1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

1/28

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

2/28

1. Introduction

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 represents the most significant involve-ment of the federal government in public education in United States history, requiring that

100% of each states students reach proficiency standards in both math and reading-lan-guage arts by the 20132014 school year (Yell & Drasgow, 2005). Henceforth, Americaspublic schools are presumed to be more performance-oriented as a result of accountabilitytesting. Numerous theories of human learning and motivation posit that problems mayarise when certain academic contexts transcend administrative and organizational agendasto permeate the teaching staffs beliefs about their teaching capabilities and classroominstruction (Alexander & Riconscente, 2005).Midgley, Kaplan, and Middleton (2001)sug-gest that this emphasis on performance goals can alter teachers instructional practices inthe classroom:

The state puts pressure on the district, the district puts pressure on principals, prin-cipals put pressure on teachers, and teachers put pressure on students to demonstrate

ability on these tests and to score better than others to look good in media accounts

and to receive monetary rewards (p. 83).

In light of NCLB legislation, school administrations may feel pressured to control theinstructional planning and practices of teachers (McDermott, 2007). Thus, the currentstate of teachers academic context may significantly affect everything from their motiva-tional beliefs and classroom practices (Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995), to teacherssense of community within a school (Fives & Alexander, 2004). Woolfolk Hoy, Davis,

and Pape (2005) have proposed an ecological model of teachers sense of efficacy thatappears to support the top-down directionality ofMidgley et al.s (2001) observation.The model depicts a teachers sense of self, identity, and efficacy being at the heart ofthe immediate school context. All of these constructs are encompassed by the greatercontext of state and national school reform and accountability assessment. Results fromnumerous studies provide empirical support for the directionality of influence. In separatestudies, significant relationships have been identified between the academic context andteachers perceived collective efficacy (Adams & Forsyth, 2006; Lynch, Duggan, Husman,& Pennington, 2006; Ross & Gray, 2004) as well as self-efficacy (Woolfolk Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005). Furthermore, perceived collective efficacy has been identified as a predictor

of teacher self-efficacy (Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Lynch, 2007), and teacher self-efficacyhas been linked with classroom goal structure (Deemer, 2004; Wolters & Daugherty, 2005,2007). However, no one has examined these relationships in unison from a top-downperspective, including a contextual variable as the top predictor and teachers beliefsabout their instructional capabilities as the bottom predictors.

When asked about the influence of state mandated exams on classroom instruction,teachers report sound instruction (a focus on thinking, creativity, and understanding)being compromised by pressures to increase test scores (Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus,2003; Urdan & Paris, 1994).Sheldon and Biddle (1998) label this phenomenon as a riskaccompanying a testing-sanctioning educational approach, suggesting that Too much

focus on tests can lead teachers to adopt a narrowed curriculum, dampening studentinterest and inhibiting critical thinking (p. 174). For instance, when teachers perceivepressure to raise students test scores, they tend to report using more controlled, tea-cher-centered instructional and assessment strategies, and these strategies are typically

534 K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

3/28

designed to teach to the test in order to meet performance standards (Deci, Spiegel, Ryan,Koestner, & Kauffman, 1982; Flink, Boggiano, & Barrett, 1990; Pedulla et al., 2003).Given the relevance of theories such as achievement goal theory in understanding howcontextual pressures may be influencing sound instruction (Meece, Anderman, & Ander-

man, 2006), there is a need for studies to examine teachers motivation with the assump-tion that schools may be increasingly performance-oriented. The current study focused onteacher perceptions of two contextual variables, performance school goal structure andteachers sense of community, that may be affected by pressures to meet NCLB mandates.The following sections describe these contextual variables and their proposed relation-ships to teacher motivation.

1.1. Teachers beliefs about academic context

1.1.1. Teacher community

John Goodlad (1975) identified teachers as a critical part of school community, anddescribed community as the optimal unit for educational change (p. 175). In describingthe relationships among primary participants in the community (e.g., teachers and admin-istrators) he states the following:

The interactions of these people, the language they use, the traditions they uphold,

the beliefs to which they subscribe, and so forth, make up the culture of the school. It

is not necessarily a healthy ecosystem but it exists, often with surprising tenacity

(p. 175).

Researchers have since asked the question, What makes teacher community differentfrom a gathering of teachers? (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2000). To answerthis question, Grossman, Wineburg, and Woolworth (2001) and Tschannen-Moran(2001)found that trust, encouragement, collaboration, and support from administrationcan be conceptualized as subcomponents of teacher community. Similarly, having a senseof community in schools has been deemed crucial to the shared vision, affect, and motiva-tional beliefs of teaching faculty (Dewey, 1938; Greenberg, 1969; Noddings, 1992). Astrong sense of community in schools, reflected by shared expectations and supportiverelationships among teachers and administration, may not only facilitate teachers instruc-tional efforts, but also their personal well-being and job satisfaction (Bryk & Driscoll,

1988; Grossman et al., 2001; Irwin & Farr, 2004; NCES, 1996).It has been said that community is a component that is prominently missing from

school reform, conceivably the result of its sharp contrast with standards-based evaluation(Strike, 2004). In light of NCLB legislation, the contextual variable of teacher communitymay have great importance to the motivation and classroom practices of teachers.Research has found a positive correlation between teacher commitment to communityand faculty judgments of academic capabilities (Ross & Gray, 2004). In addition to thisrelationship, judgments of collective teacher efficacy have been shown to predict teacherself-efficacy (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). Thus, teachers in supportive academic contextsmay perceive themselves as being capable of promoting learning in their respective

classrooms.Given these findings, it seems likely that a faculty who exhibit a strong sense of com-

munity will also report a strong sense of self- and collective efficacy. We believe that tea-cher community may serve as a powerful source of teachers sense of efficacy, in particular,

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560 535

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

4/28

their judgments of collective efficacy. Existing models of teacher beliefs support the notionthat a schools social context serves as an important influence of teachers beliefs (God-dard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2004; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2005); however, more researchis needed that examines the sources of teachers sense of efficacy in schools (see Usher

& Pajares, 2006, for a review). For example, the four sources of self- and collective efficacyappear congruent with teacher community. Mastery experiences are provided when teach-ers are allowed collaboration, vicarious experiences emerge when teachers observe othersbeing successful and helping one another, social persuasion is present from administratorsand fellow teachers, and many teachers have had the experience of being in a school inwhich there exists a feeling of community in the form of positive affect. Accordingly,the current study proposes that community among high school teachers would be relatedto adaptive judgments for self- and collective efficacy, as well as classroom goal structure.In addition to the role of community as a contextual variable, we believed that school goalstructure would have a similar role in predicting teacher motivation.

1.1.2. School goal structure

In an effort to advance achievement goal theory, Maehr reemphasized the importanceof analyzing the academic context as a source of motivation, suggesting that becauseachievement as often as not occurs in groups, in the context of others, the effects of theseothers need to be taken into account (2001, p. 184). One concept of achievement goal the-ory, goal structures, has allowed researchers to examine the effect of the psychologicalenvironment on both teacher and student motivation. A goal structure can be definedas, the type of achievement goal emphasized by the prevailing instructional practices

and policies within a classroom, school, or other learning environment (Wolters, 2004,p. 236). In turn, these prevailing academic practices create contextual cues emphasizingmastery or performance-related goals to teachers and students (Maehr, 2001; Roeser,Marachi, & Gehlbach, 2002).

At the school level, a mastery goal structure emphasizes students learning, self-improvement, and the development of competence, whereas a performance school goalstructure emphasizes competition among students, high test scores, and social compar-ison of ability. Studies of students perceptions of school goal structure contribute tothe majority of research in this area (see Meece et al., 2006; Miller & Murdock,2007, for reviews). For example, Roeser, Midgley, and Urdan (1996) found positive

relationships among middle school students perceptions of a mastery school goal struc-ture, their mastery goals, and sense of belonging. Similarly, positive relationships havebeen found between perceptions of a performance school goal structure and studentsperformance goals (Roeser et al., 1996), as well as self-handicapping strategies (Midgley& Urdan, 1995). Furthermore, Kaplan and Maehr (1999) found positive relationshipsbetween perceptions of a mastery school goal structure and students well-being, as wellas perceptions of a performance school goal structure and reports of disruptivebehavior.

