes
Principal Support
2
15%
yes
Four out of the 13 respondents (67%) were principals. Table 18 shows the
frequency of their responses.
Table 18
Experiences/Principals
Principal responses
nr
pr
Found in Literature
Total responses
4
67%
Colleague Support
2
33%
No
Central Office Support
2
33%
Yes
Instructional Leadership
2
33%
Yes
Principal Support
0
0%
Yes
Principals had three subthemes emerge from their responses. Two out of 6
principals (33%) reported the importance of central office support, colleague support, and
instructional leadership for their success or failure.
Instructional leadership is defined as the principal’s ability to lead his staff to
make academic choices and put in place best teaching practices. P1 shared how she was
able to get her math scores up when she took over an elementary school in academic
emergency.
132
I had an eighth-grade math program, and only 8 kids passed math. I hired this
new teacher from out of district; I found her, and I got her hired. A friend knew
her and had told me about her. She said she could get the math scores changed if
I would buy her Saxon Math. She really believed in Saxon Math because she had
always gotten her kids to score at 70 or 80% using it. I said if you can get these
scores up, I’ll get you whatever you want; I don’t care if I have to pay for it
myself. I’ll do it! She came in, and our scores went from 8% to 69%. She used
that program and our scores have gone up consistently each year. I use to hide the
fact that I was doing that program because it wasn’t approved by the district. I
just didn’t advertize that we were using a program that was different from what
the district told us to use, but she was getting results. At some point I said, “You
know, I’m not going to tell her not to use it. If somebody comes in here and tells
her she can’t use this and she’s getting 75% of these kids to pass math, then
someone else is telling her, I’m not!
This experience was the beginning of turning this school around, and she was eventually
successful in bringing it out of academic emergency.
P4 told of how his persistence and reluctance to step back from an initiative led to
success.
Late in the second year of the School Improvement Grant (SIG), working with the
county academic coaches, we thought we were really clicking and doing an
effective job on team talking about data. Different teams and different teachers
had come up with some ways in talking about data and getting students to set
goals. Our research shows goal setting improves student achievement and in the
middle school especially as well as the 9/10 and 11/12 teams. Although the
133
language was pushing back on it, the implementation was there and everybody
established some sort of system where they were getting students to set goals and
reflecting on their work over a certain period of time whether it was a unit or a
week or 3 days. I really felt good about that. I felt it had really moved the needle
and some of the conversations, and it was largely happening school wide. It
helped me to see the value of conversations and not backing off the goal, like
some part of it was non-negotiable. So, as some of those teachers looked to hedge
and back off it, I kept working with them to get them on board. One teacher was
really trying to be entirely recalcitrant and propose something else. It met my
non-negotiable, so when I allowed her to go forward I think she felt a win and I
felt a win like, ‘hey, this is great!’ It was a moment when we were both in dialog,
we came to an agreement, and it would meet my ends and my goals and it fit in
her classroom. I thought it was a good moment.
His school had just moved down in its ranking from Excellent to School Improvement.
However, he was able to go on and continue to stand his ground and use his nonnegotiables. P3 had opposite experiences which lead to him eventually leaving his
position.
I know a lot of principals came into their buildings and said, “This is how you’re
going to do things now, there is no discussion, this is the way it’s going to be” and
I know upper management was OK with that because this is what they wanted to
see. I didn’t take that track because I don’t know that cramming things done
people’s throat is the best way to get buy in. It really is total reflection on me
because I didn’t buy into it completely and totally and right or wrong, that was
134
communicated to the staff and it’s like “you know we’ve got to do this let’s just
go forward and do it, we’re going to make the best of it.”
P3 felt this way with the initiative the district was expecting to be in place in all
elementary buildings. However, he was most proud of how he managed the new health
center that was placed in his building and the fact that they cared about the children and
always tried to meet their basic needs.
Two out of 6 principals (33%) believed that colleague support was essential to
their perspective about their ability to impact student achievement. Colleague support
was considered the networking that took place when the Principals came together for
training or district meetings. P5 felt that meeting with her colleagues gave her the
support she needed to continue to push through the initiatives.
I developed a high self-efficacy because the implementation was supported by
monthly professional development and networking with other Principals who
were working through the process. We were allowed release time with our staffs
to complete the professional development and reflect on the process of
implementation.
P4 also felt networking with his fellow principals at the monthly meetings gave him fresh
ideas and ways to do things more effectively.
There is a cadre of principals, organized into learning groups and every time we
got together, it actually became a running joke, I would ask “Hey, how are you
doing this?” and sometimes they were things I was doing well. For example, I am
really comfortable with how we do discipline here. I think people have bought
into “we can’t suspend students all the time; they can’t learn if we just kick them
out of school.” And so even with something like that I’ll ask, “How are you
135
working to change teacher attitudes around suspensions? How are you working to
reduce violence at your school? How are you doing your observations? How are
you doing your evaluations? How do you manage the paper work?” because
that’s an area we can all learn from each other. There are people out there who
are really good with systems, and I envy them every time.
Two out of 6 principals (33%) shared that Central Office Support was important
for them to get the resources needed to bring about improvement. Central Office Support
was defined as support that came in the form of financial resources to aid principals in
their ability to obtain resources and materials their students needed to access the
curriculumsuccessfully. For example, P2 felt support by Central Office and knew she
could go to the Deputy Superintendent when she needed. She felt well supported and
was thankful for all that she was able to get.
I work with somebody, the Deputy Superintendent, who is very supportive and
knows instruction, so that helps as opposed to the other assistant superintendent I
worked with previously. The reality is she is a realist. She knows what you need
and every time she came out she would ask what I need. If I need something I
just ask and if I don’t I tell her no. One of the things I asked her for was I have a
lot of kids and I have preschool and preschool disability. It’s kind of hard to look
an extended learning area for 32 kids, and I have 6 in a class. So I asked her if
there is something we can do because it didn’t seem balanced to me. So, things
like that. My first year, I had the other assistant superintendent, and I didn’t have
that kind of support. It’s like day and night. He has all the magnet schools now
because their needs are not as great as a school of our nature.
P1 felt she didn’t need much support from the district, but rather knew where to
136
get what she needed. However, there were some things she felt were good to get from
the district in terms of support.
I think the support they give us is just enough. I think the data analysis is good. I
like having the data analysis. I would prefer not having adopted text books
because they’re a waste. The support I get from the district is just enough, and I
don’t ask for much. Whether new people get enough support or what kind of
support is questionable to me. I think too many or too little people come in and
tell them what to do, and it can be contradicting I think. But for me, I have the
amount of support I need and once you’ve been around as long as I have you
know the people to call if you need to get something done. It’s a process of
working well with people. People who are caustic and more directive leaders I
think turn people off. I think they could make or break your life. You can
mandate that they do something, and they do but not the next time you need a
favor.
Six out of the 13 respondents (46%) to this theme were teachers. Table 19 shows
the subthemes in which teachers shared their experiences.
Table 19
Teacher Experiences
Teacher Experiences
nr
pr
Found in Literature
Total responses
6
86%
Colleague Support
4
57%
yes
Central Office Support
2
29%
no
Instructional Leadership
0
0%
yes
Principal Support
2
29%
yes
Teachers represented 6 out of 13 respondents (46%) to this theme. Eight
137
subthemes emerged, with only three that scored as significant—Colleague support with 4
out of 7 teachers responding (57%), Principal Support with 2 out of 7 teachers responding
(29%), and Central Office Support with 2 out of 7 teachers responding (29%).
Colleague support is similar to the same subtheme under principal support and
includes the networking and collaborating with other teachers to gain new knowledge,
insights, and skills. Four out of 7 teachers (57%) had responses that fell into this
subtheme. As an example, T4 believed strongly in colleague support due to the positive
experience she had when she had a supportive team of colleagues.
The best form of collaboration I have been a part of is the professional learning
community and I know that is kind of a buzzword but is formed around common
interests, naturally kids, and essentially the group wanted to know about student
engagement and student involvement and wanting to make sure we were doing it
right and practically the whole classroom was engaged in doing what we were
doing and were committing to the material. We did video tapes of our classroom
and as a group we look at videos; not long videos, about 10. We sat together and
looked at this and analyzed that and talked about teacher language and getting
students involved in using the language. I began taking videos of myself to show
a colleague and get input on how to improve. Best thing I have ever done. The
discussions were more theoretical and not sort of nonsense was going on in my
class.
T6 spoke of needing more time to collaborate with colleagues who specialized in
students with special needs. She felt weak in this area and felt that being able to sit and
plan with the IS would enhance her ability to work with specials needs students. She
wanted “more direct collaboration with the IS. We are working toward that, but his
138
priority the past two years was math and reading, not Social Studies). We never cotaught, planned together, created or modified an assessment together.”
Colleague support is often lacking in schools that are struggling. T1 shared her
experience of lack of effective support in trying to implement a new technology program.
I don’t think there was much PD, if any. Another teacher was trained as a trainer
but she was also an administrator and when I would say, We are having this
problem or that problem, she would say, ‘Well, I’m not.’ Later people would say,
‘This program should be able to do this or that’ and I would say, ‘Well it’s not
and you are going to have to show me because I can’t get it to work.’ There’s a
teacher who got PD and training and was supposed to be the person to train us and
he said, ‘I’m the worst person to pick for this because I’m not a technology
person.’ So, lots of times we were emailing our contact with the program asking
‘hey, is there a way to do this?’
Colleagues do not always have to be in the same building. T5 wanted to have
support from someone who had implemented the same programs and were successful.
He called this person “The local expert.”
I would like to see it being done by someone who has been doing it for a while,
and who I can talk to and who is the local expert to send those questions and then
time to compare. If we can compare grade levels, schools in the same district and
schools in a different district or having a teaching buddy in a different district who
is doing the same thing. It could be beneficial depending on the partnership, or it
could be more labor, or it could just backfire then it would be more work.
Principal Support varies between teachers and between buildings. Teachers with
a high sense of self-efficacy will see principal support as something that is there, yet still
139
allows them room to grow and experiment. Teachers with a lowered sense of selfefficacy will feel as though the principal is not sympathetic to their needs and expects
them to figure things out on their own. For example, T1 felt that her principal was not
supportive in her need for having help with discipline. Classroom management was her
weakest area as indicated on her TES survey.
I would love my principal to be more supportive; she thinks she is, unfortunately.
I would like her to understand there do need to be consequences for behaviors so
we can have a better learning environment. Her theory seems to be ‘you wouldn’t
have these discipline problems or types of issues as a teacher if you were more
engaging, if you had a better relationship with your students, if you reached out
more to parents, if you were more creative in your discipline tactics, etc. So she
thinks she is supportive because she says she understands how difficult it is to
work with these students, but in reality her message is often “If there’s a problem,
it’s your problem” and that’s just deflating to hear as a teacher. If kids are talking
during class her response is, “Well, if they respected you and were engaged they
wouldn’t do that.” In theory, you’re right but we are talking about 13 and 14year-old girls and boys who can’t stand to be out of touch with each other for
more than 10 seconds. We’re talking about kids who are not successful in school
and have never been successful in school, some of them. So it’s a lot to sell them
on school. Being able to say the problem is not entirely the teacher’s problem,
would go a long way. Being able to say if they are being disrespectful to your
class, what do you need us as administrators to do? I need to be able to send
students from class, so the rest know here’s what happens when you disrupt in
140
class. Not to discipline by fear but to show there’s natural consequences. We
seem to take away natural consequences.
T3 was a lead teacher in her building who taught ESL. She described how the
principal supported her in her efforts to have the hard talks with the teachers on her team
to get on board with the reforms. But she also spoke of a lack of support when the
teachers do not get on board.
The principal would rehearse with me before I would talk to the person who was
not complying with the expectations. But people just didn’t buy into it. They
stick to their own way but if it isn’t working and the scores show it isn’t working;
then they are not effective. I’m not in-charge of their evaluations so I can’t dock
them for that. Is someone docking them for not being effective? I don’t know. It
all goes together; if they aren’t effective and their scores show they’re not
effective so many years in a row and they are also not implementing what they’ve
been told to implement, then I don’t know. I don’t have charge over that piece,
and so that’s where my ability stops.
Central Office Support was addressed by two teachers. Central Office support
comes in many variations—from money for resources to professional development to an
extra person in the classroom. T3 conceded that the district did support in some ways but
lacks in other.
The district seems constantly to change things. The idea behind this is perhaps
good—to learn, change, grow, do it better—but, the reality is that it seems like so
little gets accomplished. It seems like we don't really do anything in earnest. We
are expected to implement and manage stations. We're supposed to do it, but we
141
didn't receive training on what makes quality stations, how to manage stations,
how to differentiate within stations.
When T7 received iPads for her 5th-grade language arts class, she thought the
district had a really good idea. But the resources weren’t there to support their use in the
classroom.
There needs to be more professional development on the use of the tablets for
Language Arts. New programs should be purchased by the district or funding
should be provided for schools to buy the program which are specific to Language
Arts.
Expectations. Expectations also emerged as essential to school improvement
with 10 out of 13 responses (77%) to this theme. Expectations are behaviors, attitudes, or
performance that teachers and principals believe should be taking place. Expectations are
often shaped from experiences and self-efficacy. Table 20 shows results of responses to
this theme and its subthemes.
Table 20
Expectations
Expectations
nr
pr
Overall responses
10
77%
Student Achievement
4
31%
Colleague Support
4
31%
Central Office Support
3
23%
Principal Support
3
23%
Student Behavior
2
15%
The combined results provided enough responses to identify Expectations as a
vital factor in creating change. However, when taken separately and broken into
142
subthemes, what is important to one group is not necessarily important to the other group.
For example, Student Achievement, the top expectations for teachers with 4 out of 7
teachers (57%) was not mentioned by any of the principals as an expectation. Similarly,
Central Office support was important for 3 out of 6 principals (50%); however, teachers
were at 0%. Similarly, 0% of principals addressed the expectation of student behavior
where 2 out of 7 teachers (29%) found it to be an important expectation.
Table 21 shows the frequency rates for the theme Expectations for principals.
Four out of 6 principals (66%) gave responses that fell into this theme. The theme of
Principal Expectations was not in the literature reviewed for this study.
Table 21
Expectations/Principals
Principal responses
nr
pr
Total responses
4
66%
Student Achievement
0
0%
Colleague Support
3
50%
Central Office Support
3
50%
Principal Support
0
0%
Student Behavior
0
0%
Only two subthemes emerged as being pertinent to principals in their expectations
for support during school reform. Colleague support had a response rate of 2 out of 6
principals (33%). Colleague support is defined as support principals receive from their
colleagues in providing solutions to problems, acting as mentors, or providing a means
for principals to get feedback on ideas.
P4 stated that he has a reputation for coming to district leadership meetings and
asking for advice or ideas of how others are handling situations similar to his.
143
There is a cadre of principals, organized into learning groups and every time we
got together, it actually became a running joke, I would ask “Hey, how are you
doing this?” and sometimes they were things I was doing well. For example, I am
really comfortable with how we do discipline here. I think people have bought
into “we can’t suspend students all the time; they can’t learn if we just kick the
out of school.” And so even with something like that I’ll ask, “How are you
working to change teacher attitudes around suspensions? How are you working to
reduce violence at your school? How are you doing your observations? How are
you doing your evaluations? How do you manage the paper work?” because
that’s an area we can all learn from each other. There are people out there who
are really good with systems, and I envy them every time.
P5 shared, “I developed a high self-efficacy because the implementation was
supported by monthly professional development and networking with other Principals
who were working through the process.”
Three out of 6 principals (50%) talked about the type of support they received
from Central Office. P1 stated she would rather not have a lot of support:
I didn’t really need help. I have doing this for a long time. If your school is
improving they also leave you alone to do the things, we want to do and try
programs. We try to comply as much as we can but in the end we do what works
here. Having said that, I can’t stand to be micromanaged. When we decided we
were going to do Saxon Math, I said well if we’re not going to follow the district
mandates then we better have good scores because if we have good scores,
nobody is going to say anything. The support I get from the district is just
enough, and I don’t ask for much. Whether new people get enough support or
144
what kind of support is questionable to me. I think too many or too little people
come in and tell them what to do, and it can be contradicting I think. But for me,
I have the amount of support I need and once you’ve been around as long as I
have you know the people to call if you need to get something done. It’s a
process of working well with people. People who are caustic and more directive
leaders I think turn people off. I think they could make or break your life. You
can mandate that they do something, and they do but not the next time you need a
favor.
P2 believed that intense training and professional development is a great means of
support. Additionally, she received strong support from the Deputy Superintendent after
having a couple of years with some other Central Office upper administrator. She stated:
There were 21 schools at the lowest level of performance. They sent us to
intensive training with the University of Virginia. I thought this was a magic pill.
The advertisement of the sale was “We’re going to get you out of school
improvement.” I said “OK; they’ve got some trick. I’ll take it. What are we
going to do?” It was all about you’ve got to think outside of the box, and you’ve
got to teach you’re teachers how to think outside of the box. So, I think that has
been very supportive. Unfortunately, that has only been for a couple of years. I
wish it had kept going because I always think you have to keep refreshing
yourself. The other thing I think is support is I work with somebody, the Deputy
Superintendent, who is very supportive and knows instruction, so that helps as
opposed to the other assistant superintendent I worked with previously. The
reality is she is a realist. She knows what you need and every time she came out
she would ask what I need. If I need something I just ask and if I don’t I tell her
145
no. One of the things I asked her for was I have a lot of kids and I have preschool
and preschool disability. It’s kind of hard to look an extended learning area for 32
kids, and I have 6 in a class. So I asked her if there is something we can do
because it didn’t seem balanced to me. So, things like that. My first year, I had
the other assistant superintendent, and I didn’t have that kind of support. It’s like
day and night. He has all the magnet schools now because their needs are not as
great as a school of our nature.
