Exploring Language Teacher Efficacy in Japan. Gene Thompson
Читать онлайн книгу.
(Armor et al., 1976: 73)
The researchers identified that a key teacher factor was their belief that ‘they could “get through” even to children with shaky motivation or home background’ (Armor et al., 1976: 38). They labelled this ‘personal efficacy’, and in a later Rand report, it was defined by Berman et al. (1977: 137) as ‘the extent to which the teacher believes he or she has the capacity to affect student performance’. The Rand studies demonstrated the value of teacher control beliefs, spurred action into teacher efficacy research and later studies using the two Rand items showed significant relationships between stronger ‘personal efficacy’ and student achievement (e.g. Ashton & Webb, 1986).
At the same time as the Rand study was being carried out, Albert Bandura (1977) was developing his theory of self-efficacy to discuss the role of cognition as a psychological process in learning and regulating behaviour. For Bandura (1997: 3), the crucial aspect of human agency was the individual’s beliefs in their personal efficacy, which he later defined as ‘beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments’. He argued that such beliefs act as cognitive mediators of behaviour, influencing action, effort, perseverance, resilience and stress coping strategies.
Bandura’s self-efficacy theory led to a reevaluation of the Rand items and a reinterpretation of the construct of teacher efficacy. The Rand items were designed to reflect a locus of control orientation, by examining the extent to which respondents perceived internal versus external control of what could be achieved by teachers (see Berman et al., 1977). However, the Rand study authors discussed ‘personal efficacy’ as a type of ‘confidence’, and noted that such teachers put forward extra (often special) efforts to help students because they were ‘confident that their teaching would yield positive results’ (Armor et al., 1976: 38).
A number of researchers (Ashton et al., 1983; Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Gibson & Dembo, 1984) used Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory to reinterpret the two Rand study items, arguing that self-efficacy theory provided a clearer conceptual framework. To these researchers, Item 1 ‘When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much – most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment’ reflected outcome expectancy, while Item 2 ‘If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or un-motivated students’ oriented towards self-efficacy, where such ‘beliefs would be teachers’ evaluation of their abilities to bring about positive student change’ (Gibson & Dembo, 1984: 570).
Bandura (1977) had differentiated between ‘outcome expectations’ and ‘efficacy expectations’ by highlighting the difference between the effect on individual behaviour, where
outcome expectancy is defined as a person’s estimate that a given behaviour will lead to certain outcomes. An efficacy expectation is the conviction that one can successfully execute the behaviour required to produce the outcomes. Outcome and efficacy expectations are differentiated, because individuals can believe that a particular course of action will produce certain outcomes, but if they entertain serious doubts about whether they can perform the necessary activities such information does not influence their behaviour. (Bandura, 1977: 193)
In other words, the crucial aspect to Bandura was the extent to which individuals perceived that they have the necessary skills and competence to carry out actions in order to produce outcomes, rather than simply whether people believed that their actions produced outcomes. With respect to the two Rand items, teachers may reject Item 1, as they may believe that teachers can influence student achievement (i.e. strong outcome expectancy), but also disagree with Rand Item 2, as they may not have strong self-beliefs in their capability to effectively help lesser-motivated students (i.e. low personal efficacy). Accordingly, they may not put forth the effort to influence student learning.
Research findings have generally supported this distinction. Gibson and Dembo (1984) developed a 30-item questionnaire and tested this difference, using factor analysis to show that each of the Rand items loaded on separate factors. More recent studies (e.g. Ho & Hau, 2004; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) have subsequently shown perceived external control and teacher efficacy to be different constructs.
Finally, in a seminal article that brought the two teacher efficacy strands together, Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998: 22) argued that teacher efficacy should be conceptualised as a form of self-efficacy, defining it as the ‘teacher’s belief in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context’. Although the authors questioned whether the interpretation of the Rand Item 1 as outcome expectancy was appropriate, it seems clear that the interpretation of the Rand items as two distinct constructs started the realignment of the field towards a view of teacher efficacy as a form of self-efficacy.
Later, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) introduced the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), an efficacy scale with long (24 item) and short (12 item) versions, from which exploratory factor analysis had identified three dimensions of teacher efficacy (Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, Classroom Management). Developed by a team of researchers and graduate students at The Ohio State University (and originally called the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale [OSTES]), this new means of assessing teacher efficacy would have a major impact on the field. Their article may be the most widely cited in the field (see Kleinsasser, 2014), and has stimulated research into teacher efficacy internationally (e.g. Cheung, 2006, 2008; Tsui & Kennedy, 2009), including studies of language teacher efficacy (e.g. Chacon, 2005; Swanson, 2010a; Yilmaz, 2011).
As research developed, it began to be recognised that teachers do not work alone; they work as part of teams. Bandura (1997) has suggested that efficacy beliefs influence the choices of individuals and organisations; therefore, teacher efficacy may be collective. Given the social structure and context of schools as social enterprises with numerous actors working together to help students learn and achieve, Goddard et al. (2000: 482) explained that ‘collective efficacy is associated with the tasks, level of effort, persistence, shared thoughts, stress levels, and achievement of groups’. In a study of teachers carried out in Norway, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007) further explained the potential importance of perceived collective teacher efficacy, stating,
teachers do not always work alone. In most Norwegian schools, teachers now work in teams sharing responsibility for a larger group of students. The actual instruction is partly done by individual teachers in smaller groups and partly by pairs of teachers in a larger group. Much of the organizing and the planning are done in teacher teams. The individual teachers’ self-efficacy may therefore be dependent on the functioning of the team. (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007: 613)
Thus, teacher capability has both individual and collective aspects, incorporating ‘an organizational dimension’ (Goddard et al., 2004a: 4). Professional practice, teacher influence on instruction, text selection and materials development are examples of activities in which beliefs would be formed about the capability of the teaching faculty. These perceptions may affect the efficacy assessments of teachers, thus individual teacher efficacy may be influenced by team dynamics and beliefs about faculty capability.
Studies have demonstrated positive relationships between individual and collective efficacy (Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), and indicated that collective efficacy may be crucial for curriculum change (Goddard et al., 2004b). There is also evidence that stronger perceived collective efficacy is related to student achievement (Goddard, 2002; Goddard et al., 2015; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). A series of meta-analyses (Hattie, 2012, 2015) have examined the relationship between student achievement and educational activities, identifying collective teacher efficacy to exert one of the strongest positive influences. Accordingly, this type of teacher efficacy appears to be a valuable area for future research and has many avenues for further exploration. Most collective teacher efficacy research has been carried out in the United States or in countries with similar cultural backgrounds (Klassen et al., 2011), thus a greater understanding is needed about the relationship between individual and collective efficacy, and the areas where individual and collective teacher efficacy beliefs operate, in international (i.e. non-Western) contexts.