While these studies address student perceptions of school goal structures, far less isknown of the effect that teachers perception of the school goal structure has on their

own motivational beliefs, instructional practices in the classroom, and subsequent studentoutcomes. Kumar (2006) used multilevel growth curve modeling, with school- andstudent-level data from 10 middle schools, and found that teachers perception of amastery school goal structure was significantly related to a decrease in students perceived


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

5/28

dissonance between school and home. Additional studies found that teachers perceptionof a mastery school goal structure was positively related to their efficacy beliefs (Marachi,Gheen, & Midgley, 2000; Midgley et al., 1995), and perceptions of a performance-orientedschool goal structure was positively related to a performance classroom goal structure

(Deemer, 2004).

1.2. Teachers beliefs about teaching

1.2.1. Perceived self- and collective efficacy

1.2.1.1. Teachers sense of efficacy. According to social cognitive theory, the construct ofself-efficacy is a key mechanism influencing human agency, serving as a powerful source ofmotivation (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1989, 1997). Predicting teacher efficacy beliefs, and theoutcomes of those beliefs, have remained the program of study for many educationalresearchers. However, measuring and operationally defining the construct of teacherself-efficacy has not been without controversy (e.g.,Ashton, Buhr, & Crocker, 1984; Ash-ton, Olejnick, Crocker, & McAuliffe, 1982; Coladarci & Fink, 1995; Henson, Kogan, &Vacha-Haase, 2001; Soodak & Podell, 1996). Theorists and researchers have had compet-ing conceptions of the meaning of teacher self-efficacy, leading to numerous measurementissues and inconsistent findings (seeTschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998, for areview). In order to help clarify these issues, Tschannen-Moran et al. operationally definedteacher self-efficacy as the teachers belief in her or his ability to organize and execute thecourses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific task in a particular con-text (1998, p. 233).Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) subsequently designed

the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) to assess task-specificity (i.e., instructionalstrategies, student engagement, and classroom management), a feature missing from theearlier measures of personal and general teacher self-efficacy.

Using the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale, significant relationships have been foundamong teachers sense of efficacy, quality of school facilities, and teacher professionalism(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk, 2002), while also linking adaptive changes in teacher self-efficacy to the level of support received (Woolfolk Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005). Additionalresearch examining predictors of teacher efficacy beliefs found that between-school vari-ance in teacher self-efficacy was significantly explained by perceived collective efficacyabove and beyond socioeconomic status and student achievement (Goddard & Goddard,

2001). For consistency, when we refer to teacher self-efficacy (including measurement)throughout the remainder of this article, we are referring to the construct as defined byTschannen-Moran et al. (1998), and as measured by Tschannen-Moran and WoolfolkHoy (2001).

1.2.1.2. Teachers perceived collective efficacy. In addition to ones self-referent judg-ments of efficacy, collective efficacy beliefs refer to the perceived performance capabilitiesof the social system in which one collectively interacts and operates ( Bandura, 1997). Forschools, perceived collective efficacy is defined as the judgments of teachers in a schoolthat the faculty as a whole can organize and execute the courses of action required to have

a positive effect on students (Goddard et al., 2004, p. 4). Congruent with social cognitivetheory, perceived collective efficacy is hypothesized to be influenced by mastery experi-ences such as teacher successes and collective student achievement. Studies have identifiedthe collective efficacy perceptions of a schools teaching staff as a significant predictor of


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

6/28

student achievement across grade levels, subjects, and school demographics (Bandura,1993; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000; Goddard, LoGerfo, & Hoy, 2004; Hoy,Sweetland, & Smith, 2002). Thus, schools in which teachers judge themselves as capabletend to promote a positive atmosphere necessary for the development of student learning

and achievement (Bandura, 1993, 1997).Similar to the terminological distinction with teacher self-efficacy, perceived collective

efficacy does not refer to the collective effectiveness of a schools teaching faculty, butrather the perceptions of the groups capabilities to foster student learning. Bandura(2000)explains, perceived collective efficacy is not simply the sum of the efficacy beliefsof individual members. Rather, it is an emergent group-level property (p. 76). Research-ers have also varied on how to measure the construct of perceived collective efficacy byaggregating the perceived self-efficacy of teachers to the faculty-level, having the collectivegroup arrive at a single judgment of efficacy (Guzzo, Yost, Cambell, & Shea, 1993), or byassessing the amount of variance (or agreement) around the arithmetic mean of a facultyscollective efficacy (Goddard, 2001). Currently, researchers suggest that when measuringand assessing the collective efficacy beliefs of a fairly interdependent group, such as aschools faculty, one should aggregate individual perceptions of group capability (Bandu-ra, 2006; Goddard et al., 2004; Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006). In accordance withthe most current theoretical and empirical distinctions, when we refer to perceived collec-tive efficacy throughout this article (including measurement), we are referring to theaggregate of individual group members perceptions of group capability (Goddardet al., 2004, p. 7).

While research on the effect of school context on general constructs of teacher agency is

nothing new (e.g.,Lee, Dedrick, & Smith, 1991; Newman, Rutter, & Smith, 1989; Rauden-bush, Rowen, & Cheong, 1992), few studies have addressed the relationship between com-munity-type variables and perceived collective efficacy. Those that have examined theaforementioned relationships have found results supporting the notion that a sense ofcommunity among teaching faculty may function to positively influence the teachers senseof agency. For example, significant positive correlations have been reported between per-ceived collective efficacy and teachers commitment to professional community (caring,trust, and commitment to sharing teaching ideas with each other; Ross & Gray, 2004)and goal consensus (Kurz & Knight, 2004). Recently,Adams and Forsyth (2006)have alsoaddressed this important gap in the literature by examining the effects of school structure,

collaboration, and trust on teachers sense of collective efficacy. Through the use of pathanalysis,Adams and Forsyth (2006)found that, in addition to past student performance,an enabling school structure and teacher collaboration each had a positive direct effect onthe collective efficacy perceptions of teachers.

Following a review of studies that examined sociocultural influences of teachers effi-cacy beliefs,Fives and Alexander (2004)identified emergent patterns relating to an adap-tive school context, including the following: (1) teachers with a strong sense of self- andcollective efficacy are often found in schools that promote student learning over meregrades; (2) teachers report a greater sense of efficacy when they perceive support fromthe principal or administration; and (3) teachers perceive themselves as more efficacious

when they are encouraged, and given opportunities, to work collaboratively with col-leagues and experiment with instructional strategies. Given that Teachers beliefs in theirefficacy affect their general orientation toward the educational process as well as theirspecific instructional activities (Bandura, 1997, p. 241), more research is needed that,


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

7/28

in addition to antecedents, further scrutinizes outcomes of teachers judgments of self- andcollective efficacy, such as classroom goal structure.

1.2.2. Classroom goal structure

Achievement goal theory provides a framework to explain academic behavior related tolearning and performance. Whereas performance-oriented individuals strive to outperformothers in a demonstration of their competence, mastery-oriented individuals are motivatedto learn for intrinsic reasons (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Teachers with a per-formance-orientated approach to instruction create an external goal structure, emphasiz-ing high test scores, competitive practices, and social comparison of ability.1 Teachers witha mastery-oriented approach to instruction focus more on individual development andlearning. Research suggests that the more performance-oriented students believe theirteachers to be, the more performance-oriented the students tended to be themselves. On

the other hand, the more mastery-oriented perceptions of teachers, the more studentsreport themselves as being mastery-oriented (Friedel, Cortina, Turner, & Midgley, 2007;Gutman, 2006; Husman, Brem, & Duggan, 2005; Wolters, 2004). For the most part, amastery classroom goal structure is associated with positive student outcomes, whereasa performance classroom goal structure is associated with negative or inconsistent out-comes (e.g.,Karabenick, 2004; Turner et al., 2002; Wolters, 2004).