P3 believed support from Central Office could be something as simple as a pat on
the back for a job well done. He shared:
More affirmation would be nice. More, “Hey! I know you’re working your can
off, and we see it!” You can say what you want in your evaluation, but it’s not
the same. That happened at a principal’s meeting one time. We were all in this
Professional Development and they had flown in a consultant and people are
under the table, texting or what not and several people had their heads down or on
their computers or what not and no one was looking at the speaker. They were
hearing but just not looking at the speaker. Then the Deputy Superintendent gets
up in front of the room and says, “I’m really concerned about the amount of
attention that is being given to our speaker. This is stuff everyone needs to know.
Well, someone had the nerve to raise his hand and said, “Excuse me but I am
trying to elevate a crisis that is happening at my school and trying to run
interference. I’m texting, yeah, but I’m listening but I’m also trying avoid
situations in my building that I’m not there to address right now, and everybody
else is exactly right. We’re trying to do our job, but you require us to be here.” It
just took the air out of what she was trying to say and soon it was all coming out.
146
If you want to build up your staff and get them motivated, it’s that pat on the back
and a little acknowledgment for those in the trenches.
Table 22 shows the teacher responses given under Expectations. Six out of 7
teachers (86%) gave responses on expectations they had for support, student
achievement, and student behavior. Four subthemes emerged from this group—Student
Achievement, Colleague Support, Principal Support, and Student Behavior. Teacher
expectations for student achievement and student behavior was covered heavily in the
literature reviewed as well as Principal Support, whereas expectations of Colleague
support was not.
Table 22
Teacher Expectations
Teacher Responses
nr
pr
Found in Literature
Total responses
6
86%
Student Achievement
4
57%
yes
Colleague Support
4
57%
no
Principal Support
3
43%
yes
Student Behavior
2
29%
yes
Student Achievement had 4 out of 7 teachers (57%) respond. Student
Achievement is the goal of School Improvement for which teachers are the primary
conduit. On student achievement, T1 explained that her students were not able to do a
particular reading program because they were too low. She also stated that she could not
do centers with them because they would not be able to do them independently.
I teach very low level eighth graders. Their motivation level is rather low. To get
them to do it is difficult. Some days, having an extra teacher in the room would
help because one thing the principal wants is for us to run more small group
147
instruction where teachers runs a small group while other students do something
else because in whole group students tend to say ”the teacher isn’t talking to me.”
The problem with the students I’m working with at the moment is they’re not
capable of doing independent work real well. Their behavior, decision-making,
etc. is not conducive to completing independent work. I almost have to do whole
group because anytime I try to do small group the rest are going nuts. Now North
Carolina has passed a law saying that student scores are a part of teacher
evaluation and of course, teaching below grade level students, and that’s all I
teach, the gains they make are going to be very small, so I feel I am being set up
here if I’m always getting the low kids. I’ll never get the better rating or, the
better score. Low socio-economic status, low ability, are issues also impacting
performance
T6 had similar feelings. She felt she wasn’t well prepared to work with students
functioning below grade level on IEPs. She believed the same was true for her ability to
manage a classroom.
Classroom management doesn't come naturally to me. I have been upfront about
my struggles with it, but my current administrator said I need to figure it out and
not be "a victim." There are several reasons why it's hard: I was always an eager
and well-behaved student, and I don't intuitively understand the misbehavior.
Also, I didn't student teach—I was a paid intern and my "mentor" just let us have
a go of it without assisting us. Finally, I had a TE (Teacher Evaluator) my first
year of teaching, not a CT (Consulting Teacher) because "they didn't have any
more CTs" and she didn't mentor me, she just evaluated me. Also, differentiated
instruction is a problem for me. I don't modify curriculum or assessment (well; I
148
offer books of various reading levels and I'll read to the non-readers). Otherwise,
I don't know how . . . but I also don't know IF either, when they take the same test
and are held to the same standards.
T5 took a different look at his expectations for student achievement. He believed
he could teach all students something, but he must provide the support for them to
achieve. But he also believed that students would only achieve if they wanted to achieve.
Teacher expectation is predetermined by personality. I believe I’m a glass half
full person and believe that all students can learn anything and if I don’t think a
student can learn, he won’t. But because I believe they can, I am going to keep
pushing them and scaffold in supports. That is an innate trait and something good
teachers will do to help students become lifelong learners. It is hard to make
someone a reflective person. You can lead them to that, you can have them go
through it, and then do it, and do it, and do it, but it doesn’t mean they’re going to
do it.
T3 found the expectations of other teachers were not where they should have been
for their Second language learners.
I got my TSEL endorsement, and I am more knowledgeable about teaching the
second language learner, but the people I worked with were not. So it added to
another layer of difficulty and added a level of expectations of the teachers of
children who came from second language homes. One remark, just to show you,
a teacher said was, “They just look at me. They don’t know what I am saying.” I
said, “No, you don’t understand what they are going through, and they do
understand what you are saying. You just need to give them time to process it.”
Teachers don’t present the lesson well enough for them to grasp it. They went
149
with their talking, but the teachers need to be demonstrating and modeling,
showing and the student will get it just fine. So many of the remarks made by the
teachers help me to know they did not know how to represent this to the kids.
The principal sent them off to training, and they didn’t come back too changed.
It’s just a mindset; I think.
Four out of 7 teachers (57%) commented on Colleague Support. Colleague
support, discussed earlier under the theme Experiences, results in collaboration and
problem-solving between teachers. T5 expressed his expectation of having someone who
has already implemented a specific program or strategy to come into his classroom or
school and demonstrate or to go to this person to observe for a day. T6 expressed her
need for more time to meet and collaborate with the Intervention Specialist about her
special needs students. T1 had expectations that her colleagues who were trained to
come back to the school and be the expert on the new technology and computer software
had not experienced what she had expected. T3, as a lead teacher, had expectations of
the teachers on her team to implement the new initiative required by the district. To her
frustration, this was not what was happening.
The third subtheme under Teacher Expectations was Principal Support. Three out
of 7 teachers (43%) described their expectation for principal support and what it would
look like. For example, T1 believed that her principal was not as supportive as she
needed her to be.
I would like her to understand there do need to be consequences for behaviors so
we can have a better learning environment. Her theory seems to be ‘you wouldn’t
have these discipline problems or types of issues if as a teacher you were more
engaging, if you had a better relationship with your students, if you reached out
150
more to parents, if you were more creative in your discipline tactics, etc. So, she
thinks she is supportive because she says she understands how difficult it is to
work with these students, but in reality her message is often, “If there’s a
problem, it’s your problem” and that’s just deflating to hear as a teacher. If kids
are talking during class her response is, “Well, if they respected you and were
engaged they wouldn’t do that.” In theory, you’re right but we are talking about
13 and 14-year-old girls and boys who can’t stand to be out of touch with each
other for more than 10 seconds. We’re talking about kids who are not successful
in school and have never been successful in school, some of them. So it’s a lot to
sell them on school. Being able to say the problem is not entirely the teacher’s
problem, would go a long way. Being able to to say if they are being
disrespectful to your class, what do you need us as administrators to do? I need to
be able to send students from class, so the rest know here’s what happens when
you disrupt in class. Not to discipline by fear but to show there’s natural
consequences. We seem to take away natural consequences.
T5 believed that administrators should not expect teachers to do things they are
not willing to do themselves. He asserted:
Use of data to improve student performance. I believe that it is expected that
teachers are using data to inform instruction and I whole heartedly agree with that.
But I think the district should do what they expect teachers to do. But how do
they go about doing that? I think they try. I have had poor administrators who
have tried and truly in their hearts wanted what was best for the students but they
weren’t purposeful or vengeful or doing things out of spite. I think they thought
151
they were the best they could do. I think school improvement is important, and
there are larger issues.
T7 had expectations of not only the principal but also of her team leader. She
stated, “I would like more Principal and team leader support along with more time to
learn the program and to implement it effectively.”
The final subtheme under Teacher Expectations was Student Behavior. Two out
of 7 teachers (29%) discussed their expectations of student behavior and how poor
student behavior affected their ability to impact student learning. T1, who had stated that
she because her students were “low level” learners they could not handle rotating through
learning stations, one of the initiatives her school was implementing.
One thing the principal wants is for us to run more small group instruction where
teachers run a small group while other students do something else because in
whole group students tend to say ”the teacher isn’t talking to me.” The problem
with the students I’m working with at the moment is they’re not capable of doing
independent work real well. Their behavior, decision making, etc. is not
conducive to completing independent work. I almost have to do whole group
because anytime I try to do small group the rest are going nuts. So I often wonder
if I need a second teacher here or do I need more training for working with these
kids, or is there some piece I am missing. I just got my masters as a reading
specialist so I know I can teach reading but there is something I need more with
this particular group of kids and I haven’t exactly figured out what that is yet.
Student scores are a part of teacher evaluation and of course, teaching below
grade level students, and that’s all I teach, the gains they make are going to be
very small so I feel I am being set up here if I’m always getting the low kids. I’ll
152
never get the better rating or, the better score. Low socio-economic status, low
ability, are issues also impacting performance.
Similarly, T6 also expressed her expectation of student behavior. She stated that
she didn’t understand misbehavior because it wasn’t something she had ever experienced
in her own days as a student.
Classroom management. It doesn't come naturally to me. I have been upfront
about my struggles with it, but my current administrator said I need to figure it out
and not be "a victim." There are several reasons why it's hard: I was always an
eager and well-behaved student, and I don't intuitively understand the
misbehavior. Also, I didn't student teach—I was a paid intern and my "mentor"
just let us have a go of it without assisting us.
Professional development. Professional development was voiced by 9 out of 13
participants (69%) with three subthemes, indicating professional development as another
important factor needed to bring about school improvement. Of the three types of
professional development subthemes, support from colleagues and networking were the
most desired means of professional development for 6 out of 13 participants (46%).
These 6 participants felt peer networking was important for coping with the school
improvement process. Principals were more likely to prefer ongoing professional
development with 3 of the 13 total responses (23%) coming from principals and only 2 of
13 (15%) responses coming from teachers. However, teacher participants talked about
content specific professional development, while no principal touched on this area of
professional development. This indicated that teachers want to grow in new pedagogy,
instructional strategies, and content information.
Table 23 provides a breakdown by subthemes. The topic of professional
153
development as it pertained to school improvement was not found in the literature.
Table 23
Professional Development
Professional Development
nr
pr
Overall responses
9
69%
Professional Networking
8
62%
On-going
5
38%
Content Specific
3
23%
Professional Networking was previously defined as a way for educators to meet
and discuss similar interests, ideas, and learn from each other. On-going professional
development continues on, year-after-year, often in the same skill or knowledge causing
it to become embedded in the everyday operations, or, it may be a different topic each
year. Content-specific professional development is professional development on specific
content or a curriculum, such as science or reading.
Table 24 provides the frequency response data to two themes that emerged from
principals in the area of Professional Development; Professional networking and ongoing professional development. This theme was not covered in the literature.
Table 24
Professional Development/Principals
Principal responses
nr
pr
Total responses
4
66%
Professional Networking
3
50%
On-going
3
50%
Content Specific
0
0%
Three out of 6 principals (50%) responding to the theme of professional
154
development believed that professional networking was crucial for being successful with
the school improvement process. Gaining knowledge, information, and ideas from their
peers who had already been through the process or were currently going through it.
P4described networking with a cadre of principals during the District Leadership
Meetings. He stated that he was continuously seeking out new ideas, trying to compare
his programs with those of his peers, and looking for people who were proficient in skills
that he lacks. P5 stated that networking with other principals gave her a strong sense of
self-efficacy and assisted in providing new ways to encourage her staff to implement the
new strategies introduced by the district.
On-going professional development is PD, which continues year-after-year,
whether in the same skills and understanding or in different skills. This form of
professional development supports the staff as lifelong learners and brings in new
ideas, skills, and strategies for delivering instruction, working with students, or
for creating new routines and practices in school and classroom management.
P2 stated that she believed that educators should have to continue to attend
professional development like those in the medical profession.
I wouldn’t mind taking more professional development. I would like to see
what’s out there for the latest discipline strategies. My Assistant Principal and I
are getting ready to take one next week on English Language Leaners. I am
getting a large population of ELL students, and I want to be able to learn
something and how I am going to receive these students. Most of them are in
Kindergarten. I am getting both Hispanic and African; I’m not just getting one
type of group. I’m getting a huge population of African and Hispanic students so
that is the point, to take computer classes and learn how to integrate technology
155
into curriculum and instruction. If I learn it, I can help my teachers learn it. My
young teachers got it. It’s my old teachers, so, you learn how to take those things
and help them use it; like iPads in the classroom that we try to write grants for.
So as leaders, I think we should always participate in some kind of professional
development that’s a given. Medical personnel have to do it; nurses have to do it,
why not educators? I think it needs to be ongoing, and I think it needs to be
relevant. It should be something I can take back and use.
P3 admitted that, even though there are times when the district is wasteful with
professional development money, they do a good job with continuously offering it and
offering the most current and cutting edge practices.
I would like a better understanding of this program and expectations. From the
district’s standpoint, they do provide timely and current professional development
for teachers and for principals, they really do. Whatever is out there in the world
of research they try to bring in and try to give you new ideas and maybe some
new approaches.
P4 stated that he believed one thing his staff had done well was to have ongoing
professional development surrounding creating a positive climate and culture for student
learning.
I think we do some things well. In my mind I know what I want a classroom to
look like, I know what I want an interaction between a teacher and student who
broke a rule to look like, and we spent a lot of time in professional development
structuring what it should look like and what I’m a little bit proud of is that it’s
been recursive instead of always a new PD; we’ve taken the time to go back and
look at PD we’ve already done. Instead of saying, “We’re going to reinvent the
156
wheel this time, we’re saying, “No, we’re going to get this right, and we’re going
to do these things.” So, those are all factors clearly defining what we want it to
look like and staying focused on it, I think has helped. I think we have a pretty
good positive school culture among students. There’s always places where we
could work. Those are all factors.
Table 25 provides the frequency response rates from teachers. Professional
Networking, Content Specific training, and on-going support for new programs were the
subthemes that emerged from teacher interviews.
Table 25
Professional Development/Teachers
Teacher responses
nr
pr
Total responses
5
71%
Professional Networking
3
43%
On-going
3
43%
Content Specific
2
29%
Teachers believed that professional networking is important to school
improvement with 3 out of 7 teachers (43%) discussing the need for these networks.
They seek out their peers for new ideas, to validate their feelings about the process, or to
provide a means for venting their frustrations. For example, T4 found networking and
collaborating with her peers lead to positive results and was the most effective means of
professional development.
I really think working with other teachers is the professional development I found
to be most helpful. I did several trainings over the summer and was able to come
back and share the techniques in a faculty meeting, which was fantastic. I was
157
able to present and demonstrate something that was handed down from on high.
The best form of collaboration I have been a part of is the professional learning
community and I know that is kind of a buzz word but is formed around common
interests, naturally kids, and essentially the group wanted to know about student
engagement and student involvement and wanting to make sure we were doing it
right and practically the whole classroom was engaged in doing what we were
doing and were committing to the material. We did video tapes of our classroom
and as a group we look at videos not long videos, about 10. We sat together and
looked at this and analyzed that and talked about teacher language and getting
student involved in using the language. I began taking videos of myself to show a
colleague and get input on how to improve. Best thing I have ever done. The
discussions were more theoretical and not sort of nonsense was going on in my
class.
T5 contended that he would like to have someone who has already implemented
the same program come in and show him how it’s done.
I would like to data, or I would like to be trained by someone who has done it
before. So, bring in a group of teachers from a different district who have used
this program and let me hear testimonials from them or even a quick little video
of kids. It doesn’t always come down to numbers; it’s easy to jump to stations
and it isn’t always the bottom line. I would like to hear testimonials from people
who really do it. I’m going into a new school with people who are very
experienced in this program so I am going in with high expectations hoping to
learn from them, which didn’t happen at my last school, unfortunately. I would
158
love to lead by example, but that isn’t always doable if they’re trying to bring in
reform.
T6 also felt that networking and working collaboratively with others would
enhance her ability to better address the learning needs of all of her students.
I need more direct collaboration with the IS. We are working toward that, but his
priority the past two years was math and reading, not Social Studies/Science. We
never co-taught, planned together, created or modified an assessment together.
Three out of 7 teachers (43%) believed content-specific professional development
that targeted new curriculum introduced to teachers and students was important for
supporting changes in instructional delivery. T7 contended:
I think there needs to be more professional development on effective ways to
teach your content. There also needs to be more materials or to show someone
who teaches it effectively. There needs to be more professional development
focused on the content. We were given an hour presentation on how to use a
tablet, but nothing on online resources or ways to effectively use the tablets to
support the content. And PD on instructional strategies to hit all levels of ability.
T1, who was implementing an online reading program, had this to say:
There is probably more to the program than I know, so probably more
professional development would increase my efficacy; being able to integrate a
little more seamlessly instead of ”ok, now we're going to do technology;”; make it
more a part of the curriculum and more blended.
T3 had recently earned her Teaching Second English Learners credentialing. She
believed that knowing how to help students who were second language learners to access
the curriculum was not enough. She believed it would help to know about the culture of
159
these students:
I think only a piece of my training is missing from the TSEL training. To
understand the culture. Sometimes I think it would help to speak Spanish but to
understand the students’ experiences. It’s just like if you were dealing with
children from poverty, you would have to know influences of the poverty on their
real life daily. So, I realize those pieces of understanding their culture are the
pieces that the teachers may be missing, but me too.
Two out of 7 teachers (29%) felt it would be important to have on-going
professional development to support them in their effort to implement new instructional
strategies. T7 believed there needs to be more PD for the use of the new Tablets given to
her students through a grant. She expressed:
There needs to be more professional development on the use of the tablets for
Language Arts. New programs should be purchased by the district or funding
should be provided for schools to buy the program which are specific to Language
Arts.
T5 made the point that teachers have varying levels of need when it comes to
professional development and support.
The problem with that is if you have a couple hundred employees, every
employee is going to be different, you know I might need 3 or 4 trainings to
maintain that and ask the questions or keep moving forward until this is effective
in my mind, where someone else may not need training and others might need
more. That’s the difficulty with implementing something like this because we are
all individuals just like our students, and we take to different levels of support.
