MEASURING COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN SCHOOLS A Mixed Methods Exploration JOHN ERIC LINGAT JULIA HERZING DR. ELLEN USHER 1
2
Definition COLLECTIVE EFFICACY a group s shared perceptions and judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to positively influence student outcomes 3
Theoretical Framework SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY Environmental Factors Personal Factors Behavioral Factors (Bandura, 1989) 4
Theoretical Framework SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY Environmental Factors Personal Factors Behavioral Factors (Bandura, 1989) 4
Theoretical Framework SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY Environmental Factors Personal Factors Behavioral Factors (Bandura, 1989) 4
School Performance Selfefficacy 5
School Performance Collective Efficacy 5
Background 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
Purpose EXPLORE THE MEASUREMENT OF COLLECTIVE EFFICACY USING AN EXPLORATORY MIXED METHODS DESIGN 8
METHODOLOGY Participants 18-25 25-35 35-45 45-55 65+ Female Male African-American Latino/Hispanic White 5% 3% 2% 2% 28% 92% 25-55 28% 28% 72% female 72% 96% white 36% 17% 9% 17% 96% 57% teacher 17% 20% 50% elementary 50% 57% 13% Leader Administrator Teacher Other Elementary Middle High Other 9
METHODOLOGY Measures TIME 1: Qualitative Phase July 2017 Open-ended response Scale Development TIME 2: Quantitative Phase September 2017 Pilot Survey 10
METHODOLOGY Measures TIME 1: Qualitative Phase July 2017 Open-ended response Scale Development TIME 2: Quantitative Phase What NURTURES collective efficacy in your school? What UNDERMINES collective efficacy in your school? September 2017 Pilot Survey 10
METHODOLOGY Measures TIME 2: Quantitative Phase 14 items Rating scale: 1 (Not at all certain) to 4 (Very Certain) How certain are you that YOUR SCHOOL can... 11
METHODOLOGY Measures 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? 11
METHODOLOGY Measures 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? 11
METHODOLOGY Measures 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? 11
METHODOLOGY Measures 12
13
RESULTS Quantitative Responses by Level of Measurement Self Group School 14
RESULTS Qualitative Selfishness and pride. Reluctance to change and close mindedness different views, goals, and attitudes If every teacher was held accountable for goals set school wide. The establishment of norms, taking time to build foundation. Everyone keeping an open mind. 15
RESULTS Integrative: Group 3.79 3.07 2.79 4.00 2.00 1.14 1.07 NURTURES Collective Efficacy open minded, more collaborative 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. 16
RESULTS Integrative: Group 4.00 3.79 3.07 2.79 UNDERMINES Collective Efficacy the inability of communicate and [think] outside of the box. Fear of change. Reluctance to change and close mindedness 2.00 Communication 1.14 1.07 16
RESULTS Integrative: School 4.00 NURTURES Collective Efficacy 3.33 3.00 2.57 Better use of time More time to collaborate 1.79 more frequent meetings, meetings that are beneficial and relevant 17
RESULTS Integrative: School 4.00 3.33 3.00 2.57 1.79 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. 17
INTERACTIONS I can achieve school goals but I m less confident about my group or my school. MINDSETS CULTURE RESOURCES 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
REFERENCES Bandura, 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