There exists an inconsistency in goal structure terminology depending on if a student orteacher is being surveyed. For example, the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales ( Midgleyet al., 2000) has both teacher and student scales assessing classroom goal structure. Forstudents, these scales measure their subjective perceptions of either a mastery or perfor-

mance classroom goal structure. For teachers, the scales measure their mastery- or perfor-mance-oriented approach to instruction (2000). Teachers approach to instructioncreates their classroom goal structure, making these terms synonymous. As labeling teach-ers classroom goal structure as either a mastery- or performance-oriented approach toinstruction could be confused with the ubiquitous approach terminology in achievementgoal theory (e.g.,Elliot, 1999), when we refer to teachers approach to instruction through-out the reminder of the article, we use the terms classroom goal structure or teachers mas-tery- or performance-oriented instructional practices. Moreover, classroom goal structuresmay emphasize both mastery and performance, or one more than the other (Kaplan, Mid-dleton, Urdan, & Midgley, 2002; Linnenbrink, 2005; Turner, Meyer, Midgley, & Patrick,

2003); however, research on multiple goal contexts is relatively new. Therefore, the currentstudy aimed to explore contextual predictors of both mastery and performance as separatemeasures of classroom goal structure.

While several studies provide strong support for the general hypothesis that mastery-oriented teacher practices are associated with positive student outcomes, and perfor-

1 While classroom goal structures are generally referred to as either mastery or performance, scales measuringperformance goal structures focus on the approach orientation (e.g., I encourage students to compete with eachother) rather than the avoidance orientation. Hence, researchers (Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001; Wolters &

Daugherty, 2005) have begun to make the distinction in terminology, suggesting it seems appropriate to refer tothe research on performance goal structures as generally reflecting performance-approach goal contexts(Linnenbrink, 2005, p. 199). However, it is our opinion that this semantic differentiation is not important whenassessing teacher reports of classroom goal structure, but is quite relevant when assessing student perceptions ofthe classroom goal structure.


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

8/28

mance-oriented practices are associated with negative student outcomes, it is important tonote that these studies used student reports of their teachers goal structure (seeAnderman& Cupp, 2006; Friedel, Marachi, Midgley, & Turner, 2002; Gheen & Midgley, 1999; Gut-man, 2006; Kaplan & Midgley, 1999; Karabenick, 2004; Kumar, 2006; Marachi, Friedel,

& Midgley, 2001; Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Turner et al., 2002; Turner & Patrick, 2004;Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998; and Wolters, 2004, for examples). The extent towhich teachers self-reported classroom goal structure influences student outcomes is farless empirically researched (Miller & Murdock, 2007). In the few studies using teacherreports of classroom goal structure, findings consistent with student perception studieshave been found. Using multilevel modeling techniques, Anderman et al. (2001) foundthat students who had teachers reporting the use of performance-oriented instructionalpractices experienced longitudinal declines in valuing of math and reading, and Urdanet al. (1998) found that students were more likely to report using avoidance strategieswhen their teachers reported using performance-oriented instructional practices. In con-trast, Ryan, Gheen, and Midgley (1998) found no effect of teacher reports of classroomgoal structure on students self-handicapping. Yet another study observed the instruc-tional practices of teachers and found that they generally matched student perceptionsof the classroom goal structure (Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001).Finally, teacher reports of a mastery classroom goal structure have been linked to studentperceptions of those same practices, which in turn were related to lower incidences of dis-ruptive behavior (Kaplan, Gheen, & Midgley, 2002). It is evident that more research isneeded to examine predictors of teachers classroom goal structures with regard to theimmediate school context.

1.3. Research questions and hypotheses

We had two main research questions: The first question was, are their differencesbetween schools that report varying levels of performance school goal structure? Wehypothesized that, in high performance-oriented schools, teachers would report lower lev-els of community, self- and collective efficacy perceptions, and mastery-oriented instruc-tional practices in the classroom, while reporting a more performance-orientedclassroom goal structure. In this hypothesis, the independent variable represents the con-text, or top of the top-down analysis.

Our second question was, does the contextual variable of teacher community serveas a predictor of teachers sense of self- and collective efficacy, as well as the classroomgoal structures of high school teachers? Previous research has examined studentoutcomes of teachers classroom goal structures, and this study takes the research astep further by investigating direct and indirect predictors of both mastery- andperformance-oriented instructional practices using path analysis, thus hypothesizing atop-down model of teachers sense of community on their motivational beliefs andinstructional practices in the classroom (see Fig. 1). It was therefore hypothesized thatfirst, teacher community would be a positive predictor of perceived collective efficacyand the three different scales of teachers sense of efficacy: (1) engaging students, (2)

instructional strategies, and (3) classroom management. Second, we expected that tea-cher community would positively predict mastery classroom goal structure, and wouldbe a negative predictor of performance classroom goal structure. Third, we expectedthat perceived collective efficacy would be a positive predictor of all three self-efficacy


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

9/28

variables. Fourth, we expected that perceived collective efficacy would all have apositive effect on mastery classroom goal structure, while having a negative effect onperformance classroom goal structure. Fifth, we expected that each of the threeself-efficacy variables would positively predict mastery classroom goal structure andnegatively predict performance classroom goal structure. Sixth and finally, we expectedpositive correlations among all three teacher self-efficacy variables as well as a positivecorrelation between classroom goal structures.

Given the hypothesized negative relationships among many of this studys variables

with performance classroom goal structure, and positive relationships with mastery class-room goal structure, it may seem counterintuitive to anticipate a positive correlationbetween the two. We based this hypothesized relationship on the results from existingstudies that found small but positive correlations between teacher reports of masteryand performance goal structures, particularly in high school contexts. In one study, Mar-achi et al. (2000) reported a correlation of.06 for elementary teachers, .10 for middleschool teachers, and .12 for high school teachers, the strongest of the three. In anotherstudy,Wolters and Daugherty (2007)reported a significant correlation of .25 with a sam-ple comprised of 1024 pre-kindergarten through 12th grade teachers. In an effort toexplain this positive correlation, Wolters and Daugherty suggest that the two goal struc-

tures are not opposite ends of a continuum but perhaps are more orthogonally related(2007, p. 190). As the current study involved high school teachers, we hypothesized a posi-tive, but not necessarily significant, correlation between teachers mastery and perfor-mance classroom goal structures.

Fig. 1. Theoretical model depicting hypothesized relationships among teacher community, perceived collectiveefficacy, self-efficacy, and classroom goal structures.


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

10/28

2. Method

2.1. Participants and procedure

Participants were 156 teachers from four public senior high schools located in either asuburban or semi-rural region of a Midwestern state. Participating high schools employeda range from approximately 30 to 115 teachers, with an approximate mean of 55 (actualnumber of certified staff varied by source). School 2 was the only high school, with theexception of alternative schools, belonging to a district with more than one senior highschool, while schools 1, 3, and 4 served as the main high school in three separate districts.Table 1 presents demographic and socioeconomic indicators for the four participatinghigh schools.