Relationships. Relationships ranked 6th as being important for effective school
160
change. Relationships are how people interact and bond with each other and are
important for providing a support system between staff and students. Positive
relationships produce positive results while negative relationships result in negative
results. Seven out of 13 participants (54%) described relationships and the importance of
forming them to produce positive climate and culture. Four out of the13 participants
were principals (31%), and 3 of the 13 participants were teachers (23%) who reflected on
the importance of relationships. Relationship between principals and unions was reported
by 3 of the 6 principals (50%) and principal–teachers relationships was reported by 3 out
of 6 principals (50%) and 1 out of 7 teachers( 14% ). Three out of 6 principals (50%)
reported that the relationship between teachers and their students was important; this was
not the case with teachers. No teacher reported that the teacher–student relationship was
important to their success in influencing student learning. The literature is rich with
research exploring the role relationships play within a school community and the success
of the school. Table 26 provides the frequency of responses.
Table 26
Relationships
Relationship
nr
pr
Found in Literature
Overall responses
7
54%
Unions
3
23%
no
Principal/teacher
3
23%
yes
Teacher/Student
3
23%
yes
Community
2
15%
no
Table 27 provides the breakdown of subthemes by principal response to the theme
Relationships.
161
Table 27
Relationships/Principals
Principal responses
nr
pr
Total responses
4
67%
Unions
3
50%
Teacher/Student
3
50%
Principal/Teacher
2
33%
P1 believed that she was pretty loose about some of the management pieces she
could be asking her staff to do. As long as the teachers did their job, took care of the
students, and worked together as team, she would not make demands on them.
We’re not a very big union school. I don’t try to break anything in the union
contract; I try to honor it. We can’t get anyone to be the union representative for
next year. In the past, when there has been problems, we were going through all
of our changes and people would be fussing. I know there were a number of
times I would be talking with the Instructional Leadership Team chairperson
about what was being said. We just don’t run that kind of a school; we don’t run
a union school. But when people wanted to start filing grievances or doing things
or being precise about something, I would remind her if she wanted to get the
word out that I’m not going to have a family, a team, or you bringing in the union.
We’re going to run this school one way or the other. You’re not going to have it
both ways. If you all want to look at the union contract let’s look at everything, I
can do.
P5 felt that:
162
Turnaround Principals need to be given an opportunity to lead without the
scrutiny of the Union backlash. Change is not always comfortable, but it is
necessary if you are going to achieve in this era of accountability. The union and
the lack of support from higher up when that becomes a problem is a limitation to
what we can do with change.
P6 had the same thing to say about the union:
There are limits on what you can do because the union and the district are at odds
and, as a result, there are no win–win scenarios. Climate and culture often a tone
of distrust and being ‘hung out to dry’ as a result.
Three principals and one teacher believed that the relationship between principal
and teachers is important for bringing about school change. P1 stated:
All school reform depends on staff. School reform needs to have the support of
the staff. Everything I do depends on having a strong team. What I think I have
been able to do here is to build a strong team so that together we are able to move
forward. My experience is that top down initiatives don’t work too well and so I
engage the staff in deciding what changes and what initiative we need to do. I
obviously have ideas and plans I try to get implemented, but I’ve learned not to
try to implement something if I don’t have support of the staff. It’s taken a long
time because you need to develop staff.
P2’s response supported this statement:
As a leader, you have to have a vision, and you have to share it. So, if there is
anything I’m going to do or want to do, I run it past my lead teachers, and they’re
honest with me. I say to them “if it sounds like I’m off the band wagon or if I’m
just rapping, tell me, and I’ll pull back and stop. But you come back with an idea,
163
but it’s a shared decision so let’s make this decision together.” I’m just the head;
we run this school together. It’s not just my school; it’s all our school, so we run
it together.
P5 also felt that relationship with staff was essential for bringing about real
improvement.
I believe you have to build relationships with your staff. You have to have a
mission and vision that they see in you that a staff can see in you. The trust that
you know and can do what you are trying to lead staff to do in the teaching and
learning for students is the most important.
Three of the 6 principals (50%) believed that the relationship between teachers
and students was an important factor for successful instruction and learning. P1 had this
to say:
I am a real teacher or staff advocate. I do more for my teachers and staff than I do
for my families and kids to a detriment. But my belief has always been if the
teachers are well taken care of, they will take care of the kids.
P3 believed “The person who is going to have the most impact on kids and their
instruction are the teachers and what they do in their classrooms, how they do their
instruction and their presentation through their instruction.” P6 believed students would
learn because of the relationship they have with their teachers:
Every student can learn when given the right supports, when their basic survival
needs are met, through relationships built with teachers, and there is a belief
among teachers and building administrators that they can make a difference and in
how they can change to make that difference. Efficacy is everything if you want
164
to make a difference. Being a teacher should not be about yourself or a paycheck.
This is the wrong reason to be in education.
Table 28 provides the response rate of teachers for only one subtheme.
Table 28
Relationships/Teachers
Teacher Responses
nr
pr
Total responses
3
43%
Community
2
29%
The subtheme of relationship with community had a frequency rate of 2 out of 7
teachers (29%). T3 described what occurred in her school when a local community
agency came to her school to tour.
I learned a little bit this year from a person from the City Gospel Mission. He
funds a lot of stuff because he is in the area. Now he’s on the school board. He
brings a good perspective since our children are from different countries, and he
said if you want the children to learn English they need to be successful in school
and their parents need to learn. So we now have two classes a week at the night
for parents because if the little ones begin to lose their language and when they go
home they can’t talk to their mom
T4 left public education to start a community charter school, sponsored by the
local university. She had this to say about building a relationship with the community:
Two years ago I was working in a charter school started by parents and the
university which had a lateral board membership. I was one of the teachers and
parents on the board. It was a diverse group, and we really felt we were able to
take federal mandates and implement them in our school in a way that was
165
respectful of our students, parents, and teachers. We were able to take whatever
the State and Federal mandates were and implement them in a way that best fit
our visions and mission. We were able to implement on the local level and not
have to worry about local district control. We were able to sit down together,
share drinks, and talk about what we wanted for our students. This was the first
time I ever felt empowered.
Money. Money or resource funding, had a frequency of 7 out of 13 participants
(54%) responding. Responses primarily came from 5 participants who were principals
(38%) and 2 teacher participants (15%). Resource funding is often done through grants,
vouchers, or revenue gained through tax levies. The control of money in each school is
handled mainly through Central Office. The responses covered areas impacted such as
lack of enough funding, schools having to find other ways to fund PD other and not
having true control over their budgets, money spent on failed reforms or reforms that
lasted only a year and then moved on, and need for funding of on-going resources.
The subthemes for Money were not identified as relevant by the respondents as a
whole group, but rather were relevant by either principals or by teachers. The number of
total respondents to this theme made it a relevant area. This was not a topic that was
covered by the literature. Table 29 provides responses about school funding, professional
development, building level control, and continual funding of resources.
Table 29
Money
Money
nr
pr
Overall responses
7
54%
Building vs. District Control
3
23%
166
On-going Resources
2
15%
Professional Development
2
15%
Table 30 provides the response rate of principals to two subthemes under
Money—Building vs. District control and Professional Development.
Table 30
Money/Principals
Principal Responses
nr
pr
Total responses
5
83%
Building vs. District Control
3
50%
On-going Resources
0
0%
Professional Development
2
33%
For Principals, Building vs. District control was a significant area under this
theme with 3 out of 6 principals (50%) responding. P1 shared that she was able to save
enough money in her budget to hire staff.
I liked it better when we had direct control of our budgets. I always saved money
and could hire more staff if I needed to. I had lower class sizes than we have
now. We didn’t have much money, and we would save our money for staff, so I
always had enough money to hire 1 or 2 staff than was allocated, which helped to
reduce class sizes. I like to see lower class sizes, especially at kindergarten. I
think 25 is too high.
P4 also responded that he wished he had more control:
It was challenging for me not to always have access to the funding that came with
the SIG grant. A real low point was when the person who had been in charge of
the SIG grant for 2 years left and a new person was now in charge of it. I met
167
with the new person who had and it became clear to me that not every penny of
every dollar was coming here or was being allocated exactly how I thought and
navigating how to make that happen proved challenging to me. Having clear
access to the financing is important so that the decisions we make we can
implement.
P6 expressed it this way:
Most important area of support is financial support. Lack of funds limits what I
can do as an educator. Studies have shown that a lack of financial resources does
impact efficacy. Educators should not be impacted by a lack of money.
Educators are our future, and the government is only hurting us. Why would you
hurt us (educators) when we are responsible for educating the future generation
who will be taking care of us?
The second subtheme under money concerns for principals was money for
professional development. Professional Development is necessary to inform, instruct,
and provide support when implementing new strategies. Principals must have a way to
fund necessary PD for their teachers. The district administrators require principals to use
the money in their own budgets to do this, yet they maintain control by approving or
denying spending requests.
Two out of 6 principals (33%) expressed their views on how the district monitors
and controls money for PD. P2 had this to say:
As a district, we use to have a lot of money but they pulled that back. It’s on the
schools. We have to take Title I money to allow professional development. You
have to put 10% in your budget to allow for professional development.
P3 believed the district spent too much money on a program that required flying
168
consultants in and then were dropped or faded out after just a couple of years.
In some cases they spend thousands of dollars flying these guys in to meet with
principals and they were doing stuff with teachers, then the second year they back
off a little and you don’t see them as often.
Table 31 shows the breakdown of the subthemes that teachers felt were important
when it came to funding needs. Though there were no teacher responses to the subtheme
of Building vs. District control of budget, 2 out of 7 teachers (29%) did respond about
money for more resources.
Table 31
Money/Teachers
Teacher Responses
nr
pr
Total responses
2
29%
Building vs. District Control
0
0%
On-going Resources
2
29%
Professional Development
0
0%
T2 stated, “It's hard to implement without needed resources.” Additionally, T7
replied “There needs to be more funding for materials. New programs should be
purchased by the district or funding should be provided for schools to buy the program
which are specific to Language Arts.”
Motivation. The final area of significant importance to school change as
perceived by principals and teachers was Motivation. Five out of 13 respondents (38%)
found this theme to be pertinent to the success of school reform. Motivation to
implement new strategies resulted in 5 out of 13 participants (38%) discussing their
beliefs about implementing new pedagogy and strategies, while 3 of 13 participants
169
(23%) discussed their motivation not too. Of the thirteen participants interviewed, 5 out
of 13 participants (38%) were in differing positions than from where they shared their
experiences. Four out of 7 teachers (57%) went to charter schools or overseas. One
administrator left to take a position with the local university. However, he had shared
that when he was not able to get the student scores up he decided to leave. Motivation is
another well-researched area and is included in the literature. Table 32 shows the
responses in the two areas of motivation for both principals and teachers.
Table 32
Motivation
Motivation Responses
nr
pr
Found in Literature
Overall responses
7
54%
To implement
7
54%
Yes
To remain in position
3
23%
Yes
Literature has shown that principals are less likely to leave their current position
than are teachers. However, literature also shows that principals with a low sense of selfefficacy are more likely to keep the school performing at a status quo level rather than put
forth the effort to implement new programs that they don’t believe in or they have not
had much success in implementing in the past. Table 33 provides the frequency response
rates in the theme of Motivation of principals.
Table 33
Motivation/Principals
Principal Responses
nr
pr
Total responses
2
33%
To implement
2
33%
To remain in position
1
17%
170
Though not seen as significant to principals, motivation to leave the position did
come from one principal. It is included here because it shows the impression this
principal had of himself, of the district initiative, and about school leadership.
P3 left his position and took a job with a university. He believed that it was his
lack of enthusiasm to implement the new program that lead to the poor scores of his
building.
As instructional leader, could I have done things differently, should have? Yeah,
probably. The test scores are still not where I want them to be. I want to see all
kids succeed and doing well. Of course we just got the initial report back; we
don’t have the value added information to see any growth or anything. Could we
have done better? Yes, I’m down on myself about where we could have been. I
probably should have presented the initiative in its initial stages when it was first
being rolled out as more of a positive thing and spinning it in that way. I know a
lot of principals came into their buildings and said, “This is how you’re going to
do things now, there is no discussion, this is the way it’s going to be” and I know
upper management was OK with that because this is what they wanted to see. I
didn’t take that track because I don’t know that cramming things done people’s
throat is the best way to get buy in. It really is total reflection on me because I
didn’t buy into it completely and totally and right or wrong, that was
communicated to the staff and it’s like “you know we’ve got to do this let’s just
go forward and do it, we’re going to make the best of it.”
P4 was much more positive about how he implemented initiatives in his building:
171
Late in the second year of the School Improvement Grant (SIG), working with the
county academic coaches, we thought we were really clicking and doing an
effective job on team talking about data. Different teams and different teachers
had come up with some ways in talking about data and getting students to set
goals. Our research shows goal setting improves student achievement and in the
middle school especially as well as the 9/10 and 11/12 teams. Although the
language was pushing back on it, the implementation was there and everybody
established some sort of system where they were getting students to set goals and
reflecting on their work over a certain period of time whether it was a unit or a
week or 3 days.
Table 34 shows the response data of teachers who reported their motivation to
leave or to implement new initiatives.
Table 34
Motivation/Teachers
Teachers/ Responses
nr
pr
Total responses
5
71%
To implement
3
43%
To remain in position
2
14%
Three out of 7 teachers (43%) talked about how they felt implementing new
strategies and pedagogy. T1 made this statement:
There's one program we have that the county wanted us to start using and for my
students 99% of them are reading below grade level and this particular program
they (the county) bought is very difficult for them. It's very different for them and
seeing them struggle with this program; I am, of course, less likely to use that
172
program and don’t feel confident to explain to administration why I am not using
the program and that I don't want to be constantly frustrating my children.
T3 was excited about using the new framework because it was similar to what she was
already doing.
As a school in (academic) emergency, we had to implement a new framework
given by the district and as we got used to it I found out it was something I had
been doing already and as a lead teacher. My team and the ILT phased that in as
it was already set up, and the centers and the pieces were kept the same. Only the
time was different. Pieces of the lesson were to be kept shorter, and the student
time on centers, and the individual teacher centers were to become longer. For
some people, it cramped their style, but for me it was more like the style I love
which is more student time and less time that the teacher actually had to talk. I
actually realize it at the time that I had actually had the leeway to do that.
T6 also found that implementing a new pedagogy could be rewarding and lead to more
creative instruction.
I felt that the CCSS were clear enough that I could logically and easily connect
the dots. We did reports using children's nonfiction books; read a LOT of books,
articles, excerpts on the Social Studies and Science content; answered textdependent questions; created Interactive Student Notebooks; created
PowerPoints/Prezis on content topics, etc. The more we did, the more ideas I had,
and the more I felt I improved with assigned tasks for the students. I felt my textdependent questions improved—last year I really wanted to start using them, so I
did, but very insecurely.
Among the teachers, four of the respondents had left their previous positions for
173
positions in charter schools or overseas. However, only two commented about why they
left. T4 was one of these teachers. She stated:
Politically, the experience of public school teachers trying to do the right thing but
after a while you get so tired and discouraged from getting beaten down by the
system that it became a job but not necessarily a passion. I love going to work
every day, but I would quit the minute that feeling ceased because that is when it
becomes a job and no longer a calling. This can affect the entire school culture
because “it’s a job, and I’m just here to do the job;” it can become very
depressing.
T5, who was leaving the country to go overseas to teach, put it this way:
Our school was rated Excellent for 2-3 years and then got bumped down and
redistricted. They took the Talented and Gifted (TAG) kids and moved them.
Our school brought in a high population of low poverty kids and when the scores
dropped the district came in and asked why this did happen? Taking out the
population that does excel and has high parent involvement and replacing it with a
population of kids from single parent homes, who spend time alone is going to
impact performance of the whole school. When we got the lower score, I left.
The talk was, and it was my fear, that the test prep stuff would start at the
beginning of the year so these kids could perform on a test for one day for 2 1/2
hours. So they started in September on how the questions were going to be
worded on the test and how to understand the wording. That negatively impacted
everything; so everyone is going to want the higher performing students.
Stamping schools as low performing is wrong because you are basically telling
those kids they are the product of that school and if they come to believe they are
174
lower functioning and as good as another school it comes back to self-filling
prophecy.
Review of the Main Findings
The following section will provide a triangulation of the data and give a review of
the main findings of this study.
Triangulation of data sources. Data were triangulated between the school
improvement status data retrieved from the NCES; survey data retrieved from the
completed Teacher and Principal Sense of Self-Efficacy Scales, and from the interviews
of study participants. The data revealed a hierarchy of needs that principals and teachers
believed were missing for supporting their efforts to bring about authentic improvement
in their schools. There were originally nine themes that came from the literature. An
additional seven themes emerged from the interviews with the 13 participants in this
study. Of these 16 themes, 9 emerged as being essential to the school improvement
process as perceived by principals and teachers. Within these 9 themes were subthemes,
some of which were from the literature and were a part of the original framework while
others emerged out of the interviews.
The themes that emerged as being relevant for school improvement at the building
level were Climate and Culture, Time, Self-efficacy, Expectations, Experiences,
Relationships, Professional Development, Money, and Motivation. The subthemes had
their own hierarchy of relevance among principals and teachers.
Climate and culture, with 85% of participants responding, had the subthemes of
implementation of school improvement processes and student behavior, which proved to
be the most relevant of the six subthemes that emerged under this concept.
Time, with a 77% response rate, emerged with seven subthemes, of which only
175
two were relevant; management of time, and collaboration with colleagues. Time
management was equally relevant among principals and teachers; however, time for
collaboration with colleagues was more relevant for teachers than for principals.
Self-Efficacy emerged with a 77% response rate as well. Principal self-efficacy
included self-efficacy for instructional leadership, self-efficacy for school management,
and self-efficacy for moral leadership. Of these three subthemes, instructional leadership
was the most relevant subtheme discussed. Teacher self-efficacy included self-efficacy
for instruction, self-efficacy for student engagement, and self-efficacy for classroom
management. Of these subthemes, self-efficacy for instruction emerged as the most
relevant.
