Post on 21-Nov-2021
MEASURING COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN SCHOOLS
A Mixed Methods Exploration
JOHN ERIC LINGAT
JULIA HERZING
DR. ELLEN USHER
1
2
COLLECTIVE EFFICACY
Definition
a group’s shared perceptions and judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to positivelyinfluence student outcomes
3
SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY
Environmental
Factors
Behavioral Factors
Personal Factors
Theoretical Framework
4(Bandura, 1989)
SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY
Environmental
Factors
Behavioral Factors
Personal Factors
Theoretical Framework
4(Bandura, 1989)
SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY
Environmental
Factors
Behavioral Factors
Personal Factors
Theoretical Framework
4(Bandura, 1989)
5
Self-efficacy
School Performance
5
Collective Efficacy
School Performance
Stronger beliefs about collective capabilities increases achievements (Bandura, 1997)
Explains school-level differences (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000)
Predicts group success (Goddard & Salloum, 2011)
Improves instruction (Tschannen-Moran, Salloum, & Goddard, 2015)
Directs professional training(Donohoo, 2017)
Effects student success (Hattie, 2016)
6
Background
Measurement • “Teachers here are confident they will be able to
motivate their students.”
• “Drugs and alcohol abuse in the community make learning difficult for students here.” (Goddard, 2002)
• “How much can teachers in your school do to help students master complex content?”(Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004)
7
Background
EXPLORE THE MEASUREMENT OF
COLLECTIVE EFFICACY USING AN
EXPLORATORY MIXED METHODS DESIGN
Purpose
8
3%
28%
36%
28%
5%
18-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 65+
METHODOLOGYParticipants
72%
28%
Female Male
25-5592%
female72%
50%
13%
20%
17%
Elementary Middle High Other
elementary50%
2%2%
96%
African-American Latino/Hispanic White
white96%
9%
17%
57%
17%
Leader Administrator Teacher Other
teacher57%
9
METHODOLOGY
TIME 1: Qualitative Phase
• July 2017
• Open-ended response
• Scale Development
TIME 2: Quantitative Phase
• September 2017
• Pilot Survey
Measures
10
METHODOLOGY
TIME 1: Qualitative Phase
• July 2017
• Open-ended response
• Scale Development
TIME 2: Quantitative Phase
• September 2017
• Pilot Survey
Measures
10
What NURTURES collective efficacy in your school?
What UNDERMINES collective efficacy in your school?
METHODOLOGYMeasures
11
TIME 2: Quantitative Phase
14 items
Rating scale: 1 (Not at all certain) to 4 (Very Certain)
How certain are you that can...
YOUR
SCHOOL
METHODOLOGYMeasures
11
TIME 2: Quantitative Phase
14 items, α = .90
Rating scale: 1 (Not at all certain) to 4 (Very Certain)
How certain are you that YOU can...
…align teaching to clearly defined school goals?
METHODOLOGYMeasures
11
TIME 2: Quantitative Phase
14 items, α = .97
Rating scale: 1 (Not at all certain) to 4 (Very Certain)
How certain are you that YOUR TEAM can...
…align teaching to clearly defined school goals?
METHODOLOGYMeasures
11
TIME 2: Quantitative Phase
14 items, α = .97
Rating scale: 1 (Not at all certain) to 4 (Very Certain)
How certain are you that YOUR SCHOOL can...
…align teaching to clearly defined school goals?
METHODOLOGYMeasures
12
13
14
RESULTSQuantitative
Responses by Level of Measurement
Self
GroupSchool
RESULTS
15
“If every teacher was held accountable for goals set school
wide.”
“Everyone keeping an open mind.”
“The establishment of norms, taking time to build foundation.”
“Selfishness and pride.”
“Reluctance to change and close mindedness”
“different views, goals, and
attitudes”
Qualitative
RESULTS
16
“open minded, more collaborative”
NURTURES Collective Efficacy
“Collaborating and working together sharing ideas and keeping
each other positive”
“Being on the same page. There are generational gaps and it makes things tough when trying new
things.”
4.00
3.07
2.79
2.00
1.141.07
3.79
Integrative: Group
RESULTS
16
UNDERMINES Collective Efficacy4.00
3.07
2.79
2.00
1.141.07
3.79“the inability of communicate and
[think] outside of the box. Fear of change.”
“Reluctance to change and close mindedness”
“Communication”
Integrative: Group
RESULTS
3.33
3.00
2.57
1.79
17
NURTURES Collective Efficacy
“Better use of time”
“More time to collaborate”
“more frequent meetings,
meetings that are beneficial
and relevant”
4.00
Integrative: School
RESULTSIntegrative: School
3.33
3.00
2.57
1.79
17
UNDERMINES Collective Efficacy
“Time constraints/ other school restraints”
“resources, time constraints
due to scheduling, know how”
“meaningless work; time”
“Time, other factors that have to
be completed.”
4.00
INTERACTIONS
MINDSETS
CULTURE
RESOURCES
I can achieve school goals…but I’m less confident about my group or
my school.
18
Having the ability to communicate, share ideas and experiences, and being
open to trying new ideas. Also, having a variety of
professionals contributing within the same group.
19
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Contact us!
John Eric Lingat
johneric.lingat@uky.edu
Julia L. Herzing
jherzing96@uky.edu
Ellen L. Usher, Ph.D.
ellen.usher@uky.edu
www.p20motivationlab.org/research
REFERENCESBandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 467-476. doi:10.3102/0013189X033003003
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1, 79-91. doi:10.1037/stl0000021
McCoach, D. B., & Colbert, R. D. (2010). Factors underlying the collective teacher efficacy scale and their mediating role in the effect of socioeconomic status on academic achievement at the school level. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 31-47. doi:10.1177/0748175610362368
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools.doi:10.1080/15700760490503706