Teacher surveys were researcher administered to faculty at all four schools during tea-cher inservice meetings. Surveys were collected from approximately 80% of the teachers atSchool 1, 60% of the teachers at School 2, and 85% of the teachers at schools 3 and 4. Dueto the method of data collection at School 2, fewer teachers at were able to participatecompared to the other three schools. These teachers were surveyed during approximatelynine sections of interdisciplinary faculty development meetings that were spaced out overthree consecutive days. Approximately 1015 teachers were assigned to attend a specifictime and day, but numerous teachers missed the inservice session due to other academic,personal, or extracurricular obligations. Because we were interested in measuring contextand scrutinizing school as the subject of comparison, we attempted and were successful atsurveying the majority of teachers in each school. Correlations and descriptive statistics

for all constructs with complete cases are listed inTable 2.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Teacher community

The 5-item scale from the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative Teacher Survey(BASRC, 2002) was used to measure teachers sense of community. Teachers rated howwell each statement described the current conditions in their school on a 5-point Likertscale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The scale was selected due tothe scope of the items, and their ability to measure the multifaceted aspects of teacher

community. The community items were: I feel supported by colleagues to try out newideas, Teachers in this school trust each other, Teachers in this school feel responsibleto help each other do their best, Teachers in this school are encouraged to experimentwith their teaching, and Teachers use time together to discuss teaching and learning.Reliability for the teacher community scale has been reported at .86 (BASRC, 2002).The alpha coefficient in the present study was also .86.

2.2.2. School goal structure

Teachers perceptions of the school goal structure were measured using two scales fromthe Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (Midgley et al., 2000): (1) a mastery goal struc-

ture for students (7 items; Students are told that making mistakes is OK as long as theyare learning and improving); and, (2) a performance goal structure for students (6 items;Students are encouraged to compete with each other academically). Teachers rate state-ments about their schools goal structure on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

11/28

Table 1Demographic and socioeconomic indicators for participating high schools

Participatinghigh school

Total studentenrollmenta

Free andreduced luncha

(%)

Total minorityenrollmenta (%)

Senior highschools indistrict

Gradespan

Approximateparticipatingteachersa (%)

Ysc

1 725 35 12 1 912 80 7.2 1600 11 19 2 1012 60 8.3 425 20 1 1 912 85 6.4 350 20 4 1 912 85 8.

a To avoid undue identifiers, statistics are rounded approximations.b Descriptives for participating teachers only.

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

12/28

Table 2Intercorrelations, descriptive statistics, and alpha coefficients (N= 138)

Teacher variables 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Teacher communitya 1.00 2. Perceived collective efficacyb 0.60*** 1.00 3. Self-efficacy for instructional strategiesc 0.12 0.25** 1.00 4. Self-efficacy for student engagementc 0.21* 0.37*** 0.44*** 1.00 5. Self-efficacy for classroom managementc 0.09 0.20* 0.41*** 0.47*** 1.00 6. Performance school goal structurea 0.06 0.15 0.17* 0.08 0.01 1.00 7. Mastery school goal structurea 0.46*** 0.56*** 0.36*** 0.37*** 0.26**

0.13

8. Performance classroom goal structurea 0.18* 0.25** 0.11 0.02 0.08 0.44***

9. Mastery classroom goal structurea 0.02 0.08 0.32*** 0.20* 0.15 0.12

a Scale range of 15.b Scale range of 16.c Scale range of 19.* p< .05.** p< .01.*** p< .001.

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

13/28

disagree to 5 = strongly agree).Midgley et al. (2000)reported a reliability coefficient of.81 for the mastery, and .70 for the performance school goal structure scales respectively.In the present study, the alpha coefficient was .74 for mastery school goal structure, and.65 for performance school goal structure.

2.2.3. Perceived collective efficacy

The 12-item short form of the Collective Efficacy Scale (Goddard, 2002) was designedto measure the perceived collective efficacy of teachers (Teachers here are confident theywill be able to motivate their students). Teachers rate perceived effectiveness as a staff ona 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Goddard(2002)reported a reliability of .94 for the short form. The alpha coefficient in the presentstudy was .83.

2.2.4. Teachers sense of self-efficacy

The Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) wasdesigned to measure efficacy judgments for the most valued, important, and specific tasksof teaching (Shaughnessy, 2004). The 12-item short form was used to measure teacherssense of efficacy in: (a) student engagement (4 items; How much can you do to motivatestudents who show low interest in school work); (b) instructional strategies (4 items;How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies); and, (c) classroom manage-ment (4 items; How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules). Teach-ers rate their perceived effectiveness on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = nothing to9 = a great deal).Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001)reported an alpha coef-

ficient of .81 for the student engagement subscale, and .86 for the instructional strategiesand classroom management subscales. In the present study, the alpha coefficient was .71for both the student engagement and instructional strategies subscales, and .78 for theclassroom management subscale.

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in EQS (Bentler, 1993) to add to thegrowing body of literature on the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), as well asto answer the call for teacher self-efficacy researchers to validate their measures with theunderutilized methodology of confirmatory factor analysis (Henson, 2002; Roberts &Henson, 2001). Specifically, we examined how the factor structure of the short form per-formed for the current sample of high school teachers (N= 148 complete cases on the

TSES).Table 3 depicts the item text and standardized loadings of the 12 items. Resultsrevealed that the three-factor oblique model showed acceptable fit to the data (Hu & Ben-tler, 1999): v2(51) = 74.89,p= .02; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .95; Non-normed FitIndex (NNFI) = .94; Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = .89; Standardized RootMean-Square Residual (SRMR) = .06; Root Mean-Square Error of Approximation(RMSEA) = .06 (.03,.08). The significant v2 statistic indicated a lack of fit; however, con-vergent validity was demonstrated as all scale items loaded significantly on their hypoth-esized latent factor (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Cronbachs alpha was a .82, indicating agood level of internal consistency for the measure (Nunnally, 1978).

The construct reliability and variance extracted were calculated to further judge the

psychometric properties of each factor. Latent factor 1, Student Engagement, demon-strated a construct reliability of .75, and accounted for 43% of the variance in the fourobserved variables. Latent factor 2, Instructional Strategies, demonstrated a construct reli-ability of .73, and accounted for 40% of the variance in the four observed variables. Latent


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

14/28

factor 3, Classroom Management, demonstrated a construct reliability of .79, andaccounted for 48% of the variance in the four observed variables. The construct reliabilityof each factor exceeded the recommended cutoff value of .70. No factor met the recom-mended threshold of .50 for average variance extracted (Steenkamp & Trijp, 1991).

Further inspection of the standardized solution revealed that the lowest standardizedloading was item 11 (How much can you assist families in helping their children do wellin school) on the student engagement factor. More specifically, latent factor 1 (teacherssense of efficacy for engaging students) explained only 16% of the variance in item 11. It is

plausible that the moderate loading (.40) was due to the sample of high school teachers.That is, more of the items variance may have been explained by the latent factor if thesample had been comprised of primary or elementary school teachers, as it is generallythe norm to see a negative relationship between age of student and amount of parentalcontact with teachers.

2.2.5. Classroom goal structure

Teachers classroom goal structures were measured using two scales from the Patternsof Adaptive Learning Scales (Midgley et al., 2000): (1) a mastery-oriented classroom goal

structure (4 items; I give a wide range of assignments, matched to students needs andskill levels); and, (2) a performance-oriented classroom goal structure (5 items; I encour-age students to compete with each other). Teachers rate statements about their classroomgoal structure on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Table 3Standardized solution, with R2 values, by confirmatory factor analysis for the three-factor model (N= 148)

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 R2

Latent Factor 1: Teachers sense of efficacy for student engagement

2. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork?

.68* .46

3. How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork?

.78* .61

4. How much can you do to help your students value learning? .72* .5111. How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school? .40 * .16

Latent Factor 2: Teachers sense of efficacy for instructional strategies

5. To what extent can you craft good questions for your students? .72* .529. How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies? .63* .40

10. To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example whenstudents are confused?

.68* .46

12. How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom? .48*

.23

Latent Factor 3: Teachers sense of efficacy for classroom management

1. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? .64* .416. How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? .64* .427. How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? .70* .498. How well can you establish a classroom management system with each

group of students?.78* .61

Note.Correlations between latent factors: F1 and F2= .51*; F1 and F3= .62*; F2and F3= .58** p< .001.