Experiences emerged with a 77% response rate. Experiences influence selfefficacy and expectations, and were context based. Among principals, experiences with
central office support, colleague support, and experiences in instructional leadership were
important in shaping principals beliefs of school improvement. Among teachers,
experiences with colleague support, district support, and principal support were important
to influencing respondents’ reactions and opinions of school improvement processes.
Expectations emerged with 77% response rate. 13 subthemes were generated
from the responses as well as from the literature. Five of the subthemes were found in
the literature but were not supported by responses from the respondents. Of the
remaining 8 subthemes, 4 were pertinent among the groups. Student Achievement and
principal support were the most relevant among teachers, while colleague support and
central office support was most relevant among principals.
Professional Development emerged with 69% participants responding. Two areas
of professional development were found to be relevant among the groups. Five out of 7
176
teachers (71%) believed it was important to have a support network of others who have
had the same training or success with a new strategy or initiative to whom they could turn
to for assistance and information. Three out of 6 principals (50%) believed that it is
important to have ongoing professional development over the same initiative or practice
to have it engrained into the climate and culture.
Relationships were important to 54% of the respondents with 8 subthemes
emerging. Of these 8 subthemes, 5 were considered to be the most relevant to the
participants. Relationships with Unions were more important among principals than
among teachers with 3 out of 6 principals (50%) commenting on their relationship with
the union, while no teachers commented on this subtheme. Additionally, the principal–
teacher relationship was found to be more important to principals than to teachers with 2
out of 6 principals (33%) sharing their beliefs in this area as compared to the 1 out of 7
teachers (14%) who commented. The teacher–student relationship was more important
among principals than among teachers with 3 out of 6 principals (50%) relating their
opinions in this subtheme and zero teachers responding in this area.
Next in the hierarchy was money. This qualified as a relevant theme with a
response rate of 54% or 7 out of 13 participants responding, however, the response rates
in three of the subthemes appeared relevant for one group but not the other. Each
subtheme did not qualify them as relevant. District control vs Building control over the
budget and Professional Development funding were considered important to principals
while on-going funding for resources was the only important area to teachers. Three out
of 6 principals (50%) felt they should have control over their budgets as opposed to the
district when making decisions about resources for their students. However, whereas no
principal discussed the need for money to support on-going professional development, 2
177
out of 7 teachers (29%) felt this was an important area of support for their ability to
effectively implement new strategies. Two out of 6 principals (33%) wanted more
money to provide professional development support for their staff, though not necessarily
on-going, yet no teachers commented in this area.
Finally, Motivation was at the bottom of the hierarchy with 5 out of 13
participants (38%) responding. Under this theme emerged two subthemes, motivation to
implement new initiatives or strategies and motivation to stay in their position. Of these
two subthemes, motivation to implement was seen as an area of importance by both
teachers and principals. The other subtheme, motivation to remain in the position, was
discussed only by teachers.
The results from these findings were a mix of what was expected and themes that
were not initially considered, and, therefore, emerged as unexpected responses. For
example, the theme of Climate and Culture, with 11 out of 13 participants (85%)
responding, was expected because the literature is rich with research in this area;
however, the theme of Time was not considered but turned out to be among the most
relevant themes generated from principals and teachers. Also, money emerged as a
relevant theme with 7 out of 13 participants (54%), 5 principals (38%) and 2 teachers
(15%), feeling money for resources was important for supporting improvement efforts.
This was a theme that was not considered when generating start codes nor was it present
in the literature.
There were four means of data collection used in this study. Data on school
performance were retrieved from the NCES. This data were used to determine the
accountability status of each school where participants worked. The Teacher Selfefficacy Scale and the Principal Self-efficacy Scale measured the self-efficacy of teachers
178
and principals and were optional for participants. The fourth and primary source of data
collection were the semi-structured interviews with teachers and principals. The
following section will present the data retrieved from the secondary sources and how they
support the findings of the interview responses.
National Center for Educational Statistics data. The data reporting school
improvement status for each of the schools where participants worked came from the
NCES and was used to determine criteria for participant eligibility. The data included the
location of the participant’s district, the determination that the participant taught in a
public school, preferably in an urban area, and whether they had experience in teaching in
a school undergoing corrective action. Four of the 7 (57%) teachers had stated that they
were not currently teaching in a school that was in corrective status, but they had
previously. T1, T2, T4, and T5 had all taught in schools that had gone into corrective
status at least within the last 2 years. Each of them left their schools because of the
demands being made under school improvement, even in Year 1. The data from this
report showed that four of the schools had just recently entered school improvement
status. The remaining three schools were all in school improvement year 1 or more.
This data was retrieved from the NCES. As stated, four of the teachers had taught
in schools that had previously been high performing then slipped into school
improvement status. These teachers chose to leave their schools and teach in charter
schools or overseas rather than continue to another year in the improvement process. The
motivation to leave is a subtheme under Teacher Motivation and was addressed in the
literature. Teachers are more prone to leave their positions than are principals
(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
Principals are more likely to stay in their position even when entering school
179
improvement or remaining in school improvement over time. P3 left his position rather
than be non-renewed by his district. Removing the principal is a part of the turnaround
models mandated by the Race to the Top School Improvement Grants. P6 was removed
from her position and placed as assistant principal in another school, as was P5; although
after 3 years she was assigned once again as a principal over a magnet program.
Table 35 shows the number of years each participant operated under school
improvement status.
Table 35
Years in School Improvement
Years in School
Improvement
SIY1
P1
P2
X
X
P3
P4
P5
P6
X
T1
T2
X
X
T3
T4
T5
X
X
T6
T7
X
X
SIY2
SIY3
SIY4
X
X
X
X
Self-efficacy scales. The Teacher Sense of Self-efficacy Scale and the Principal
Sense of Self-efficacy Scale was a secondary means of data collection, used to determine
the level of self-efficacy of teachers and principals and to generate additional questions.
Self-efficacy is context specific (Bandura, 2001; Tshcannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2001), so the questions generated from the questionnaires were not necessarily used for
all participants unless their experiences were similar and the responses warranted it. The
self-efficacy scales were not required to be completed, but participants were asked to
complete one. Of the participants who were interviewed, 5 out of 7 teachers (71%)
completed the Teacher Sense of Self-efficacy Scale and 3 out of 6 principals (50%)
completed the Principals Self-Efficacy Scale.
180
Teacher sense of self-efficacy scale. Six out of the 7 teachers (86%) completed
both the interview and the Teacher Sense of Self-efficacy Scale. The survey measured
teacher self-efficacy in three areas; (a) Efficacy for instructional strategies, (b) Efficacy
for student engagement, and (c) Efficacy for classroom management. Of these three
areas, all of the 6 participants who completed the survey scored themselves lowest for
student engagement. Efficacy for student engagement has no clear definition and is an
obscure concept (Tyler & Boelter, 2008). Student engagement has been shown to be a
multidimensional construct involving many facets of students’ motivation and interest in
school and academics (Zyngier, 2008). Factors that are attributed to self-efficacy of
student engagement include getting students to believe they can successfully complete
assignments, motivating students who show little or no interest in their schoolwork,
assisting families in helping their student do well in school, improving understanding for
failing students, promoting student creativity, and showing an ability to get through to the
toughest students (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
Of the interview responses given by all 7 teachers, 3 (43%) discussed student
engagement. Teachers often do not feel responsible for engaging students, but rather
expect students to be receptive to instruction, thereby becoming engaged (Harris, 2011).
Schools under the pressure of accountability may have difficulty creating and sustaining a
nurturing environment (Lee, 2012).
The other 3 teachers who scored low in this area of efficacy discussed more of
their ability to deliver instruction. Efficacy for instruction refers to the teacher’s ability
to effectively deliver instruction to all students along with using a variety of assessments,
reteach using alternative methods or explanations, create higher order questions
providing rigor and student discourse, answer difficult questions, and provide challenges
181
for capable students or use alternative strategies for less capable students (TschannenMoran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Teachers’ instructional behaviors can greatly influence
student work habits by encouraging them to participate in classroom activities (Turner &
Patrick, 2004). This area of self-efficacy was the second lowest area of teacher selfefficacy. Of the 7 teachers, only 1 (14%) scored low over all in all areas of self-efficacy
for instructional strategies. This was the youngest of the group who had only taught 4
years.
Question 24 was also scored low on the self-efficacy scale. Question 24 inquired,
“How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable students?” This
question was scored low by 3 out of the 7 teachers (43%) who completed the survey.
Interview responses revealed two teachers who discussed trying to work with their gifted
students.
Self-efficacy for classroom management scored the highest among the 7 teachers.
Efficacy of classroom management includes the ability to control disruptive behavior, get
students to follow classroom and school rules, redirect and calm disruptive or noisy
students, make expectations clear for all students, establish routines, and establish a
classroom management system (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). One
hundred percent of the participants who completed the survey believed they had effective
classroom management skills; however, 3 out of 7 (43%) believed they had difficulty
with getting through to difficult students.
Principal sense of self-efficacy scale. Three out of 6 (50%) principals completed
the Principal Sense of Self-efficacy Scale. Principal self-efficacy is defined as a
principal’s judgment of his or her capability to shape a specific course of action to bring
about desired outcomes (Tshannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Principal self-efficacy, like
182
teacher self-efficacy, is context specific. The Principal Sense Self-efficacy Scale
measures three areas of self-efficacy of principals, (a) Efficacy for instructional
leadership, (b) Efficacy for management, and (c) Efficacy for moral leadership. P3, P4,
and P6 completed the survey. P3, the principal who left his position, scored himself high
in all areas with the exception of 5 questions. He scored himself average to low in 4 out
of 6 (66%) areas of management. He scored himself low in only 1 of 6 (16%) area of
instructional leadership in the area of raising student achievement scores. He scored
himself high in the six areas of moral leadership. His responses indicated that he felt he
was not a good manager of operations, time, and paperwork yet was a strong instructional
leader despite low student achievement scores.
P4 scored himself high in 10 out of 18 questions (56%). Of the 6 areas of
instructional leadership he scored himself high in the 4 areas (66%) of managing change,
creating a positive learning environment, raising student test scores, and motivating
teachers. He felt his instructional leadership was low in 2 areas (33%) for facilitating
student learning and generating enthusiasm for a shared school vision. He scored himself
low in the 4 management areas (66%) of handling the job demands, monitoring his daily
schedule, handling paperwork, and prioritizing among competing demands. He scored
high in the other 2 areas; coping with job stress and shaping operation policies and
procedures necessary for managing the school. In the area of moral leadership, P4 scored
high in 4 out of 6 areas (66%). He felt that he was strong in being able to promote a
positive image of the school, promoting the prevailing values of the community,
effectively handling the discipline in his school, and promoting ethical behavior among
school personnel. He scored himself low in the moral leadership areas of promoting
school spirit among the student population and promoting exceptional behavior among
183
students.
P6 scored herself low in 10 out of 18 questions (56%) on the survey and high in 8
out of 18 in the other areas (44%). She scored herself high for instructional leadership by
facilitating student learning and raising student achievement scores. She also scored
herself high in the management areas of monitoring her daily schedule, developing
effective operating policies and handling paperwork. She felt she was high with student
discipline and promoting acceptable behavior; however, she scored herself low for
motivating her teachers, creating a positive learning environment in her school,
promoting ethical behavior among her staff, and generating a shared vision for her
school. These areas all fall under instructional leadership except ethical behavior for
staff, which is moral leadership. In her responses, she believeD she was not a strong
instructional leader and failed to create a climate and culture that promoted a positive
learning environment.
Much like teacher self-efficacy, principal self-efficacy is influenced by the
amount of support, autonomy, and the relationships they have with the leadership at the
district level. Low principal self-efficacy will have a negative impact on teacher selfefficacy, which filters down to student achievement (Finnigan, 2012; Kurt et al., 2012;
Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011). The effects of low
principal self-efficacy leads to a lack of vision or sense of direction for the school and can
result in a negative climate affecting student achievement (Finnigan, 2011; Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004).
Table 36 provides the response from the Teacher and Principal Sense of SelfEfficacy Scale. High and low self-efficacy responses are shown by participant for each
area. The area of instruction refers to instructional leadership for principals and
184
instructional strategies for teachers. Likewise, the area of management refers to
managing the everyday operations of the school for the principal and classroom
management for teachers. The responses on the table show either a positive (+) sense of
self-efficacy or a negative sense (-) of self-efficacy.
Table 36
Survey Results
Theme
Principal Sense of Self-efficacy Teacher Sense of Self-efficacy Scale
Scale
P1
P2
P3
P4
Climate and
Culture
+
Instruction*
P5
P6
T1
T2
+
+
-
+
+
-
Management**
-
-
-
Moral Leadership
+
+
+
T3
T4
5T
T6
T7
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
Semi-structured Interviews. Interviews revealed that of the 6 principals
interviewed, 3 principals (50%) communicated a sense of strong self-efficacy while 1
principal (13%) communicated a lowered sense of self-efficacy. In the area of
instructional leadership, 3 out of the 6 principals (50%) interviewed reported a sense of
high self-efficacy to lead staff in ways that promoted student learning and achievement.
One principal conveyed a sense of low efficacy in this area. Although, on the PSES, P3
scored himself high for self-efficacy, his interview responses appeared to reveal the
opposite. Additionally, 2 out of 6 principals (33%) reported a high sense of efficacy for
185
management, while 1 principal (17%) reported a sense of low efficacy in this area. Two
out of the 6 principals (33%) who responded in this area described a sense of high
efficacy for moral leadership.
Table 37 shows the response rate per participant for each theme.
Table 37
Interview response rates per theme
Theme
P
1
P
2
P
3
P
4
P
5
P
6
T
1
Climate and
Culture
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Time
X
X
X
X
X
X
Self-efficacy
X
X
X
X
X
Experiences
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Expectations
Professional
Development
X
X
Relationships
X
X
X
X
Money
X
X
X
X
X
X
Motivation
T
2
T
5
T
6
T
7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
3
X
X
X
T
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Findings in the context of the theoretical framework. The theoretical
framework, introduced in chapter 2, addressed seven concepts that are interrelated, each
186
affecting the other either directly or indirectly, but all having an impact on student
achievement. These concepts, school improvement, teacher self-efficacy, principal selfefficacy, motivation and expectations, context and experiences, climate and culture, and
student achievement, act on each other with climate and culture being the most
controlling factor. The findings have shown this interrelationship between the concepts
and have provided additional concepts that have been identified by principals and
teachers as having impact on their ability to effectively influence student achievement.
The climate and culture of a school has a radiating effect on every aspect of the
school community. It impacts teacher and principal self-efficacy, which in turn impact
motivation, expectations, and ultimately student achievement. Having a positive and
nurturing climate and culture results in positive experiences or contexts that aid in
strengthening teacher and principals expectations. However, if teachers and principals do
not believe they are effective in making an impact on their students, this could lead to a
negative climate and culture resulting in an opposite effect.
Self-efficacy is the belief or perception of an individual in his or her ability to
implement actions or behaviors needed to reach a desired outcome (Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Teacher self-efficacy has an impact on teacher expectations for
student achievement, student behavior, and student engagement and teacher motivation.
According to research, leadership is vital for successful school turnaround and is a highly
desirable resource for teachers yearning to improve (Finnigan, 2011; Price, 2012; Ware &
Kitsantas, 2011). Therefore, principals need to possess a sense of strong self-efficacy to
persevere against the challenges that come with the process of school improvement
(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011)
Low principal self-efficacy has a negative impact on teacher self-efficacy that
187
filters down to student achievement (Finnigan, 2012; Kurt et al., 2012; Tschannen-Moran
& Gareis, 2004; Ware & Kitsantas, 2011). The effects of low principal self-efficacy
leads to a lack of vision or sense of direction for the school and can result in a negative
climate affecting student achievement (Finnigan, 2011; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008;
Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004).
Positive relationships between principals and teachers have been found to
promote higher levels of satisfaction and trust between stakeholders, cohesion around
school goals, and commitment from faculty (Dumay, 2009; Price, 2012). Teachers will
seek to have positive relationships with their principals to gain trust and good working
relations so they can gain what they need to influence their students’ learning. Effective
principals will seek to have positive relationships with teachers to bring about a positive
climate and culture where teachers who are well taken care of will take care of their
students and their learning. These principals work to have their teachers operate as a
team and will empower them to make decisions, have a voice in the shared vision and
mission of the school, and expect them to be able to work collaboratively.
Experiences play a role in how effective a teacher or principal feels about their
ability to effectively influence student learning. Bandura (2001) identified mastery as the
most effective means of raising self-efficacy. The more successful a teacher or principal
is in bringing about improvement in performance; the higher their self-efficacy will be
and the more likely they will persevere through outside influences such as poverty. The
less successful a teacher or principal is in bringing about improved performance the more
likely they are to avoid trying or begin to put blame on their inability to be effective on
the student, the parents, or influences that they have no control over. School
improvement has an adverse effect on the self-efficacy of both teachers and principals.
188
Teachers who initially believed their students could achieve are less sure of their beliefs
in the face of failure (Finnigan & Gross, 2007). When faced with having to change
accountability goals teacher will also change their own efficacy beliefs as well. Being in
school improvement also has an effect on the morale and motivation of teachers in
schools with the greatest student achievement difficulties (Finnigan & Gross, 2007). The
longer teachers are in probation status, the more their expectations decline as well as their
belief in their ability to accomplish the goal of improving student achievement.
Principal behavior shapes the climate and culture of a school (Price, 2012; Starr,
2012), and principal self-efficacy dictates what those behaviors will look like
(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). The higher or stronger a principal’s sense of selfefficacy, the more likely he or she will cultivate a positive learning environment while
also expediting school improvement policies and practices (Federici, 2013; Federici &
Skaalvik, 2012; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). If a principal chooses to take a path
with the least resistance it allows the staff to become autonomous by requiring them to
only meet the compliance standards at their minimum, enough to get improved test scores
they may create an environment where very little sustained learning is taking place
(Knapp & Feldman, 2010, 2011).
