Teacher efficacy beliefs and classroom behaviour

1. Teacher efficacy beliefs and classroom behaviour Ben Powell & Simon Gibbs

2. Behaviour • Concerns and responses (standards, teacher stress, effects for children) • Teachers’ attributions and beliefs (individual and collective) (Almog, O. & Schechtman, Z., 2007; Miller, 1995) • Implications …

3. Teachers’ attributions about children’s behaviour • Teachers more likely to attribute causes of misbehaviour to parents / children; but • Teachers more likely to attribute improvement to themselves than parents / children. (Miller, 1995) So, what helps teachers achieve greater success?

4. Efficacy Beliefs ‘Most courses of action are initially shaped in thought. People’s beliefs in their efficacy influence the types of anticipatory scenarios they construct and rehearse. Those who have a high sense of efficacy visualize success scenarios that provide positive guides and supports performance. Those who doubt their efficacy visualize failure scenarios and dwell on the many things that can go wrong. It is difficult to achieve much while fighting self-doubt.’ (Bandura, 1993, p118)

5. Teachers’ Efficacy Beliefs ‘A teacher’s efficacy belief is a [self] judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated.’ (Tschannen Moran & Woolfolk Hoy 2001) ‘Teachers’ beliefs in their personal efficacy to motivate and promote learning affect the types of learning environments they create and the level of academic progress their students achieve.’ (Bandura, 1993)

6. Teacher Efficacy Beliefs Evidence of association with teachers’ • Investment in teaching • Planning and organisation • Creativity • Persistence and working to help • Tolerance • Reduced referral to others • May vary across curriculum areas (domain specificity) And associated with children’s • Achievement • Motivation • Sense of efficacy

7. Our Research • Efficacy & behaviour (little previous research) • Structure of beliefs • Relationship between individual and collective beliefs • Outcomes - exclusion rates

8. Design & Method • Questionnaire survey • adaptations (for UK, behaviour) of TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and Goddard’s (2002) Collective efficacy scale • Opportunity sample of 57 Nursery and Primary schools in NE • School level data • Number of FTE • FSM • Urban/Rural

9. Individual Efficacy items[6 point scale: Nothing….A great deal] • How much can you do to control disruptive behaviour in the classroom? • How much can you do to motivate pupils who present difficult behaviour and show a low interest in schoolwork? • How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school, specifically children who you consider to be presenting difficult behaviour?

10. Collective Efficacy items[6 point scale: Strongly disagree….Strongly Agree] • If a pupil who presents difficult behaviour does not want to learn, teachers here give up. • Teachers here are confident they will be able to motivate pupils who they consider to be presenting difficult behaviour in class. • Drug and alcohol abuse in the community make learning difficult for pupils presenting difficult behaviour here.

11. Findings 1 • Responses from 197 teachers • 57% urban; 42% rural • Individual Efficacy (α=.92) • 3 factors (replicating Klassen et al 2009; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) consistency across culture and domain: • Classroom Management; Children’s Engagement; Instructional Strategies • Collective Efficacy (α=.79) [individual & group referent] • 3 factors (in contrast to Goddard’s (2002) one) • Teacher Skills; Motivating Pupils; Addressing External Influences

12. Findings 2 • All 3 aspects of Individual Efficacy beliefs associated with individual teachers’ sense of the Collective Efficacy of staff ‘Motivating Pupils’ • Individual Efficacy beliefs not associated with exclusion rate

14. Findings 3 • Collective beliefs in Efficacy Addressing External Influences associated with reduced number of exclusions • Teachers unsuccessful interventions wrt behaviour attributed to ‘external influences’ (Miller, 1995) • Collective beliefs may be associated with leadership style

15. Findings 4 Exclusions: • More from schools in urban settings • More from schools with higher FSM • Fewer from schools with higher Collective Efficacy addressing External Influences

16. References Almog, O. & Schechtman, Z. (2007) Teachers‟ democratic and efficacy beliefs and styles of coping with behavioural problems of pupils with special needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(2), 115-129 Bandura, A. (1993) Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148 Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman Goddard, R. (2002) A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 97-110. Klassen, R.M., Bong,M. Usher, E.L. et al, (2009) Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 67-76 Miller, A. (1995) Teachers' Attributions of Causality, Control and Responsibility in Respect of Difficult Pupil Behaviour and its Successful Management, Educational Psychology, 15(4), 457-471 Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001) Teacher Efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

17. Questions • What mechanism(s) might associate Collective (but not individual) efficacy beliefs (particularly wrt ‘External Influences’) with exclusion rate? • How might these be investigated? • Does the work reported here have implications for the work of applied psychologists – if so what are these?