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

15/28

Midgley et al. (2000) report a reliability coefficient of .69 for each scale. In the presentstudy, the alpha coefficient was .65 for mastery classroom goal structure, and .71 for per-formance classroom goal structure.

3. Results

3.1. Performance-oriented schools and teacher motivation

Contrasting participating high schools by performance school goal structure is essentialas this study proposed a possible influence of a performance-oriented context on numer-ous teacher variables. To determine the amount of performance orientation exhibited byeach of the four participating high schools, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with schoolas the independent variable and teachers perception of their respective schools perfor-mance school goal structure serving as the dependent variable.

Results revealed a significant main effect of school, F(3,150) = 6.50, p< .001, partialg2 = .12. Levenes test of equality of variances was not significant. Tukeys post hoc meancomparisons revealed that School 2 demonstrated a significantly lower performanceschool goal structure than Schools 1, 3, and 4 at p< .05 to p< .01. There were no signif-icant differences between Schools 1, 3, and 4. Mean scores of performance school goalstructure were as follows: School 1 (M= 3.50, SD= .59, n= 37); School 2 (M= 3.08,SD= .50, n= 66); School 3 (M= 3.48, SD= .54, n= 25); School 4 (M= 3.40,SD= .58, n = 26). Additionally, School 2s mean was the only one to fall below the med-ian of 3.33. Therefore, School 2 was labeled as being a low performance-oriented school,

while Schools 1, 3, and 4 were characterized as highly performance-oriented.A one-way MANOVA revealed a significant Wilkss lambda = .69, F(8,130) = 7.31,p< .001, partialg2 = .31. Boxs test of equality of covariance matrices was not significant.Inspection of univariate tests revealed significant mean differences on six of the eightdependent variables (seeTable 4for means, standard deviations,Fvalues, and effect sizes).Specifically, between-subjects effects revealed that teachers in the high performance-ori-ented school group reported significantly lower mean scores for the following: self-efficacyfor instructional strategies, self-efficacy for classroom management, perceived collectiveefficacy, teacher community, and perceived mastery school goal structure. Additionally,teachers in the high performance-oriented school group reported a significantly higher per-

formance-oriented classroom goal structure. There were no significant mean differencesfor teachers sense of efficacy for student engagement, nor was there a significant differencefor teachers mastery classroom goal structure.

The lack of significance between high and low performance-oriented schools on teach-ers reports of mastery classroom goal structure was of interest. Specifically, this finding isimportant considering the assertion of this study that a perceived performance-orientedschool goal structure may have a maladaptive effect on teacher motivation and effectiveclassroom instruction. We examined the nonsignificance by including teachers tenure sta-tus at their current school as a variable. This analysis then allowed for an inspection ofhow the amount of exposure to the school goal structure might affect the outcome. Teach-

ers tenure at current school was dichotomized into two groups: (1) first year at currentschool (regardless of prior teaching experience elsewhere); and, (2) two or more years atcurrent school. A two-way ANOVA was then run with school group (high or low perfor-mance school goal structure) and year group as the independent variables, and level of


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

16/28

mastery classroom goal structure as the dependent variable. Results revealed no maineffect of either school or year group. However, there was a significant interaction effect,F(1,141) = 4.71, p< .05, partial g2 = .03. Levenes test of equality of error variance wasnot significant. Mean comparisons with the Bonferroni adjustment indicated that first yearteachers in the low performance-oriented school group reported a significantly higher levelof mastery classroom goal structure (M= 3.55, SD= .70) than first year teachers in thehigh performance-oriented school group (M= 2.90, SD= .63) at p< .05. Additionally,first year teachers in the high performance-oriented school group reported a significantly

lower level of mastery classroom goal structure (M= 2.90, SD= .63) than teachers withtwo or more years in the same school group (M= 3.38,SD= .83) atp < .05. Results indi-cate that the mastery-oriented classroom practices of high school teachers may be compro-mised during early tenure in highly performance-oriented schools.

3.2. Teacher community, self- and collective efficacy perceptions, and classroom goal

structures

To test a top-down model examining teacher community as a contextual variable, we

hypothesized that teacher community would be a significant predictor of perceived collec-tive efficacy, teachers self-efficacy for engaging students, instructional strategies, andclassroom management, as well as mastery and performance classroom goal structures.Furthermore, perceived collective efficacy was hypothesized to predict each of the three

Table 4Univariate results and mean scores on dependent variables by school goal structure

Teacher variables Low performance school goalstructure (n= 65)

M(SD)

High performance school goalstructure (n= 74)

M(SD)

F(1,137) g2p

Self-efficacy forstudentengagement

6.30 (0.94) 6.09 (0.98) 1.74 0.01

Self-efficacy forinstructionalstrategies

7.92 (0.80) 7.24 (0.95) 20.32*** 0.13

Self-efficacy forclassroommanagement

7.65 (0.75) 7.32 (1.01) 4.87* 0.03

Perceived collectiveefficacy

4.52 (0.46) 4.04 (0.67) 23.60*** 0.15

Teacher community 4.54 (0.57) 4.01 (0.74) 21.95*** 0.14Mastery school goal

structure3.95 (0.50) 3.66 (0.57) 10.51** 0.07

Mastery classroomgoal structure

3.39 (0.74) 3.18 (0.77) 2.72 0.02

Performanceclassroom goalstructure

2.18 (0.62) 2.58 (0.77) 10.96** 0.07

* p< .05.** p< .01.*** p< .001.


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

17/28

teacher self-efficacy variables and both classroom goal structures, while the three self-effi-cacy variables were hypothesized to predict classroom goal structures (see Fig. 1).

While it would have been optimal to use latent factors, we did not have a large enoughsample size to use structural equation modeling with the number of parameters to be esti-

mated. Additionally the sample size of each participating schools faculty was far belowwhat is required to test the fit of the proposed model independently in each high school.Therefore, the model was constructed using the combined data from all four high schools,and with the observed variables. All path analyses were conducted in the software pro-gram EQS (Bentler, 1993), and utilized the maximum likelihood (ML) estimator of fitand coefficients. Because all variable means were measured using Likert or Likert-typescales, only coefficients from the standardized solution are reported (analogous to betaweights in linear or multiple regression). Cases with missing data were removed, resultingin 138 teacher surveys used in the analysis. Table 2 contains the intercorrelations anddescriptive statistics for the seven variables included in the path analysis.

The path analysis was conducted in two steps. First, we ran the hypothesized model. Fitstatistics for the proposed model could not be calculated as it was just-identified, with zerodegrees of freedom. Next, nonsignificant paths were trimmed from the model, and themore parsimonious model was run. As recommended (Bollen & Long, 1993; Kline,2005), goodness of fit was evaluated using multiple indices. The model provided a verygood fit to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999),v2(11) = 3.34,p> .05, CFI = 1.0, NNFI = 1.0,AGFI = .98, SRMR = .02, RMSEA = .0. The final model is depicted in Fig. 2, and wasconsidered final as: (a) all direct, and indirect, effects were significant; and, (b) no signif-icant improvements could be made.

Fig. 2. Final model depicting the relationships among teacher community, perceived collective efficacy, self-efficacy, and classroom goal structures.


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

18/28

Results from the path analysis indicated the following significant direct paths: (a) tea-cher community positively related to perceived collective efficacy, (b) perceived collectiveefficacy positively related to teacher self-efficacy for engaging students, instructional strat-egies, and classroom management, and negatively related to performance classroom goal

structure, (c) teachers sense of efficacy for instructional strategies positively related tomastery classroom goal structure. There were also positive and significant correlationsamong all three teacher self-efficacy variables, as well as between mastery performanceclassroom goal structures.