Synthesis of findings. The findings in this study have shown that there are clear
interconnections between the themes that emerged through the data. Climate and culture
was the dominate theme and not only showed influence over other areas but also showed
being influenced by each of the other themes. Expectations grow out of teacher and
principal self-efficacy, which is influenced many times by the experiences that the
teachers and principals have been through. By the same token, the need for time greatly
impacts how a teacher or principal believes they can impact student achievement, which
189
also requires money and resources. Additionally, teacher self-efficacy and principal selfefficacy greatly impact motivation and effort to implement new strategies, procedures,
and policies or be driving force behind their decision stay in their current position or
leave.
Both teachers and principals spoke of building relationships. Principals spoke of
the need for a strong relationship with the Superintendent to get the support required to
implement school reform initiatives. However, principals preferred to build strong
relationships with teachers to gain their confidence and buy in to effectively implement
new initiatives rather than have to deal with the Union, which they saw as an impediment
to their efforts. Teachers spoke about relationships with community agencies and the
resources these agencies bring into the school for their students.
The stronger the relationship is between a principal and a teacher or a
Superintendent and a principal; the more support is likely to be given. More support
leads to greater effort and motivation to implement change. Lack of support or poor
relationships have the opposite effect and lead to a toxic climate for learning.
Professional development, as desired by teachers, should be content specific and
support the new instructional strategies they are required to implement. Additionally, PD
should be network based, so teachers are able to collaborate, reflect, and gain new
knowledge from their colleagues. Professional development, as communicated by
principals, should be on-going and embedded into instruction. However, principals
wished to have control over their budgets to put professional development in place that
best meets the needs of their students and staff.
Practical utility of findings within the profession. The use of these findings
within the arena of school improvement are practical for designing school reform models.
190
By having principals and teachers at the table when decisions on school reform are being
made, it gives them the ability to voice what they believe is wrong with the school
improvement process and what they believe should be taking place for their individual
schools and students. Schools vary widely and are unique from each other even when in
the same district. What works for one school may not work for another. Therefore, it is
important to look at each school individually and make decisions based on what is known
about the students, families, and community where that school operates. By listening to
what teachers and principals have to say about their schools, their needs, and their vision,
districts and reformers will be able to better custom fit strategies for improvement that is
sustainable and ongoing. Additionally, this study showed that although climate and
culture are at the heart of school improvement, the beliefs that are held by teachers and
principals about their abilities to effectively bring about improved student achievement
do have an impact on whether a school progresses toward improvement or whether it
remains stagnant and in school improvement status.
Summary
Chapter 4 presented the findings of this study, which provided answers to the
initial research questions. The overall guiding question to this study was what are
teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about their ability to influence student learning impacted
while implementing school improvement practices? Through the use of semi-structured
interviews, teachers and principals relayed their experiences and beliefs about operating
under school improvement status and how they felt it inhibited their ability to impact
their students’ learning and achievement. Under this guiding question were two
subquestions. SQ1. What factors or experiences do teachers, and principals see as
having an impact on their sense of self-efficacy either negatively or positively during
191
these changes? SQ2. What knowledge, skills, or abilities do teachers, and principals
believe are necessary, yet are missing, to improve their classroom and leadership
practices to positively impact student learning? Teachers and principals conveyed what
they felt was missing, whether they believed they had the necessary skills to implement
what was being asked of them, and what they believed were obstacles to bringing about
authentic improvement of their schools. Themes and subthemes emerged as a result of
data collection using four sources of data and were presented in tables throughout the
chapter as each theme was discussed. Chapter 5 will elaborate further on these findings
and will provide implications for practice and recommendations for further research.
192
Chapter 5: Implications
There continues to exist pockets of low performing schools across the United
States. These schools, most of which are located in urban districts, remain in corrective
status despite targeted professional development (Clarke, 2009; Evans et al., 2002, Good
& McCaslin, 2008, U.S. DOE, 2010). Though there has been much research on causes of
failed reforms, there is little research that explores the beliefs of teachers and principal
regarding their ability to positively impact student achievement while functioning under
corrective status. This study addressed the gap in research for school level responses to
high stakes accountability policies. The purpose of this study was to explore the selfefficacy beliefs of principals and teachers about their ability to positively impact student
achievement while also dealing with the climate and culture changes that are brought
about when going through the school improvement process.
This qualitative, multi-case study used the critical incident technique to collect
data from 13 participants who were recruited from online professional learning networks
and social media sites. The results provided building level responses to twelve themes,
nine that teachers and principals believed were needed to enhance their ability to
effectively influence student learning. The responses were sorted and categorized, using
NVivo 10, allowing for distinct themes to emerge. Pertinent sub-themes emerged within
the themes, some shared by both groups and some unique to each.
Using a multiple case study design for this investigation allowed for similar cases
to be reported on a single phenomenon within different contexts, adding strength to the
findings (Yin, 2013). Each of the teachers and principals who participated in the study
became a unique, single unit making each a different case (Yin, 2013). Critical incident
technique, known as CIT, was used to focus on critical events that may impact
193
performance either positively or negatively (Butterfield et al., 2005). The use of multiple
data sources for measuring the same phenomenon has been found to be a highly effective
means of supporting findings on a single phenomenon through triangulation of data (Yin,
2013). By bringing together the various data sources, triangulation addressed the
problems of construct validity because the different data sources not only reported on the
same phenomenon but ultimately supported the findings of each of the other sources
(Yin, 2013).
This study was significant to the arena of school improvement because it brought
out the voices of principals and teachers, key stakeholders in the process who are often
not considered when designing school reform. The opinions, concerns, and ideas of
teachers and principals need to be a part of the school improvement process (Tobin et al.,
2006; Wheatly, 2005) when implementing new strategies and promoting climate and
culture changes. These are the people who have the most impact on student learning and
by including them in the development and design process of school reform would bring
additional insights and practical means of implementation of best practices. This study
was significant therefore in allowing key stakeholders at the building level to have input
into what should take place to improve the climate and culture of their schools and
promote student achievement.
Limitations
The limitations to this study, which were presented in Chapter 3, included a risk
that the wording of the interview questions would change between participants causing
major changes in how each responded. Also, there was a chance of a low number of
respondents, which was also a consideration. An insufficient number of participants
could lead to a lack of lateral replication (Yin, 2013) as well as the inability to make a
194
determination of critical incidents (Butterfield et al., 2005). Another limitation could be a
threat of validity if participants had vague recall of incidents (Butterfield et al., 2005).
However, these potential limitations were addressed through the participant membership
being drawn from a variety of backgrounds and circumstances, such as their number of
years working under accountability sanctions, the type of school they recalled their
experiences from, either charter or public, and the saturation factor where, although from
different backgrounds and contexts, the responses provided aligned with the same
categories with few new themes occurring. This led to the determination that these were
common themes that exist across most school contexts and are shared by most educators
who have been through some part of the school improvement process.
Validity of findings
Four validity checks were made on the responses of each participant. The first
check required that for a theme to be considered a critical incident there had to be a
frequency of 25% among responses. The second check for validity regarded the point of
exhaustion; that point where no new ideas emerged as additional interviews took place.
The third check was a comparison of assumptions made in the scholarly research
presented in the literature. The final check was the reading back of the responses to each
participant to ensure it was transcribed correctly and there was no new information the
respondent wanted to add.
This study was conducted within all ethical boundaries and was approved by the
Institutional Review Board of Northcentral University before any data were collected or
interviews conducted. The use of numerical/alphabetical codes protected the identity of
participants and no identifying information was used in the findings description, which
would breach participant confidentiality. Participants were given a letter of informed
195
consent assuring confidentiality of their identity. Each participant was under no
obligation to complete the study and could withdraw at any time. Additionally,
participants could not to answer specific questions without any penalty.
The remaining sections of this chapter will cover the discussion and implications
of the findings by answering the research questions, the effects of the limitations on the
findings, and future recommendations. Results will also be linked to the research
literature on the themes covered in this study. Recommendations for future research and
professional practice will also be included.
Implications
There was one guiding question that drove this study. Under this guiding
question were two sub-questions.
Guiding question. How are teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about their ability to
influence student learning impacted while implementing school improvement practices?
SQ1. What factors or experiences do teachers and principals see as having an
impact on their sense of self-efficacy either negatively or positively during these
changes?
SQ2. What knowledge, skills, or abilities do teachers and principals believe are
necessary, yet are missing, to improve their classroom and leadership practices to
positively impact student learning?
The implications of the findings for the guiding question will be addressed first
using all the data collected. Then the data will be divided under the two sub-questions to
describe the implications for each. After answering the questions, a new framework will
be introduced that brings together the themes to show the effects of teacher and principal
beliefs on the school improvement process. Finally, recommendations for practical
196
professional and future research will be discussed.
Guiding Question Implications
How are teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about their ability to influence student
learning impacted while implementing school improvement practices?
The nine themes that emerged as critical for teachers and principals were
intertwined, each having an effect on the other. Table 38 shows the results of these
themes. The number of responses are indicated by (nr); the percentage of responses are
indicated by (pr) on the table.
Table 38
Frequency of Responses per theme
Theme
nr
pr
Climate and Culture
11
85%
Time
10
77%
Self-efficacy
10
77%
Experiences
10
77%
Expectations
10
77%
PD
9
69%
Relationships
7
54%
Money/Funding
6
46%
Motivation
5
38%
Principals and teachers interviewed in this study expressed nine areas they
believed were impacted by the school improvement process. Eleven out of 13
participants (85%) believed that school improvement practices hindered their ability to
promote a positive climate and culture conducive for student achievement. Ten out of 13
participants (77%) cited the areas of time, self-efficacy, and experiences being impacted
by the process. Nine out of 13 participants (69%) also cited professional development as
197
an area which is impacted, 7 out of 13 participants (54%) cited relationships as an
essential area that was impacted, while 6 out of 13 participants (46%) felt that money for
resources was a problem, and 5 out of 13 participants (38%) believed their motivation to
implement the initiative or decision to stay in their position was influenced through their
experience of operating under corrective status.
The participants shared experiences and beliefs in each of the nine areas;
providing insight into what they believed were factors that either promoted or hindered
their ability to influence student learning while also implementing changes in instruction,
policies, and procedures. The question was answered through the emergence of these
nine themes that were found to be essential to how they believed they needed to operate
under corrective status.
The nine themes were divided under the two sub-questions and provide a lens for
understanding how more direct, tangible events effect the motivational and emotional
state of teachers and principals as they attempt to foster a positive influence on students
learning while also complying with the mandates of school reform. Table 39 shows the
themes that answer each sub-research question.
Table 39
Research question with supporting themes
SQ1
SQ2
Climate/Culture
Relationships
Time
Expectations
Funding
Motivation
Experiences
Self-efficacy
Professional Development
198
Sub-question 1. What factors or experiences do teachers and principals see as
having an impact on their sense of self-efficacy either positively or negatively?
Experiences were described across several of the other sub-themes by 10 out of
13 participants (77%) and provided examples of what teachers and principals believed
were factors that impacted their self-efficacy. For example, under the larger theme of
climate and culture, 5 out of 13 participants (38%) believed their ability to effectively
implement new practices was greatly impacted given only a limited amount of time to
improve. Participants further cited their experience with limited support for managing
student behavior, which they perceived as having a direct effect on the climate and
culture. Low morale from the stress and pressure of operating under corrective status
was seen as another factor affecting their ability to influence student learning.
Time was another area cited by participants as being a factor that affected their
self-efficacy. Under the theme of time, 10 out of 13 participants (77%) believed that
more time was needed in such areas as creating climate and culture, implementing new
strategies, building relationships, and meeting the basic needs of students. Ten out of 13
participants (77%) believed they needed assistance in better managing their time around
all the required changes and new implementations, and paperwork that comes with school
improvement programs. Four out of 13 participants (31%) felt they needed time to
collaborate with colleagues as a way to share experiences and ideas on how to improve.
Among the teachers, 2 out of 7 (29%) believed they needed more time to become
proficient in one or two new practices rather than trying to implement several at once.
Two out of 6 principals (33%) expressed the need for more time to create climate and
culture change.
Money, or control of budget, and professional development were additional
199
factors that participants reported as impacting their ability to create change in their
schools. Three out of 13 participants (23%) believed they should have more control over
their budgets. This was an area exclusive to principals so 3 out of 6 principals (50%)
expressed their desire to control their own budgets to better align their resources to meet
the learning needs of their students. Further, control of budget would allow principals
control of how professional development is delivered. Five out of 13 participants (38%)
believed that there should be money to provide needed on-going resources to carry out
the new practices. Three out of 13 participants (23%) believed that professional
development should be content specific. The three participants were teachers, which
made this an essential area exclusive to teachers. Three out of 7 teachers (43%)
expressed this need.
Sub-question 2. What knowledge, skills, or abilities do teachers and principals
believe are necessary yet missing to improve their classroom and leadership practices to
positively impact student learning? Both teachers and principals stated that they didn’t
believe they were lacking in skill or knowledge. However, they did describe areas that
they believed were affected by the lack of time, money, and relevant professional
development, and their ability to promote climate and culture change.
Ten out of 13 participants (77%) described how their self-efficacy and
expectations were impacted by specific experiences, either positively or negatively,
during the school improvement process. Seven out of 13 participants (54%) described
their beliefs of the importance of creating relationships to promote a positive climate and
culture that in turn promotes student achievement, yet is greatly affected by a lack of time
to promote these relationships. Five out of 13 participants (38%) described their
motivation to leave their current positions or to implement new initiatives while under the
200
pressure of corrective status.
Ten out of 13 participants (77%) expressed their belief about their self-efficacy
and their ability to effectively influence student learning. Impact on efficacy for
instructional strategies or instructional leadership ability was cited by 10 out of 13
participants (77%), while 4 out of 13 participants (31%) shared their belief about their
ability to manage their classrooms or school. Self-efficacy for student engagement was
relayed by 4 out of 13 participants (31%) and was exclusive to teachers. This gave it a
high level of importance with 4 out of 7 teachers (57%) responding. Self-efficacy for
moral leadership was expressed by 2 out of 13 participants (15%); however, because this
was an area exclusive to principals, the response rate breaks down to 2 out of 6 principals
(33%) making it a critical area for this group. The school improvement process was seen
as the cause of lowered self-efficacy resulting in lowered motivation to implement
strategies as cited by 7 out of 13 participants (54%). Lowered self-efficacy and lowered
motivation also triggered 3 out of 13 participants (24%) to leave their positions rather
than continue to work under corrective status. This low response rate was exclusive to
teachers and broke down to 3 out of 7 teachers (43%) who chose to leave.
Expectations were also cited as a critical area of concern for both principals and
teachers. Colleague support was cited by 4 out of 13 participants (57%) as being
essential for them to be able to gain skills and ideas when implementing new strategies.
Student achievement was exclusive among teachers with 4 out of 7 (57%) and was a
concern due to their evaluations being linked to student performance. Their expectations
were low at times for what they thought their students could manage. Principal support
was an area vital to teachers also. Three out of 7 teachers (43%) expressed their
expectation of being supported by their principal in areas of classroom management and
201
professional development. Two out of 7 teachers (29%) had expectations for student
behavior that was believed to either enhance or interfere with their ability to implement
new instructional practices and relied on the principal to support and assist with
managing disruptions. Three out of 6 principals (50%) expressed the need for Central
Office support in areas of climate and culture change, resources and funding, and clear
communication of the new initiatives.
Relationship building was another area that was seen as being vital for successful
school turn around. The areas of Union relationships, Principal–Teacher relationships,
and Teacher–Student relationships were seen as important exclusively to Principals with
3 out of 6 (50%) listing these areas. Teachers believed they needed to form strong
relationships with the community to secure vital resources for their students. Two out of
7 (29%) teachers identified the community–school relationship as being an important
gateway to resources during school improvement.
The next section will discuss how the findings support current research in each of
these areas and provide a pathway to a new conceptual framework that presents what
factors must be in place to promote positive reactions to school improvement and
changes to school culture.
Discussion of Findings in Relation to Research Literature
The Literature Review presented in Chapter 2 provided rich research in seven of
the nine themes revealed in this study. The two themes not represented in the literature
were Professional Development and Money. Climate and Culture was found to be the
most critical factor as expressed by both teachers and principals. Experiences, Time,
Expectations, and Self-efficacy were also strong among the results. Relationships,
Professional Development, Money, and Motivation were at the lesser end of this
202
hierarchy yet were found to have as much influence on Climate and Culture change as the
other four areas.
Principals are responsible for shaping the climate and culture of their schools.
School Improvement means changing the climate and culture of the school, which
promotes high student achievement. The Principals in this study described the climate
and culture of their schools and what helped promote, or hinder, this culture. One
principal talked of taking care of her staff, another talked about the lack of support from
the district for handling student discipline, while a third described his teachers’ passion
for working with students who come from poverty. Research has shown that building
strong relationships with stakeholders, caring for the well-being of teachers,
strengthening teacher self-efficacy through positive experiences and support, promotes a
strong climate and culture conducive to learning and student achievement (Dumay, 2009;
Fullan, 2006; Kruse, 2008; Price, 2012). Research additionally found that the
Superintendent has a high influence over the climate and culture that exists in schools
(McFarlane, 2010).
Teachers spoke of climate and culture from the perspective of managing student
behavior. Two teachers did not feel completely supported by the principal in their efforts
to manage student behavior in the classroom. One teacher stated that the principal only
thought she was being supportive yet suggested that the teacher needed to be more
creative in her discipline tactics, which the teacher translated as “It’s your problem, deal
with it”. The other teacher described how the principal told her to not become a victim
but didn’t offer solutions. Research suggests that when teacher needs are met through
administrative support and the well-being of teachers is a priority, teacher self-efficacy
improves, which has a direct impact on the climate and culture of the school (Deci &
203
Ryan, 2012; Karsli & Iskander, 2009; Shah et al., 2012; Valli et al., 2012).
Teachers and Principals further described experiences in which they had support
from administration, which promoted their efforts to bring about improvement as well as
experiences they believed showed a lack of support. One principal described how she
was supported by her Assistant Superintendent by allowing her to ask for whatever she
needed for her students and she would try to make it happen. This wasn’t the case with
the previous Assistant Superintendent whom she said really didn’t do much and had very
little communication with her. Research has shown that administrative support and
handling of problems provides principals with increased satisfaction and promotes their
motivation to continue their turnaround efforts (Shah et al., 2009). Another principal
described her experience with being given autonomy over many of her decisions because
of the past performances of her school. She stated that because of this she needed little
support. This supports research that found that people believe that their own behaviors
are effective due to their experiences (Yenice et al., 2012).
Teachers described experiences of principal support for discipline, new teacher
evaluation tools involving the opinions of students, collaborating with colleagues, gaining
new knowledge through professional development, and having to work with low-level
students without having a background in special needs nor the knowledge to be able to
work effectively with this student population. Two teachers described negative
experiences with having to work with low-level students without having the formalized
training to do so. Another teacher described her disagreement with students evaluating
her, while another teacher spoke of positive experiences of collaborating with her
colleagues to gain new information and share ideas. Research has shown that through the
experience of working with low-level students teachers develop low expectations for
204
those students, believing that not all students can learn at a higher level (Bandura, 1977;
Sirota & Bailey, 2009). Teacher collaboration and networking is seen as a type of
professional development and was not found in the research literature but rather emerged
through the interviews with teachers and principals and was considered to be essential for
vicarious experiences in which teachers learn from each other.
Time emerged as another area that ranked high as a critical need for teachers and
principals as they bring about change in their school climate and culture and student
performance. Principals believed they needed time to cultivate the change in the climate
and culture of their schools, to implement the new practices, and to still meet the basic
needs of their students. Teachers desired time to master one or two initiatives and their
implementation as opposed to several new initiatives at once. They also wanted time to
collaborate with their colleagues to share ideas and experiences as a way to learn from
one another. Both principals and teachers wanted assistance with time management for
all that were involved with improving their school. This supports the literature, which
suggests that most school reform targets immediate results, rather than allowing time for
teachers and students to master the content (Davies, 2002). Additional research
established that climate and culture change takes time to become embedded as it replaces
existing norms, structures, and processes (Fullan, 2006).
Expectations were considered important for creating school change. Teachers
held expectations for student achievement, student behavior, principal support, and
colleague support. Student achievement was seen either as not possible except at a
lowered level or quite possible if given the materials and supports needed to promote it.
These responses supported the literature, which purported that teachers hold students to
expectations dependent upon the type of support they receive from their principal and
205
professional community (Kelly & Finnigan, 2003). Teachers held students to higher
expectations when they were supported and were under less stress of job loss (Kelly &
Finnigan, 2007). Another teacher in the study was discouraged by the expectations
exhibited by her colleagues toward second language learners, citing that they didn’t think
the students understood them or could learn due to barriers of language. This supports
the research that teachers with low self-efficacy will either blame students from different
ethnic backgrounds for their own lack of success (Sirota & Bailey, 2009; Sosa & Gomez,
2012; Tucker et al., 2005) or teachers believe they do not possess the skills necessary to
teach this population of students and therefore their efforts will have little or no influence
on their learning (Auwater & Aruguette, 2008).
Principals cited expectations for Central Office support and Colleague support.
Central Office support was described as communicating fully and clearly the plan for
change, providing the necessary training and funding needed to implement change and
providing resources in the way of funding or staffing to support student needs.
Additionally, Principals expected Central Office to provide time for them to meet and
collaborate with colleagues to problem solve, share ideas, and provide support for each
other. The literature did not provide research on principal expectations.
Teacher and Principal Self-Efficacy was another area of high importance for
climate change. Teachers and Principals shared their experiences of self-efficacy as well
as taking an online survey. Teacher self-efficacy has direct impact on student
achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) while principal self-efficacy has
a direct impact on teacher self-efficacy and therefore an indirect impact on student
achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). The teachers in the study shared
different experiences that both promoted as well as deflated their sense of self-efficacy.
206
One teacher talked about working with low-level students but not being able to show
much progress in their learning due to their limited abilities despite her Master’s Degree
in reading. Another teacher shared that her self-efficacy was high due to the new
initiative of using iPads for language arts and how skillful she found herself to be in the
instruction of their use. Another teacher shared her lowered sense of self-efficacy due to
her low rating on a student survey while another teacher found her self-efficacy to be
lifted when implementing the Common Core Standards and found ways to add creative
new activities. These experiences support the research findings that self-efficacy is a
perspective of how effectively a teacher believes she or he is in influencing student
learning (Tschannen-Moran & Woofolk Hoy, 2001) and that it is influenced by factors as
student conduct, unfamiliarity of content, student ability levels, and principal support
(Tschannen-Moran & Woofolk Hoy, 2001).
Relationships were seen as being essential to bringing about climate and culture
change. Principals shared how they built relationships with teachers, which enhanced
their ability to promote change. Teachers shared how building relationships with the
community helped to bring needed resources to their students. One principal shared that
she builds strong relationships with her teachers, creating a “family atmosphere” where
teachers and students care for each other. This way, she feels she keeps the union at bay
by providing for the needs of her teachers. Another principal shared that it is the
relationship between teachers and students that promotes student achievement. This
supports research that shows that positive and caring relationships where students,
parents, and teachers are valued and cared for is critical to creating a positive and
nurturing climate and culture (Lance, 2010). Additionally, research shows that positive
relationships between principals and teachers promote higher levels of trust and
207
satisfaction resulting in a strong, positive climate and culture (Dumay, 2009; Price, 2012)
and support opportunities to improve teacher self-efficacy and promote positive attitudes
toward change and improvement ( Kruse, 2008). Teachers shared that relationships with
community agencies provided them with information about cultural practices of their
students and brought in resources that helped their students emotionally. The research on
relationship building shows that to create real reform, teachers and administrators need to
value their students first and focus on their needs (Lance, 2010).
Motivation was seen as effecting school improvement. Motivation is an effect of
teacher and principal self-efficacy. Motivation is also an effect of experiences, positive
or negative. Motivation was not as highly ranked in this study; however, it did emerge as
a critical area for either fully implementing or not fully implementing new initiatives, as
well as whether teachers and principals remained in their current position under
corrective status or chose to leave. Of the seven teachers interviewed, four of them
shared that they had left their previous school because of the school moving into
corrective status and they didn’t want to have to go through the improvement process,
which they found overwhelming, saturated with paperwork and trainings. One Principal
chose to leave his position due to what he cited as his inability to raise student test scores
after several years in school improvement status. Under Federal Mandates, one of the
turnaround models is to replace the principal. Rather than be non-renewed, he chose to
resign and take a position at the local university. Research on motivation purports that
when experiencing school improvement, skilled teachers’ self-efficacy may be lowered
leading them to experience a lack of motivation to do their job effectively due to a lack of
belief in their own competence, by what they believe to be poor working conditions that
are not conducive to teaching and learning, or to an atmosphere of unfriendliness and
208
stress (Shah et al., 2012). Further, research indicates that lowered self-efficacy of teacher
and principals leads to a lack of motivation to exert effort in promoting student learning
and achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The Principal who chose
to leave his position stated that he knew his actions and attitudes toward implementing
the district initiatives were negative and this influenced how the teachers in his school felt
about having to implement them as well. Research conducted by Tschannen-Moran and
Gareis (2004) reflected this reaction, stating that Principals need to understand and
recognize how their attitudes and emotions effect teachers during the change process.
Recommendations for Practice
From the results of this study a framework emerged in the form of a hierarchy of
practical needs which Principals and Teachers believed must be met before moving
toward an improved climate and culture where student achievement is the result. Each
need must be met before the next can happen. When the basic need of time, money,
professional development, and positive experiences do not occur, the other needs will
breakdown creating a toxic climate where learning is not taking place and there is no
progression toward a higher level of improvement. Figure 3 shows the framework, The
Conley Hierarchy.
209
Student
Achievement
Climate and Culture
Principal and Teacher Self-Efficacy
Motivation, Expectations, Relationships
Time, Money, Professional Development, Experiences
Experiences
Figure 3. The Conley Hierarchy for supporting principals and teachers during school
improvement.
This hierarchy shows how each level must be met to provide improvement at the
next level. The first level involves meeting the need for more time for implementation
and creation of a climate and culture conducive to learning along with relevant
professional development which is ongoing and aligned to student needs. Additionally at
this level is the need for financial resources to support professional development and
secure resources and material. When these practical needs are met, they will lead to
positive motivation, higher expectations, and stronger relationships. This level will
promote a higher sense of self-efficacy for both teachers and principals which in turn will
result in a positive climate for learning, culminating in higher student achievement.
However, if the practical needs of financial resources, professional development, positive
210
experiences, and time for mastery of new strategies and the cultivation of a positive
climate and culture, then the hierarchy will result in a toxic climate that shows little or no
progression toward improvement. In the Center of the hierarchy is Teacher and Principal
Self-efficacy and Climate and Culture. These areas are continuously impacting each
other whether negatively or positively. So providing for the practical needs at the lower
end of the hierarchy will result in continuous improvement that is sustainable.
Recommendation for Future Research. This study revealed that there are
attitudes, opinions, and conflicting beliefs or philosophies that affect the improvement
process of schools that are identified as failing. It would prove valuable to replicate this
study with a larger sample drawn from the same population. Teachers and principals
operate in different contexts across the nation yet have similar concerns and similar needs
when it comes to implementing change.
The Conley Hierarchy of Practical Needs for School Improvement is not context
specific but rather should be viewed as universal. The elements of time, professional
development, positive experiences, and financial resources are needs most teachers and
principals require to be effective in their job. Therefore, doing a quantitative comparison
study between teachers and principals in an achieving school and those in a failing school
would provide insight to whether all elements are needed or only part of the elements are
needed to provide the motivation and expectation of success thereby supporting high selfefficacy of teachers and principals resulting in higher student achievement.
Another recommendation that would prove beneficial to gaining further insight
into the needs of principals and teachers during the school improvement process may be
to take each element of the Conley Hierarchy and conduct quantitative relational studies
with hypotheses around each element of the framework. Such a study could supply
211
further knowledge into how these elements work together to promote teacher and
principal self-efficacy when working to change and improve the climate and culture of a
school in corrective status.
Conclusion
School success or failure is dependent on the climate and culture in which
students operate every day. Promoting a strong and positive school culture relies on the
experiences that take place daily and the relationships that are built between principals,
teachers, students, and parents. The self-efficacy beliefs of principals and teachers
promote the type of culture found within a school. By making principals and teachers an
integral part of a school improvement design team provides them with the professional
respect and relationships they strive for, permits their voices to be heard, and their ideas
to be considered. By having these key players involved empowers them to work toward
implementing changes themselves, without the feeling of being forced to implement
strategies and programs they disagree with or see the potential for improvement such
changes may bring.
Implementing only one or two changes in a failing school will ensure that the new
practice is well established among the staff and becomes a part of the climate and culture
of the building. Implementing fewer changes will reduce stress and feelings of being
overwhelmed, often experienced by teachers when being asked to implement multiple
new strategies and procedures. Allowing time for changes to become well established
before implementing new ones gives teachers a chance to become proficient in what they
are being asked to do and will lead to higher levels of self-efficacy and confidence, which
also brings about greater student self-efficacy that leads to greater student performance.
For teachers to continue to be motivated, they need positive experiences often
212
found through support from their principals. Principals know teachers are the most
important resource they have because of the amount of time teachers spend with students.
They know that teachers have a strong influence on students either positively or
negatively. Therefore, giving teachers the support they need with instruction, student
engagement, or classroom management will motivate teachers to put forth the effort to
improve their students’ academic performance. The same can be said about principals
and their need for support from Central Office. Superintendents have a great influence
over the climate and culture of a building and therefore can make or break a school and
its attempt at improvement. Principal self-efficacy increases when they have the support
and assistance they need from Central Office to lead the change process in their schools.
Without such support, principals will experience a lowered sense of self-efficacy out of
frustration to create change and will resort to keeping the status quo of their current level
of performance rather than attempt to push their staffs to make change.
Change in the climate and culture of a school occurs through a culmination of all
these areas. What teachers and principals believe about their ability to influence student
learning does matter and does impact whether change is implemented successfully. By
ensuring the their voices are heard, their ideas and opinions are a part of the decision and
design of school improvement changes, and then providing them with the time,
professional development, and resources they need to make it happen will result in
empowerment and strong sense of ability to make change happen and to make it
sustainable and continuous.
213
References
Alam, M. T., & Farid, S. (2011). Factors affecting teacher motivation. International
Journal of Business and Social Science, 2, 298-304.
http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol._2_No._1%3B_January_2011/30.pdf.
Al-Fadhli, H., & Singh, M. (2006). Teachers’ expectancy and efficacy as correlates of
school achievement in Delta, Mississippi. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 19. 51-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11092-007-9032-9
American Recover and Reinvestment Act, Pub. L 111-5 (2009).
Atkinson, E. S. (2000). An investigation into the relationship between teacher motivation
and pupil motivation. Educational Psychology, 20, 45-57.
http://dx.dox.doi.org/0144-3410/00/010045-13
Auwater, A. E., & Aruguete, M. S. (2008). Effects of student gender and socio-economic
status on teacher perceptions. The Journal of Educational Leadership, 101, 242246. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/joer.101.4195-206
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033295X.84.2.191
Barnett, K. & McCormick, J. (2004). Leadership and individual principal-teacher
relationships in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 406-434.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X3261742
Beachum, F., & Dentith, A. M. (2004). Teacher leaders creating cultures of school
renewal and transformation. The Educational Forum, 68, 276- 285.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131720408984639
Beavans, K., Bradshaw, C., Meich, R., & Leaf, P. (2007). Staff- and school-level
predictors of school organizational health: A multilevel analysis. Journal of
School Health, 77, 294-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00210.x
Beets, M. W., Flay, B. R., Vuchinich, S., Acock, A. C., Li, K. K., & Allred, C. (2008).
School climate and teachers' beliefs and attitudes associated with implementation
of the positive action program: A diffusion of innovations model. Prevention
Science, 9, 264-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0100-2
Bell, L., & Kent, P. (2010). The cultural jigsaw: A case study exploring the ways in
which sixth-form students perceive school culture. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 38, 8-32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741143209351663
214
Bieg, S., Rickelman, R. J., Jones, J. P., & Mittag, W. (2013). The role of teachers’ care
and self-determined motivation in working with students in Germany and the
United States. International Journal of Educational Research, 60, 27-37.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.04.002
Blankstein, A. (2009). Failure is not an option. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bolger, R., & Nir, A. E. (2012). The importance of teachers' percieved organizational
support to job satisfaction: What's empowerment got to do with it? Journal of
Educational Administration, 50, 287-306.
http://dx.doi.org:10.1108/0957823121223310
Bosack, A. R., Vega, R. McCaslin, M., & Good, T. L. (2008). Teacher support of student
autonomy in comprehensive school reform classrooms. Teachers College Record,
110, 2389–2407. Retrieved from
http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2008_Bozacketal_Stude
ntAutonomyComprehensiveSchoolReformClassrooms_TCR.pdf
Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. E., & Salovey, P. (2011).
Classroom emotional climate, teacher affiliation, and student conduct. Journal of
Classroom Interactions, 46, 27-46. Retrieved from http://ei.yale.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/pub319_Brackettetal_2011_JCI.pdf
Brinson, D., & Steiner, L. (2007). Building collective efficacy: How leaders inspire
teachers to achieve [issue brief]. Retrieved from The Center for Comprehensive
School Reform and Improvement website:
http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/DownloadTrackPreview/learnin
gpt.org.1772155838.01772155841.1774425104.pdf
Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A. T. (2005). Fifty years
of the critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond. Quality research, 5,
475-497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468794105056924
Cagle, K., & Hopkins, P. (2009). Teacher self-efficacy and the supervision of marginal
teachers. Journal of Cross disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 2, 25-31.
Retrieved from http://jcpe.wmwikis.net/file/view/cagelhopkins.pdf
Cannon, M. D. & Edmondson, A. C. (2005). Failing to learn and learning to fail
(intelligently): How great organizations put failure to work to innovate and
improve. Long Range Planning, 38, 299-319.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2005.04.005
Cantrell, S. C., & Callaway, P. (December, 2007). High and low implementers of content
literacy instruction: Portraits of teacher efficacy. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
215
Cantrell, S. C., & Callaway, P. (2008). High and low implementers of content literacy
instruction: Portraits of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education: An
International Journal of Research and Studies, 24, 1739-1750.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.020
Center on Educational Policy. (2008). CEP testimony on NCLB school restructuring.
Retrieved from http://www.cepdc.org/cfcontent_file.cfm?Attachment=Scott%5FTestimony%5FLittleHooverCo
mmission%5F012408%2Epdf
Chan, W., Lau, S. Nie, Y., Lim, S., Hogan, D. (2008). Organizational and personal
predictors of teacher commitment: The mediating role of teacher efficacy and
identification with school. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 597.
http//dox.doi.org/10.3102/00028318259
Chiang, H. (2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student
achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 1045-1057.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.06.002
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55-68. Retrieved from
http://hbr.org/2006/11/how-to-manage-urban-school-districts/ar/1
Cho, Y., & Shim, S. S. (2013). Predicting teachers’ achievement goals for teaching: The
role of perceived school goal structure and teachers’ sense of efficacy. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 32. 12-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.12.003
Chong, W. H., Klassen, R. M., Huan, V. S., Wong, I., & Kates, A. D. (2010). The
relationships among school types, teacher efficacy beliefs, and academic climate:
Perspective from Asian middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research,
103, 183-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670903382954
Clarke, P. (2009). Sustainability and improvement: A problem ‘of’ education and ‘for’
education. Improving Schools, 12, 11-17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1365480208100242
Cohen, J., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate:
Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers’ College Record, 111,
180-213. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=15220
Connors, R., & Smith, T. (2011). Change the culture, change the game. New York, NY:
Penguin Books.