While teacher community did not have a significant direct effect on either mastery orperformance classroom goal structure, it did have a significant indirect effect on each. Spe-cifically, the standardized coefficient for the total indirect effect of teacher community onmastery classroom goal structure was positive (b= .05, p< .05), while the standardizedcoefficient for the total indirect effect of teacher community on performance classroomgoal structure was negative (b= .15, p< .01). Thus, results indicate that the negativeeffect of teacher community on performance classroom goal structure was due to the medi-ating influence of perceived collective efficacy. Additionally, the positive effect of commu-nity on mastery classroom goal structure was due to the mediating influences of bothperceived collective efficacy and self-efficacy for instructional strategies.

A multiple-group test of invariance was conducted on the path coefficients to asses howthe predictive characteristics of the model would perform across the high and low perfor-mance-oriented school groups from our initial MANOVA (i.e., Schools 1, 3, and 4 vs.School 2). Using the GROUP function in EQS, the low and high performance-orientedschool groups were analyzed simultaneously on the model. All six direct paths and four

correlations were constrained to be equal across groups. Evidence of path invariancewas exceptionally demonstrated as: (a) the model provided a good fit to the datav2(32) = 31.68, p> .05, CFI = 1.0, NNFI = 1.0, AGFI = .90, SRMR = .09,RMSEA = .0; (b) a difference test between the pooled and constrained models revealeda nonsignificant v2 value (Dv2(21) = 28.34, p> .05); and, most importantly, (c) theLagrange Multiplier (LM) test did not call for the release of any of the 10 constraints.

Results from the multi-group analysis indicate that the model does apply across groups,and does display path invariance. This finding lends strong support for the models appli-cability to various high schools, regardless of their level of performance orientation. Thatis, teaching faculty within the highly performance-oriented school group reported signifi-

cantly lower levels of teacher community, perceived collective efficacy, self-efficacy forinstructional strategies and classroom management, and higher levels of performanceclassroom goal structure; however, the predictive qualities among variables did not signif-icantly differ between groups.

4. Discussion

4.1. Performance-oriented schools and teacher motivation

The current study examined the relationships between academic context (as measured

with teacher community and school goal structure) and the motivational beliefs and class-room practices of teaching faculty from four Midwestern senior high schools. In our firstanalysis, a MANOVA indicated significant differences between high schools categorized ashaving either a high or low performance-oriented school goal structure with regards to


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

19/28

teachers motivational beliefs and classroom goal structure. Specifically, teachers in thelow performance-oriented school group reported a significantly higher perceived collectiveefficacy, sense of efficacy for classroom management and instructional strategies, and tea-cher community. Additionally, teachers in the low performance-oriented school group

reported a lower performance classroom goal structure for students, and higher perceivedmastery school goal structure. We found nonsignificant differences between school groupsin self-efficacy for engaging students and mastery classroom goal structure. The theoreticalimportance of school goal structure on classroom goal structure (Kaplan, Middleton,et al., 2002) prompted a post hoc analysis that revealed the lack of significance in masteryclassroom goal structure was likely due to a significant interaction between a performance-oriented school goal structure and amount of cumulative teaching experience in the cur-rent school. That is, there were significantly higher reports of mastery classroom goalstructure by teachers in their initial year in the low performance-oriented school groupvs. those teachers new to the high performance-oriented schools.

The MANOVA results could have significant implications for schools in which teachersperceive a performance-oriented school goal structure for students. More specifically,when schools overly stress the importance of high test scores, academic competition,and use the highest achieving students as models for all students, teachers may tend to feelless community, perceive less self-efficacy for using a variety of instructional strategies, andmay be more likely to use performance-oriented instructional practices in the classroom.While this analysis found lower reports of motivation and community in schools reportinga high performance school goal structure, some theorists suggest that efforts to increasethe emphasis on mastery goals in the classroom may bear more fruit than will efforts to

decrease the emphasis on performance goals (Urdan & Midgley, 2003, p. 546). We believethat this observation, based on empirical data, can be applied to school goal structure.That is, performance goals may be omnipresent in todays public high schools, butresearchers using achievement goal theory to guide educational reform may see moreadaptive outcomes from focusing on improving mastery at the school, classroom, and stu-dent levels. Longitudinal data is needed to better understand the outcomes associated withteachers perceptions of performance vs. mastery school goal structure.

4.2. Teacher community, self- and collective efficacy perceptions, and classroom goal

structures

In the results from our second analysis, a path analysis provided further support for thehypothesized top-down model of context on classroom beliefs and instructional practicesas teacher community was significantly related to high school teachers sense of collectiveand self-efficacy, as well as classroom goal structures. Furthermore, the positive indirecteffect of teacher community on mastery classroom goal structure, and negative indirecteffect on performance classroom goal structure were the result of mediating influencesof judgments of efficacy. In this particular study, context did not have a direct effect onteachers sense of efficacy or classroom goal structure. Rather, significant indirect effectsemerged only through the mediating qualities of perceived collective efficacy and teachers

sense of efficacy for instructional strategies.Also of interest in the path model were the varying levels of significance among per-

ceived collective efficacy, the teachers sense of efficacy variables, and classroom goal struc-tures. By using more contemporary measures of teacher self-efficacy, this study extends


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

20/28

upon existing research identifying collective judgments of efficacy as a significant predictorof personal teacher self-efficacy (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). Our results revealed thatperceived collective efficacy is positively related to teachers sense of efficacy for all threesubscales of Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoys (2001) Teachers Sense of Efficacy

Scale, but at varying levels of significance (seeFig. 2). Furthermore, teachers sense of effi-cacy for instructional strategies was the only subscale found to be significantly related toeither classroom goal structure (b= .33, p< .001, to mastery classroom structure). Thisfinding may indicate that teachers who have a command of their subject-matter contentare not afraid of trying out a variety of instructional strategies to promote student learn-ing. In other words, this relationship may represent a strong command of pedagogical con-tent knowledge, or knowing the ways of representing and formulating the subject matterthat make it comprehensible to others as well as understanding what makes the learning ofthe specific topics easy or difficult (Even, 1993, pp. 9495).

Studies have shown that teachers deep understanding of subject-matter knowledge andmastery experiences may be powerful sources of, and requisites for, pedagogical contentknowledge (Driel, Verloop, & Vos, 1998). Furthermore, teachers pedagogical contentknowledge has been associated with the effective teaching of abstract concepts ( Clermont,Borko, & Krajcik, 1994), knowledge of students problem solving and reasoning skills(Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, & Carey, 1988; Geddis, 1993; Marks, 1990), and interestin using a variety of instructional strategies (Clermont et al., 1994). Alternatively, teachersthat lack pedagogical content knowledge report problems with teaching in general(Rovengo, 1992), and often resort to lock-step sequence of instruction without concernfor student understanding (Even, 1993). There is also evidence to suggest that teachers

mastery-oriented instructional practices are associated with student reports of good ped-agogical skills (Murdock, Miller, & Kohlhardt, 2004). The items measuring teachers senseof efficacy for instructional strategies (e.g., To what extent can you provide an alternativeexplanation or example when students are confused; seeTable 3) and the items measuringteachers mastery classroom goal structure (e.g., I give a wide range of assignments,matched to students needs and skill level), are consistent with the notion that teacherswho have strong pedagogical content knowledge use a variety of instructional strategiesand are able to create motivationally adaptive learning environments.

In previous research, these relationships have only been tested byWolters and Daugh-erty (2005), who found that teachers sense of efficacy for instructional strategies and

engaging students were each positive and significant predictors of a mastery classroomgoal structure. In our study, the path from self-efficacy for engaging students to a masteryclassroom goal structure was not significant, even though the two had a positive and sig-nificant correlation. These results could suggest that by taking contextual variables intoaccount, teachers personal beliefs for engaging students may be suppressed, while self-effi-cacy for instructional practices remains predictive of a mastery-oriented classroom goalstructure. Path analysis results also provided strong support for suggestions and effortsby researchers to measure self-efficacy at the task-specific level (Bandura, 2006; Lynch,2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Wolters& Daugherty, 2007). This study has shown unique effects of the three-factor teachers sense

of efficacy scale, effects that would have been lost by merely collapsing subscales into a sec-ond-order factor, or using a dated measure of general or personal teacher efficacy.