Corkett, J., Hatt, B., & Benevides, T. (2011). Students and teacher self-efficacy and the
connection to reading and writing. Canadian Journal of Education, 34, 65-98.
Retrieved from http://ojs.vre.upei.ca/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/355/838
216
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davies, B. (2002). Rethinking schools and school leadership for the twenty-first century:
Changes and challenges. International Journal of Educational Management, 16,
196-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/095135402104432182
Deal. T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2009). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological
well-being across life's domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14-23.
http://dx.doi.org:10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within
embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In R. M.
Ryan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85-107). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Deke, J., Dragoset, L., Bogen.K., & Gill, B. (2012). Impacts of Title I Supplemental
Educational Services on Student Achievement (NCEE 2012-4053). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
de la Torre Cruz, M. J., & Casanova Arias, P. F. (2007). Comparative analysis of
expectancies of efficacy in in-service & prospective teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 23, 641652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.005
Desimone, L. M., & Long, D. A. (2010). Teacher effects and the achievement gap: Do
teacher and teaching quality influence the achievement gap between Black and
White and high- and low-SES students in early grades? Teachers College Record,
112, 3024-3073. Retrieved from
http://www.tcrecord.org/library/abstract.asp?contentid=16047
Dessel, A. (2010). Prejudice in schools: Promotion of an inclusive culture and climate.
Education and Urban Society, 42, 407- 429.
http://dx.doi.org:10.1177/0013124510361852
Drago-Severson (2012). New opportunities for principal leadership: Shaping school
climates for enhanced teacher development. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-44.
Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/library
217
Dumay, X. (2009). Origins and consequences of schools’ organizational culture for
student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 523-555.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X09335873v1
Duncan, A. (2012, March). Working in the nations’ lowest performing schools: A
progress report. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Building a Grad Nation
Summit. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website:
http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/working-nations-lowest-performing-schoolsprogress-report
Dweck, C. (2000). Self-theories: The role of motivation, personality, and development.
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Eaker, R., & Keating, J. (2008) A shift in school culture: Collective commitments focus
on change that benefits student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 29(3), 1417. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/news/issueDetails.cfm?issueID=238
Erdem, E., & Demirel, O. (2007). Teacher efficacy belief. Social Behavior and
Personality, 35, 573-586. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.5.573
Eres, F. (2011) Relationship between teacher motivation and transformational leadership
characteristics of school principals. International Journal of Education, 3(2), 117. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ije.v3i2.798
Evans, L., Thorton, B., & Usinger, J. (2012). Theoretical frameworks to guide school
improvement. NASSP Bulletin, 96, 154-171.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019263651244471
Eyal, O., & Roth, G. (2010). Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation selfdetermination theory analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 256275. http://dx.dox.doi.org/10.1108/09578231111129055
Federici, R. A. (2013). Principals’ self-efficacy: Relations with job autonomy, job
satisfaction, and contextual constraints. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 28, 73-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0102-5
Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2011). Principal self-efficacy and work engagement:
Assessing a Norwegian principal self-efficacy scale. Social Psychology of
Education, 14, 575-600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9160-4
Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2012). Principal self-efficacy: relations with burnout,
job satisfaction, and motivation to quit. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 295320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9183-5
Fernandez, K. E. (2009). Evaluating school improvement plans and their effect on
academic performance. Educational Policy, 25, 338-367.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904809351693
218
Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senécal, C., & Austin, S. (2012) Predicting intraindividual changes
in teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and motivational
factors. Teaching and Teacher Education 28, 514-525.
http:/dx.dox.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.013
Fillis, I. (2006). A biographical approach to researching entrepreneurship in the smaller
firm. Management Decisions, 44, 198-212.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740610650193
Finnigan, K. S. (2009). Review of Objectifying measures: The dominance of high-stakes
testing and the politics of schooling by A. W. Johnson. The Teachers College
Record. Retrieved from
http://www.tcrecord.org/books/abstract.asp?ContentId=15850
Finnigan, K. S. (2012) Principal leadership in low performing schools: A closer look
through the eyes of teachers. Education and Urban Society, 44, 183-202.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013124511431570
Finnigan, K. S., Daly, A. J., & Stewart, T. J. (2012). Organizational learning in schools
under sanction. Education Research International, 2012.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/270404
Finnigan, K. S., & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher
motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low performing schools. American
Educational Research Journal, 44, 594-630.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306767
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0061470
Freeman, M., de Marrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2007).
Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse.
Educational Researcher, 36, 25-32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X06298009
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00220663.76.4.569
219
Goddard, R. G., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy:
Theoretical development, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational
Researchers, 33(3), 3-13. Retrieved from
http://www.greatschoolsnow.com/02ERv33n3-Goddard_Collective_Efficacy.pdf
Good, T. L. (2008). In the midst of comprehensive school reform: Principals’
perspectives. Teachers College Record, 110, 2341-2360. Retrieved from
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=15277
Good, T. L., & McCaslin, M. (2008). What we learned about research on school reform:
Considerations for practice and policy. In M. McCaslin & T. L. Good (Eds.),
Teachers college record, special issue: School reform matters, 110, 2475-2495.
Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=15286
Grayson, J. L., & Alverez, H. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher
burnout: A mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International
Journal of Research and Studies, 24, 1349-1363.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016.j.tate.2007.06.005
Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique is service research. Journal of
Service Research, 7, 65-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094670504266138
Gross, B., Booker, T. K., & Goldhaber, D. (2009). Boosting student achievement: The
effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 111-126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623709333886
Halvorsen, A.-L., Lee, V. E., & Andrade, F. H. (2009). A mixed method study of
teachers’ attitudes about teaching in urban and low income schools. Urban
Education, 44, 181-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085908318696
Hannah, S., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2012). Leader self-efficacy: A
multicomponent approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 118, 143-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp/2012.03.007
Harris, L. (2011). Secondary teachers’ conceptions of student engagement: Engagement
in learning or in schooling? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 376–386.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.006
Henderson, C. L., Bueller, A. E., Stein, W. L., Dalton, J. E., Robinson, T. R., & Anafara,
V. A. (2005). Organizational health and student achievement in Tennessee middle
schools. NASSP Bulletin, 89, 54-103.
Hofstede, G. (1996). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural
cooperation and its importance for survival. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
220
Hong, E., Greene, M., & Hartzell,S.(2011). Cognitive and motivational characteristics of
elementary teachers in general education classrooms and gifted programs. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 55, 250-640. http://dx.doi.10.1177/0016986211418107
Honig, M. I., & Rainey, L. R. (2012) Autonomy and school improvement: What do we
know and where do we go from here? Educational Policy, 26, 465-495.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904811417590
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the
organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 355-372.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1002017
Hughes, J. N., Wu, W., & West, S. G. (2009). Teacher performance goal practices and
elementary students’ behavioral engagement: A developmental perspective.
Journal of School Psychology, 49, 1-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.09.003
Isler, I., & Cakiroglu, E. (2009). Teacher’s efficacy beliefs and perceptions regarding the
implementation of new primary mathematics curriculum. Proceedings of Cerme
6, Lyon, France. Retrieved from http://ife.ens-lyon.fr/publications/editionelectronique/cerme6/wg10-02-isler.pdf
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and
emotional competence in relation to child and classroom outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 79, 491-525. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
Jerald, C. (2007). Keeping kids in school: What research says about preventing dropouts.
Washington, DC: Center for Public Education. Retrieved from
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Staffingstudents/Keepingkids-in-school-At-a-glance/Keeping-kids-in-school-Preventing-dropouts.html
Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need
schools: The effects of teachers‘working conditions on their professional
satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10),
1-39. Retrieved from
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/teacher_working_conditions__tcr_revision_-_final.pdf
Jones, D. (2006, March 8). Schools take a lesson from big business. USA Today.
Retrieved from
https://www.sallyridescience.com/about_us/press_room/content/58
Karsli, M. D., & Iskender, H. (2009). To examine the effect of the motivation provided
by the administration on the job satisfaction of teachers and their institutional
commitment. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 2252-2257.
http://dx.dox.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.396
221
Kelly, C. J. & Finnigan, K. (2003). The effects of organizational context on teacher
expectancy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 603-634.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03257299
Kelly, C. H., Heneman, H., III, & Milanowski, A. (2002). Teacher motivation and
school-based performance awards. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38,
372-401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161x0238004
Kennedy, S.Y. & Smith, J.B. (2013). The relationship between school collective
reflective practice and teacher physiological efficacy sources. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 29, 132-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.003
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job
satisfaction: Teacher, gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102, 741-756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019237
Knapp, M. S., Feldman, S. B. (2011). Managing the intersection of internal and external
accountability: Challenge of urban school leadership in the United States. Journal
of Educational Administration, 50, 666-694.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578231211249862
Knoblauch, D., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008). Maybe I can teach those kids—The
influence of contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and
Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24, 166179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.05.005
Konings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merrienbaer, J. J. G. (2007) Teachers’
perspectives on innovations: Implications for educational design. Teaching and
Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 23, 985997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.004
Kroth, M. (2007). Maslow—Move aside! A heuristical motivation model for leaders in
career and technical education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44, 5-36.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ830477.pdf
Kruse, S. D. (2008). Reflections on leading and learning for change: An introduction.
Education and Urban Society, 40, 655-669.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013124508319532
Kurt, T., Duyar, I., & Calik, T. (2012). Are we legitimate yet? A closer look at the causal
relationship mechanisms among principal leadership, teacher self-efficacy and
collective efficacy. Journal of Management Development, 31, 71-86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621711211191014
222
Lachlan-Haché, J., Naik, M., & Casserly, M. (2012). The school improvement grant
rollout in America’s great city schools. Retrieved from the Council of Great City
School website:
http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/4/SIG%20Report.p
df
Lam, C. F., & Gurland, S. T. (2008) Self-determined work motivation predicts job
outcomes, but what predicts self-determined work motivation? Journal of
Research in Personality, 42, 1109-1115.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.02.002
Lance, A. (2010). A case study of two schools: Identifying core values conducive to
building of a positive school culture. Management in Education, 24, 118-123.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177.0892020608090407
Lee, J. (2012). The effects of teacher-students relationships and academic press on
student engagement and academic performance. International Journal of
Educational Research, 53, 330-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.106/j.ijer.2012.04.006
Lee, J., & Wong, K. K. (2004). The impact of accountability on racial and socioeconomic
equity: Considering both school resources and achievement outcomes. American
Educational Research Journal, 41, 797-832.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312041004797
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The
contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 496528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161x08321501
Lindahl, R. A. (2007). Why is leading school improvement such a difficult process?
School Leadership and Management, 27, 319-332.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632430701563288
Margolis, J., & Nagel, L. (2006). Education Reform and the role administrators play in
mediating teacher stress. Teacher Education Quarterly, 3, 143-159. Retrieved
from http://www.teqjournal.org/backvols/2006/33_4/21margolis%26nagel.pdf
Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation,
engagement, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational
practice. Review of Educational Research, 79, 327-365.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325583
Martin, N. K., Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2011) Teacher efficacy in student
engagement, instructional management, and burn-out: A theoretical model using
in-class variables to predict teachers’ intent to leave. Teaching and Teacher
Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 28, 546-559.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.003
223
McCaslin, M. (2008). Learning motivation: The role of opportunity. Teacher College
Record, 110, 2408-2422. Retreived from
http://www.tcrecord.org/library/abstract.asp?contentid=15281
McFarlane, D. A. (2010). Perceived impact of district leadership practices on school
climate and school improvement. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(2), 5370. Retrieved from http://www.stu.edu/Portals/0/journal2-2010.pdf
McCormick, J., Ayers, P. L., & Beechy, B. (2006). Teaching self-efficacy, stress, and
coping in a major curriculum reform: Applying theory to context. Journal of
Educational Administration, 44, 53-70.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230610642656
McCullers, J. F., & Bozeman, W. (2010). Principal self-efficacy: The effects of No Child
Left Behind and Florida school grades. NASSP Bulletin, 94, 53-74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192636510371976
McIntyre, E., & Kyle, D.W. (2006). The success and failure of one mandated reform for
young children. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1130-1144.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.008
Mercer, S. N., Nellis, L. M., Martinez, R. S., & Kirk, M. (2011). Supporting students
most in need: Academic self-efficacy and perceived teacher support in relation to
within-year academic growth. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 323-338.
http://dx.doi.org:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.03.006
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A
methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milyavskaya, M., & Koestner, R. (2011). Psychological needs, motivation, and wellbeing: A test of self-determination theory across multiple domains. Personality
and Individual Differences, 50, 387-391.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.029
Moé, A., Pazzaglia, F., & Ronconi, L. (2010). When being able is not enough: The
combined value of positive affect and self-efficacy for job satisfaction in teaching.
Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and
Studies, 26, 1145-1153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.010
Mojavezi, A., & Tamiz, M. P. (2012). The impact of teacher self-efficacy on the
students’ motivation and achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,
2, 483-491. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.3.483-491
224
Moran, C. M., Diefendorff, J. M., Kim T., & Liu, Z. (2012). A profile approach to selfdetermination theory motivations at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81,
354-363 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.09.002
Muller, F. H., & Hanfstingl, B. (2010). Teacher motivation. Journal of Educational
Research Online, 2(2), 5-8. Retrieved from http://www.j-e-r-o.com/index.php/jero
Nazari, J. A., Herremans, I. M., Issac, R. G. Manassian, A., & Kline, T. J. (2011).
Organizational culture, climate, and IC: An interaction analysis. Journal of
Intellectual Capital, 12, 224-248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14691931111123403
Narvaez, D., Khmelkov, V., Vaydich, J. L., & Turner, J. C. (2008). Teacher self-efficacy
for moral education: Measuring teacher self-efficacy for moral education. Journal
of Research in Character Education, 4, 3-15. Retrieved from
http://www.infoagepub.com/research-in-character-education.html
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1984). A nation at risk: The full
account. Cambridge, MA: USA Research.
Niesche, R., & Jorgensen, R. (2010). Curriculum reform in remote areas: The need for
productive leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 41, 102-117.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578231011015449
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (2002).
Orr, M. T., Berg, B., Shore, R., & Meier, E. (2008). Putting the pieces together:
Leadership for change in low-performing urban schools. Education and Urban
Society, 40, 670-693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013124508324018
Osman, A. (2012). School climate the key to excellence. Journal of emerging trend in
educational research and policy studies, 3, 950-954. Retrieved from
http://www.jeteraps.schlarlinkresearch.org
Payne, C. M. (2011). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban
schools. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Pretorius, S. G. (2012). The implication of teacher effectiveness requirements for initial
teacher education reform. Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 310-317.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2012.310.317
Price, H. E. (2012). Principal-teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape
principal and teacher attitudes. Education Administration Quarterly, 48, 39-85.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11417126
Puhlak, U., & Alas, A. (2012). Resistance to change in Idian, Chinese, and Estonian
organisations. Journal of Indian Business Research, 4, 224-243.
http://dx.doi.org10.1108/17554191211274767
225
Rhee, M. (2010). Putting kids first. In Webber, K. (Ed.), Waiting for Superman. (pp. 127141). New York, NY: Public Affairs Books
Rim-Kaufman, S. E., & Hamre, B. K. (2010). The role of psychological and
developmental science in efforts to improve teacher quality. Teachers College
Record, 112, 2988-3023. Retrieved from
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16046
Roache, L., & Lewis, R. (2011). Teachers’ views on the impact of classroom
management on student responsibility. Australian Journal of Education, 55, 132146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000494411105500204
Roney, K. Coleman, H., & Schlichting, K.A. (2007). Linking the organizational health of
middle grade schools to student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 91 289-321.
http://dox.doi.org/10.1177/0192636507310161
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3,
16-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02322211
Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high- and
low- expectations teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 289306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709906x101601
Sable, J., Plotts, C., & Mitchell, L. (2010). Characteristics of the 100 Largest Public
Elementary and Secondary School Districts in the United States: 2008–09 (NCES
2011-301). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Sahertian, P., & Frisdiantara, C. (2012). Collective efficacy as a mediator: The effect of
relationship oriented leadership and employee commitment toward organisational
values. The journal of American Academy of Business, 18, 300-309. Retrieved
from http://www.jaabc.com/journal.htm
Sanzo, K. L., Sherman, W. H., & Clayton, J. (2011). Leadership practices of successful
middle school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 31-45.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/09578231111102045
Sontoro, D. A., & Morehouse, L. (2011). Teaching conscientious objectors: Principled
leavers of high poverty schools. Teachers College Record, 113, 2670-2704.
Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16202
Sanzo, K. L., Sherman, W. H., & Clayton, J, (2010). Leadership practices of successful
middle school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 31-45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578231111102045
Schwackhamer, L. E., Koellner, K., Basile, C., & Kimbrough, D. (2009). Increasing selfefficacy of in-service teachers through content knowledge. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 36, 63-78. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ857476.pdf
226
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job
stress and burnout: Mediation analysis. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 57(s1), 152-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00359.x
Shah, M. J., Rehman, M.-U., Akhtar, G., Zafar, H., & Riaz, A. (2012). Job satisfaction
and motivation of teachers of public educational institutions. Internation Hournal
of Business and Social Science, 3, 271-281. Retrieved from
http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_8_Special_Issue_April_2012/31.pdf
Sharoff, L. (2008). Critique of the critical incident technique. Journal of Research in
Nursing, 13, 301-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1744987107081248
Shaterian, M. F., Asadzadeh, D. H., Ahadi, H., & Jomehri, F. (2011) Testing Bandura’s
four sources of efficacy information model: The mediating role of teachers’ selfefficacy beliefs on students' academic achievement, European Journal of Teacher
Education, 2(17), 8-20. Retrieved from
http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=28879&tip=sid
Sirota, E., & Bailey, L. (2009). The impact of teacher expectations on diverse learners’
academic outcomes. Childhood Education, 85, 253. Retrieved from
http://www.acei.org/childhood-education
Siwatu, K. O. (2011). Preservice teachers’ sense of preparedness and self-efficacy to
teach in America’s urban and suburban schools: Does context matter? Teaching
and Teacher Education 27, 357-365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.004
Siwatu, K.O., Frazier, P., Osaghae, O. J., & Starker, T. V. (2011). From maybe I can to
yes I can: Developing pre-service and in-service teachers’ self-efficacy to teach
African American students. The Journal of Negro Education, 80, 209-222.