In the path model, teachers sense of efficacy for instructional practices was positivelyrelated to mastery classroom goal structure, but unrelated to performance classroom goal


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

21/28

structure. The relationships among these variables may have implications for teacher prac-tices in the classroom. Wolters and Daugherty (2005) found similar relationships usingmultiple regression, and stressed the implications for interventions aimed to isolate mas-tery-oriented instructional practices given the maladaptive student outcomes associated

with performance-oriented classroom environments. That is, teachers sense of efficacyfor instruction may increase teachers mastery classroom goal structure, while not signif-icantly affecting performance-oriented instructional practices. While teachers sense of effi-cacy was unrelated to performance classroom goal structure, perceived collective efficacyhad a significant negative direct effect on the performance-oriented classroom practices ofhigh school teachers. The idea that performance classroom goal structure is not signifi-cantly related to teacher learning community, teachers sense of self-efficacy, or collectiveefficacy in a positive way is important in light of Brophys suggestion that researchersshould be cautious about encouraging teachers to say or do anything that might fosterperformance goals, even performance approach goals, in their students(2005, p. 174).

Consistent with previous research involving high school teachers (Marachi et al., 2000;Wolters & Daugherty, 2007), mastery and performance classroom goal structures werefound to be positively correlated with low to moderate significance. In order to helpexplain this phenomenon, it is important to note that mastery and performance classroomgoal structures are not inversely related, but are believed to be more orthogonally related(e.g., Urdan, 2004; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Given federal legislation for states todemonstrate adequate yearly progress en route to universal proficiency, performance goalsand goal structures may simply be omnipresent in todays public high schools (Bong, 2001;Deemer, 2004). Results from this study suggest that focusing on improving teachers

sense of community and perceived collective efficacy may mitigate teachers use ofperformance-orientated instructional practices in the classroom.Overall, the fit of the path model indicates that higher levels of teacher community are

associated with greater perceptions of collective efficacy, which in turn are negatively relatedto a performance classroom goal structure for students. Perceptions of collective efficacy arealso positively related to teachers sense of efficacy for engaging students, utilizing an arrayof effective instructional strategies, and managing student behavior in the classroom. Teach-ers perceived self-efficacy for instructional strategies was positively and directly related to amore mastery-oriented classroom goal structure. Thus, researchers and school administra-tors can benefit from the findings of this model, which suggests that teacher community may

serve as a supportive context in which teachers beliefs about their group capabilities to pro-mote student learning are developed and fostered. These collective beliefs extend to judg-ments of individual efficacy in the classroom, and serve as a powerful source of teachersuse of instructional practices that promote understanding, learning, and progress over amore controlled, teacher-centered approach. Opportunities for teacher community are cre-ated and fostered by administration. Providing time for the collaborative sharing of ideasand concerns lends itself to the shared responsibility, trust, and support among a schoolsfaculty. It is possible that faculty who work together, with the support of administration,will likely gain judgments of collective efficacy that impact student learning.

4.3. Limitations

It is important to note limitations of the current study and its findings. First, andmost significant, this study did not test causal relationships among the variables. All


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

22/28

data from each of the four participating high school were collected at one time point,and therefore relationships among constructs from each analysis remain correlational.In order to imply theoretical relationships, variables were positioned in a manner thatdemonstrates plausible and testable antecedents and outcomes that subsequent studies

can assess. Future research could incorporate a longitudinal design to analyze the effectof manipulating the contextual variables addressed in this study. While references to pre-diction among variables are speculative, and future studies should not only examine thepossible cyclical nature of the path model but how variables may interact, this studyprovides an important snapshot into the multilevel perceptions of high school teachingfaculty.

A second limitation may be a function of labeling each participating high school asexhibiting either a high or low performance school goal structure for the first MANOVAanalysis. We chose to target the performance school goal structure variable due to its rela-tionship with the growing pressures teaching faculty are likely facing as a result of NCLBlegislation. While we did find significantly lower levels of teacher motivation in the highperformance-oriented school group, we do not know if these differences were explicitlythe result of school goal structure, school characteristics, or a combination of both. Anexamination ofTable 1 reveals that the low and high low performance-oriented schoolgroups (School 2 vs. Schools 1, 3, and 4) differ in many respects. Specifically, School 2serves a substantially higher number of students, has a lower percentage of students onfree and reduced lunch, a greater percentage of minority enrollment, is part of a larger dis-trict, and only serves Grades 1012. While we believe that our classification by perfor-mance school goal structure is valid, we also recognize that the demographic and

socioeconomic characteristics of public high schools are likely related to school goal struc-ture and the outcomes addressed in this study. For example, studies have shown thatsocioeconomic characteristics of schools can significantly relate to teachers perceptionsof efficacy and community (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Goddard, 2001; Lynch et al., 2006);however, less is known about these issues in relation to teacher reports of school and class-room goal structures.

Third, the sample used for this study was comprised of high school teachers, who oftenteach numerous subjects and have classes varying in size. While we did measure task-spe-cific self-efficacy, we failed to assess self-efficacy towards a specific class. Thus, we cannotbe sure which specific classes teachers were referring to when assessing their sense of effi-

cacy and classroom goal structures. In accordance with suggestions from researchers(Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2006; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2005), future studies should designthe questionnaire to measure the context-specific (e.g., subject and section) perceptionsof self-efficacy (Bandura, 2006). A fourth limitation involves the absence of student data.Ultimately, the purpose of studying teachers beliefs and instructional practices is toenhance student motivation and learning. However, examining the effects of context onteacher beliefs and practices is just as important as examining student beliefs of teacherpractices in their classrooms (Bong, 2001; Roeser et al., 2002). Understanding the sourcesof teachers motivational beliefs and instructional patterns will allow for improved effortsto implement and replicate effective interventions targeted at improving not only student

learning, but teacher motivation. Finally, having access to a greater number of participat-ing schools would allow for more appropriate multilevel analysis, in which contextual vari-ables may, more accurately, account for differences between schools in teacher motivationand classroom goal structure.


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

23/28

5. Conclusion

The current study heeded the advice ofPintrich (2000) to scrutinize contextual con-structs as the unit of analysis in order to gain insight into how they facilitate or enervate

such education outcomes as school and teacher effectiveness. Still, much more research isneeded to address additional contextual, sociocultural, and social-emotional predictors ofteachers beliefs and instructional patterns in the classroom, as well as how they affect stu-dent motivation, learning, and well-being. Specifically, examining the longitudinal influ-ence of teacher community and school goal structure is imperative. This line of researchwill yield a more lucid understanding of how teacher and student motivation is supportedor undermined. Interventions in which teacher community or goal structure is targeted atthe school level may result in an adaptive shift in the outcome variables addressed in thisstudy. The continuation of this research agenda is requisite as every public school inAmerica receiving federal funds is required under NCLB to demonstrate 100% studentproficiency levels in both math and reading-language arts by the 20132014 school year(NCLB, 2001; Yell & Drasgow, 2005). As performance standards and accountability test-ing will continue to be ubiquitous in this nations public school system, never has it beenmore apropos to examine the processes by which some schools are successfully able tomoderate these pressures, while others seem to be usurped.

References

Abrams, L. M., Pedulla, J. J., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers opinions of statewidetesting.Theory into Practice, 42, 1829.

Adams, C. M., & Forsyth, P. B. (2006). Exploring the influence of school conditions on collective efficacy beliefs.Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, SanFrancisco, CA.

Alexander, P. A., & Riconscente, M. M. (2005). A matter of proof: Why achievement learning. In J. S. Carlson& J. R. Levin (Eds.),Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues:Vol 1.Scientifically basededucation research and federal funding agencies: The case of the No Child Left Behind legislation (pp. 2736).Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84,261271.

Anderman, E. M., & Cupp, P. K. (2006). Impulsivity and academic cheating. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.

Anderman, E., Eccles, J., Yoon, K., Roeser, R., Wigfield, A., & Blumfeld, P. (2001). Learning to valuemathematics and reading: Relations to mastery and performance-oriented instructional practices. Contem-porary Educational Psychology, 26, 7695.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommendedtwo-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411423.

Ashton, P. T., Buhr, D., & Crocker, L. (1984). Teachers sense of efficacy: A self- or norm-referenced construct?Florida Journal of Educational Research 26, 2941.

Ashton, P. T., Olejnick, S., Crocker, L., & McAuliffe, M. (1982). Measurement problems in the study of teacherssense of efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,New York, NY.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84,191215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 11751184.Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist,

28, 117148.


8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

24/28

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 9, 7578.Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy

beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Bay Area School Reform Collaborative Teacher Survey (2002). Center for Research on the Context of Teaching.Available from http://www.stanford.edu/group/CRC/.

Bentler, P. M. (1993). EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school

students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 2334.Brophy, J. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from performance goals. Educational Psychologist, 40,

167176.Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1988).The high school as community: Contextual influences and consequences for

students and teachers. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, University ofWisconsin.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., & Carey, D. A. (1988). Teachers pedagogical content knowledgeof students problem solving in elementary arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19,385401.

Church, M., Elliot, A., & Gable, S. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, andachievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 4354.

Clermont, C. P., Borko, H., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Comparative study of the pedagogical content knowledge ofexperienced and novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 , 419441.

Coladarci, T., & Fink, D. R. (1995). Correlations among measures of teacher efficacy: Are they measuring the samething? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, SanFrancisco, CA.

Deci, E. L., Spiegel, N. H., Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Kauffman, M. (1982). The effects of performancestandards on teaching styles: The behavior of controlling teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,

852859.Deemer, S. A. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher

beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research, 46, 7390.Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. NY: Macmillan.Driel, J. H. van, Verloop, N., & Vos, W. de (1998). Developing science teachers pedagogical content knowledge.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673695.Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological

Review, 95, 256273.Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34,

169189.Even, R. (1993). Subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: Prospective secondary teachers

and the function concept. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education., 24, 94116.

Fives, H., & Alexander, P. A. (2004). How schools shape teacher efficacy and commitment: Another piece in theachievement puzzle. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 329359).Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching strategies: Undermining childrens self-determination and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 916924.

Friedel, J. M., Cortina, K. S., Turner, J. C., & Midgley, C. (2007). Achievement goals, efficacy beliefs and copingstrategies in mathematics: The roles of perceived parent and teacher goal emphases. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 32, 434458.

Friedel, J., Marachi, R., Midgley, C., & Turner, J. (2002). Stop embarrassing me! Relations among studentperceptions of teachers, classroom goals, and maladaptive behaviors.Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming subject-matter knowledge: The role of pedagogical content knowledge inlearning to reflect on teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 673683.

Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (1999). Id rather not do it the hard way: Student and classroom correlates of eighthgraders avoidance of academic challenge.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Montreal.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/CRC/http://www.stanford.edu/group/CRC/

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

25/28

Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 467476.

Goddard, R. D. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective efficacy: Thedevelopment of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 97111.

Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of teacher and collective efficacy. Teaching andTeacher Education, 17, 807818.

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, andimpact on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 37, 479507.

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments,empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33, 313.

Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). High school accountability: The role of collective efficacy.Educational Policy, 18, 403425.

Goodlad, J. I. (1975). The dynamics of educational change: Toward responsive schools. NY: McGraw-Hill.Greenberg, H. M. (1969). Teaching with feeling: Compassion and self-awareness in the classroom today. Toronto,

Ontario: Macmillan.Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2000).What makes teacher community different from a gathering of

teachers?Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Available athttp://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/Occasional.html#Community .Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community.Teachers College

Record, 103, 9421012.Gutman, L. M. (2006). How student and parent goal orientations and classroom goal structures influence the

math achievement of African Americans during the high school transition. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 31, 4463.

Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Cambell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct.British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87106.

Henson, R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmasin the development of teacher efficacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 137150.

Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study of the teacher efficacy

scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 404420.Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement in high

school: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 7793.Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student

achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 425446.Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional

criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.Husman, J., Brem, S., & Duggan, M. A. (2005). Student goal orientation and formative assessment. Academic

Exchange Quarterly, 9, 355359.Irwin, J. W., & Farr, W. (2004). Collaborative school communities that support teaching and learning. Reading

and Writing Quarterly, 20, 343364.Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002). Classroom goal structure and student disruptive behavior. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 191211.Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 24, 330358.Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J., Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2002). Achievement goals and goal structures. In C.

Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning(pp. 2153). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1999). The relationship between perception of the classroom environment andearly adolescents affect in school: The role of coping strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 11,187212.

Karabenick, S. A. (2004). Perceived achievement goal structure and college student help seeking. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 96, 569581.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Kumar, R. (2006). Students experiences of homeschool dissonance: The role of school academic culture and

perceptions of classroom goal structures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 253279.Kurz, T. B., & Knight, S. L. (2004). An exploration of the relationship among teacher efficacy, collective teacher

efficacy, and goal consensus. Learning Environments Research, 7, 111128.

http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/Occasional.html#Communityhttp://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/Occasional.html#Community

8/13/2019 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

26/28

Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R., & Smith, J. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on teachers efficacyand satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190208.

Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple goal contexts topromote students motivation and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 197213.

Lynch, C. S. (2007). Investigating novice teachers efficacy beliefs across time. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Lynch, C. S., Duggan, M. A., Husman, J., & Pennington, N. (2006). The role of context on the teacher efficacy

beliefs of beginning teachers. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation, New Orleans, LA.

Maehr, M. L. (2001). Goal theory is not deadnot yet, anyway: A reflection on the special issue. EducationalPsychology Review, 13, 177185.

Marachi, R., Friedel, J., & Midgley, C. (2001). I sometimes annoy my teacher during math Relations betweenstudent perceptions of the teacher and disruptive behavior in the classroom. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Marachi, R., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2000). Comparisons of elementary, middle, and high school teachersbeliefs and approaches to instruction using a goal orientation framework.Paper presented at the annual meeting

of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journalof Teacher Education, 41, 311.

McDermott, K. A. (2007). Expanding the moral community or blaming the victim? The politics of stateeducation accountability policy. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 77111.

Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, andacademic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487503.

Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle school teachers andstudents: A goal theory approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90113.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom,under what circumstances, and at what cost?. Journal of Educational Psychology 93, 7786.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., et al. (2000).Manual

for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Available at http://www.umich.edu/%7Epals/manuals.html .

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students use of self-handicapping strategies. TheJournal of Early Adolescence, 15, 385411.

Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and performance goals: A further examination.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 6175.

Miller, A. D., & Murdock, T. B. (2007). Modeling latent true scores to determine the utility of aggregate studentperceptions as classroom indicators in HLM: The case of classroom goal structures. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 32, 83104.

Murdock, T. B., Miller, A., & Kohlhardt, J. (2004). Effects of classroom context variables on high schoolstudents judgments of the acceptability and likelihood of cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96,765777.

National Center for Education Statistics (1996). Teachers sense of community: How do public and private schoolscompare?U.S. Department of Education (NCES IB-10-96).

Newman, F. M., Rutter, R. A., & Smith, M. S. (1989). Organizational factors that affect school sense of efficacy,community, and expectations. Sociology of Education, 62, 221238.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-110 (2002). The Statue and PDF of the law are availableonline at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.

Noddings, N. (1992).The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. NY: Teachers CollegePress.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory(2

1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main

Documents

Transcript of 1-s2.0-S0361476X07000185-main