Retrieved from http://www.journalnegroed.org/recentissues.htm
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations
with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 611-625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00220663.99.3.611
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with
teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education: An
International Journal of Research and Studies, 25, 518-524.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.006.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A
study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of
Research and Studies, 26, 1059-1069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
Smadar, L., & Koslowsky, M. (2009). Moderating the collective and self-efficacy
relationship. Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 452-462.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230910967437
227
Smith, P. A., & Hoy, W. K. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement in
urban schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 45, 556-568.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230710778196
Smyth, J., & McInerney, P. (2007). Teachers in the middle: Reclaiming the wasteland of
the adolescent years of schooling. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Sondergeld, T. A., & Koskey, K. L. (2011). Evaluating the impact of an urban
comprehensive school reform: An illustration of the need for mixed methods.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 94-107.
http://dx.doi.org/10/1016/j.stueduc.2011.08.001
Sontoro, D., & Morehouse, L. (2011). Teaching’s conscientious objectors: Principled
leavers of high-poverty schools. Teachers College Record, 113, 2670-2704.
Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/library/abstract.asp?contentid=16202
Sosa, T., & Gomez, K. (2012). Connecting teacher efficacy beliefs in promoting
resilience to support of Latino students. Urban Education, 20(10), 1-34.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042085912446033
Split, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Thijs, J. T. (2011). Teacher well-being: The importance
of teacher-student relationships. Educational Psychological Review, 23, 457-477.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y
Starr, K. (2012). Principals and the politics of resistance to change. Educational
Management Administration and Leadership, 39, 646-660.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741143211416390
Stroet, K., Opedenakker, M.-C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive
teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A review of literature.
Educational Research Review, 9, 65-87. http://dx.doi.org/j.edurev.2012.11.003
Takahashi, S. (2011). Co-constructing efficacy: A “communities of practice” perspective
on teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International
Journal of Research and Studies, 27, 732-741.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.002
Teague, G. M., Anafara, V. A., Wilson, N. L., Gaines, C. B., & Beavers, J. L. (2012).
Instructional practices in the middle grades. NASSP Bulletin, 93(203).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192636512458451
Tenebaum, H. R., & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Are teachers' expectations different for racial
minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 253-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00220663.99.2.253
Thernstrom, A., & Thernstrom, S. (2003). No excuses: Closing the gap of learning. New
York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
228
Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T. D., & Geijsel, F. P.
(2011). How to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation,
organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 47, 496-536. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11400185
Thorton, B. Shepperson, T., & Canavero, S. (2007). A systems approach to school
improvement: Program evaluation and organizational learning. Education, 128,
48-55. Retrieved from http://www.projectinnovation.biz/education.html
Tobin, T., Muller, R. O., & Turner, L. (2006). Organizational learning and climate as
predictors of self-efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 9, 301-319.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-005-4790-z
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2004). Principal’s sense of efficacy: Assessing a
promising construct. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 573-585.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230410554070
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Gareis, C. R. (2007). Cultivating principals’ self-efficacy:
Supports that matter. Journal of School Leadership, 17(1), 89-114. Retrieved
from https://rowman.com/Page/JSL
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Johnson, D. (2011). Exploring literacy teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs: Potential sources at play. Teaching and Teacher Education: An
International Journal of Research and Studies, 27, 751-761.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.005
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of
Research and Studies, 17, 783-805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742051x(01)00036-1
Tschannen- Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of selfefficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 23, 944-956.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003
Tschumy, R. (2005). Does the principal as CEO analogy work? (Reinventing Education
Report 7). Retrieved from Hawaii Educational Policy Center website:
http://www.hawaii.edu/hepc/pdf/Reports/ACT_51_Report_07_DoesPrincipalAsC
OEWork.pdf.
Tucker, C. M., Porter, W. M., Reinke, W. M., Herman, C. H., Ivery, D. J., Mack, C. E., &
Jackson, E. S. (2005). Promoting teacher efficacy for working with culturally
diverse students. Preventing School Failure, 50, 29-36.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/psfl.50.1.29-34
229
Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational influences on student participation in
classroom learning activities. Teacher College Record, 106, 1759-1785.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00404.x
Tyler, K. M., & Boelter, C. M. (2008). Linking Black middle school students’
perceptions of teachers’ expectations to academic engagement and efficacy. The
Negro Educational Review 59. Retrieved from http://thener.org/
Urick, A., & Bowers, A. J. (2013). What are the different types of principals across the
United States? A latent class analysis of principal perception of leadership.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 49.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13489019
U.S. Department of Education (U.S.DOE). (2009) The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act.
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/implementation.html
U.S. Department of Education (U.S. DOE). (2010). A blueprint for reform: The
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/schools/accountability.html
Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes
accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 519-558.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306859
Valli, L., Croninger, R. G., & Buese, D. (2012). Studying high-quality teaching in a
highly charged policy environment. Teachers College Record, 114(4), 1-33.
Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16651
Vancouver, J. B. (2008). Integrating self-regulation theories of work motivation into a
dynamic process theory. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 1-18.
http://dox.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.02.001
van Uden, J. M., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. M. (2013). I think I can engage my students.
Teachers’ perceptions of student engagement beliefs about being a teacher.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 43-54.
http://dox.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.01.004
Vesley, A. K., Saklofske, D. H., & Leschied, A. D. (2013). Teachers—The vital resource:
The contribution of emotional intelligence to teacher efficacy and well-being.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 28, 171-189.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0829573512468855
Verešová, M., & Malá, D. (2012). Stress, proactive coping and self-efficacy of teachers.
Procedia—Social Behavioral Sciences, 55, 294-300.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.506
230
Wagner, T., Keagan, R., Lehaey, L. L., Lemmons, R. W., Garnier, J., Helsing, D., . .
.Vander Ark, T. (2006). Change Leadership: A practical guide to transforming
out schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wahlstrom, K. L., & Seashore Louis, K. (2008). How teachers experience principal
leadership: The roles of professional community, Trust, efficacy, and shared
responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 458-495.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321502
Walker, J., & Slear, S. (2011). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on the
efficacy of new and experienced middle school teachers. NASSP Bulletin, 95, 4654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192636511406530
Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of
professional commitment. Journal of Educational Research, 7, 303-310.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/joer.100.5.303-310
Ware, H. W., & Kitsantas, A. (2011). Predicting teacher commitment using principal and
teacher efficacy variables: An HLM approach. The Journal of Educational
Research, 104, 183-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671003638543
Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wheatly, K. (2005). The case for re-conceptualizing teacher efficacy research. Teaching
and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 21,
747-766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.009
Williams, E. (2010). Evaluation of a school systems plan to utilize teachers’ perceptions
of principal leadership to improve student achievement. Challenge: A Journal of
Research on African American Men, 15(1), 15-32. Retrieved from
http://www.morehouse.edu/centers/mri/challengejournal.html
Willis, L. (2010). Is the process of special measures an effective tool for bringing about
authentic school improvement? Management in Education 24, 142-148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0892020610379314
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W. K., & Kurz, N. M. (2008) Teachers’ academic optimism:
The development and test of a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education:
An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24, 821-835.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.08.004
Wooley, M. E., Strutchens, M. E., Gilbert, M. C., & Martin, W. G. (2010). Mathematics
success of Black middle school students: Direct and indirect effects of teacher
expectations and reform practices. The Negro Educational Review, 61, 41-59.
Retrieved from http://thener.org/
Wrigley, T. (2011). Paradigms of school change. Management in Education, 25(2), 6266. http://dx.doi.org//10.1177/0892020611398929
231
Yenice, N., Evren, B., & Ozden, B. (2012). Relationship between self-efficacy
perceptions of science teacher candidates and academic control focus. Procedia—
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4044-4049.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.194
Yeo, L. S., Ang, R. P., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., & Quek, C. L.(2008). Teacher
efficacy in the context of teaching low achieving students. Current Psychology,
27, 192-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-008-9034-x
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Designs and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Yusoff, S. (n.d.) The relationship between principal’s self-efficacy and schools’ factors
and principals’ personality traits. Jurnal Pengurusan dan Kepimpinan
Pendidikan, 1-12. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/733250/THE_RELATIONSHIP_BETWEEN_PRINCI
PALSSELFEFFICACY_AND_SCHOOLSFACTORS_AND_PRINCIPALSPERSONAL_AT
TRIBUTES
Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do
about it. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 238-249.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192636506291521
Zyngier, D. (2008). (Re) conceptualizing student engagement: Doing education, not
doing time. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of
Research and Studies, 24, 1765-1776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.004
232
Appendixes
233
Appendix A: Letter of Consent
Informed Consent Letter for dissertation study
Teacher and Principals’ Self-Efficacy Effects on School improvement
Dear Educator,
I am a doctoral candidate with Northcentral University. I am seeking teachers, principals,
and assistant principals interested in taking part in a qualitative study which explores the effects
of teacher and principal self-efficacy on the school improvement process in urban schools.
This study will consist of three phases. Phase one will collect and analyze performance data from
the United States Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics on the top
100 urban school districts. Phase two will be an online survey which measures the levels of
teacher and principal self-efficacy. The final phase will be interviews with teachers and principals
to gain a deeper understanding of the many perspectives which may exist among urban schools
going through the improvement process. The additional intent of the interviews is to hear from
educators what you perceive to be missing from or needed to improve levels of self-efficacy in
promoting student achievement.
This study will take place over two months though individual participation will consist of a 30
minute survey and a one hour interview. I will be the only interviewer in this study. Participation
in the study may be terminated at any time without penalty or consequence. All interview
participants will have the opportunity to review their statements before being included in the final
results.
This study involves a minimal risk of breach of confidentiality should you choose to
discuss your participation with others. Participants will be totally anonymous through the use of.
a number/letter coding system to protect participant identity. Once the study is completed and has
been published a copy of the results will be available at no charge to each participant.
Additionally, once the study has been published with the University all data and identifier codes
will be deleted and destroyed to ensure further confidentiality.
We would be happy to answer any question that may arise about the study. Please direct
your questions or comments to:
Teresa A ConleyDr. Ann Armstrong
513-260-3186 or 1-888-628-8269 ext. 8236
Tessc57@gmail.comaarmstrong@ncu.edu
I have read the above description for the study Teacher and Principals’ Self-Efficacy Effects on
School Improvement. I understand what the study is about and what is being asked of me. My
signature indicates that I agree to participate in the study.
Participant's Name : _________________ Researcher's Name: ______________
Participant's Signature: _______________ Researcher's Signature:___________
Date:_____________
234
Appendix B: Instruments and Permissions for Use
235
236
237
238
Appendix C: Interview Guides
Interview Guide for Principals
Please respond to each question with as much accuracy as possible.
1. Please describe a high point of your ability to effectively implement school
reform initiatives.
a. How was your self-efficacy impacted during this high point?
2. Please describe a low point in your ability to effectively implement school reform.
a. How was your self-efficacy impacted during this low point?
3. What knowledge or skills would help sustain a high point of implementation of
school reform initiatives?
4. What knowledge or skills would help improve a low point of implementation of
school reform initiatives?
5. What skills do you feel are missing to aid in your ability to positively influence
student achievement?
6. Please describe what factors you believe affect your ability to effectively
influence the climate and culture of your school and promote your students’
learning and achievement while operating under sanction.
7. How does functioning under sanction impact your ability as an instructional
leader?
a. Please give an examples
b. What could have enhanced or supported you in your efforts?
8. Describe what you believe is the most important area of support you need as a
principal to effectively turnaround your school.
a. What do you see as some limitations in meeting this goal?
9. What additional skills or knowledge do you believe are needed to help in your
effort to bring about authentic, sustainable improvement of you school?
a. How would you like to see these skills supported?
239
Interview Guide for Teachers
Please respond to each question with as much accuracy as possible.
1. Please describe a high point of your ability to effectively implement school
reform initiatives.
b. How was your self-efficacy impacted during this high point?
2. Please describe a low point in your ability to effectively implement school reform.
a. How was your self-efficacy impacted during this low point?
3. What knowledge or skills would help sustain a high point of implementation?
4. What knowledge or skills would help improve a low point of implementation?
5. What skills you feel are missing to aid in your ability to positively influence
student achievement?
6. Please describe what you believe about student achievement and the need for
school reform and improvement.
7. Please describe what factors you believe affect your ability to effectively
influence your students’ learning and achievement while operating under
sanction.
8. How does functioning under sanction impact your ability to deliver effective
instruction to all students?
a. Please give an examples
b. What could have enhanced or supported you in your efforts?
9. What do you believe is the most important area of support you need while to
implementing reform initiatives? Why?
10. What additional skills or knowledge do you believe are needed to help in your
effort to positively impact student achievement while operating under sanction?
a. How would you like to see these skills supported?
240
Appendix D: Requests to Post Recruitment Notice for Study Participants and Permission
Letter
From Teresa Conley to Thomas Whitby, Educators PLN
Dear Mr. Whitby,
My name is Teresa Conley and I am a dissertation candidate with Northcentral
University as well as a member of Educator PLN. I am writing to ask permission to post a
request to members to take part in my study on principal and teacher beliefs about how
effectively they are able to have positive impact on student learning while operating
under school accountability sanctions. This study will involve a survey as well as
interviews. I am asking to use the Educator PLN site because of its wide member base.
My student will reach out to teachers in grades 3 through 8 who work primarily in urban
school districts. By reaching out to a wide population such as that on Educator PLN, I
will be able to get varying views from teachers and principals operating in different
contexts. The purpose of the study is to determine what principals and teachers view as
being most important for bringing about school improvement and what may need to be
addressed and hasn’t . This then will provide possible new areas of consideration for
professional development in school in corrective status.
I would like to post a brief description of the study, much like the one here, as
well as the survey link and my email address. It is my belief that the PLNs are becoming
an important tool in research due to the availability and their wide membership base.
At the end of the study and my final dissertation acceptance, I would love to post
my results on the Educator PLN site.
241
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Teresa A. Conley
Teresa
It's all good. Best of Luck! Keep me posted and let me know if I can help in any
way.
Tom Whitby
Mr. Whitby,
Thank you very much for allowing me to proceed with my project. I am excited to
get the study started and to see what teachers and principals have to say about their own
self-efficacy levels and what they believe they need to improve and increase those levels
for the benefit of children.
Sincerely,
Teresa A Conley
242
Study participation
From: Jim Burke (mail@englishcompanion.ning.com)
Sent: Mon 1/13/14 4:47 AM
To: Teresa A Conley (tessc50@msn.com)
Jim Burke has sent you a message on English Companion Ning
Subject: Study participation
-----------Absolutely, Teresa. Good luck with the study! Thanks for asking.
Jim
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 01:18:02 +0000 > From: Teresa A Conley > To:
Jim Burke > > Hello Mr. Burke,
> My name is Teresa Conley and originally I became a member of the
English Companion community in order to recruit teachers for my
dissertation study on effects of teacher and principal self-efficacy on
the school improvement process in urban schools. I would like to post a
request for participants with my contact information so there would be
no outside website links posted on this site. There would be no
advertising or any links posted. Simply my email address where they can
send their interest in participating.
> I said originally because it was indeed my original intent. However,
after looking at the site and reading the posts by others, I am finding
it interesting and something which I would truly enjoy being a part of.
So, it is my intention to continue to be an active member on this site
whether I can able to recruit participants or not and will definitely
spread the words to my colleague about the English Companion.
>
> Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your
response.
>
> Sincerely,
> Teresa A Conley
------------
243
Dear Jim,
Thank you for allowing me to post my request for study participants on the
Englishcompanion professional network. I would like to post the results to the study once
I have completed the dissertation and have my degree. I believe that the use of
Professional Learning Networks are becoming a valuable tool in the field of research due
to their large membership base. Their popularity are certainly growing and I find
Englishcompanion to be one of the best.
Thank you again,
Teresa A Conley
244
Appendix E: Recruitment Statements
Description of study and request for participants to be posted on the PLN sites:
Hello! I am a doctoral candidate with Northcentral University working on my
dissertation research project. My study is designed to explore teachers and principals’
beliefs about their ability to positively affect student learning while operating under state
and federal accountability sanctions. The purpose of this study is to identify critical
behaviors or policies which may not have been considered when designing school
reform.
This study will take place in two phases for participants. Phase 1 will involve
completing a survey which measures self-efficacy of teacher or of principals. Phase 2 will
involve interviews of 13 to 15 participants and will be conducted by phone or by
webcam. The surveys consist of 24 questions and will take approximately 30 minutes or
less to complete. The interviews will take no more than an hour. The results from this
study will be used to recommend targeted professional development in areas which
teachers and principals identify as being critical to increasing their self-efficacy for
raising student achievement.
If you have found this short description of my study to be intriguing and you are
interested in being a part of it please click the appropriate link below to gain access to the
letter of informed consent and the survey which pertains to your current position. I am
most interested in teachers 3rd through 8th grade. For further information or questions please
email me at tac014vr@gmail.com and I will respond back within 24 hours.
Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8Z9MNFR
Principal Sense of Efficacy Scale https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/86Z3CPX
Thank you,
245
Teresa A Conley
Interview recruitment document
by phone or by email
Hello,
I am looked over your responses to the (Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale) or (Principal Sense of
Efficacy Scale) and believe that you may have more to offer to this study. I would like to invite
you to be a part of the next phase of the study involving a one hour interview. This interview will
ask what you believe about your ability to affectively make a difference in student learning and
achievement while operating under the accountability sanctions of the State and Federal
governments. You are under no obligation to take part in these interviews and if you choose to do
so, you may stop and drop out at any time without penalty. Interviews will take place either by
webcam (Skype or Google) or by phone, your preference.
Please consider taking part in this next phase of my study by letting me know via my email –
tac014vr@gmail.com