INCUMPLIMIENTO EN LOS CONTROLES ALEATORIOS EN LA VÍA PÚBLICA

The moderate correlation between collective efficacy and teacher efficacy supports previous assertions that collective efficacy functions as an emergent group-level characteristic that evolves through the working interactions of a school staff (Bandura, 2000; Goddard et al., 2000). The collective efficacy of a staff is grounded in the beliefs of individuals about their capabilities to effectively carry out teaching tasks but is also potentially greater than the sum of individual teachers’ attributes (Bandura, 2000) and beliefs (Goddard, 2000) because it is influenced by school dynamics and the quality and purposefulness of teacher’ interactions as a faculty (Bandura, 2000; Goddard, 2001). The level of the collective efficacy beliefs in each of the ten schools studied

160

verified that it emerges as a staff characteristic and suggested that its strength can be influenced through the interplay of three factors: (a) school wide outcomes that constitute mastery experience, (b) means of interpreting and processing outcomes that lead to positive and affirming understandings about effectiveness, (c) structures that enable teachers to translate past results that illustrate their capabilities into a future direction.

All 10 middle schools in my study had Outstanding Oregon State Report Card ratings for the three consecutive school years leading up to and including the year of this study, meaning that mastery experience in terms of statewide performance indicators was reported at the highest possible level. The increased attention given to these ratings because of NCLB and highly publicized annual results might have added to perceptions of the importance of the statewide report card. Teachers in this study had past mastery experiences that could potentially influence decisions about future collective actions and goals, and positively influence efficacy beliefs. Mastery experience was found to have the most profound impact on efficacy beliefs when the four sources of efficacy were repeatedly identified in teacher and collective efficacy research (Goddard, 2001; Tschannen-Moran & McMaster; 2009; Woolfolk-Hoy & Spero, 2005). Teachers who participated in this study stated that they saw themselves as belonging to high achieving schools where students, teachers, parents, and the community support and value education and academic performance. This indicated that they have most likely interpreted statewide assessment results as mastery experience.

161

experience information that increases collective efficacy. It may have been the

processing of mastery experience and the ongoing interpretation of performance results that significantly influenced teacher and collective efficacy (Goddard, 2001; Labone, 2004). The relatively high achievement along with the reported opportunities for regular collaboration and feedback suggests that there is some effective means of processing and interpreting potential mastery experiences occurring in the schools in this study. The moderately strong relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in the ten middle schools parallels Goddard and Goddard’s (2001) findings that teacher efficacy in elementary schools associated with their samples increased as collective efficacy increased. Although it is not known whether increases in collective efficacy lead to increases in teacher efficacy, results from this study and previous studies do suggest that principals could build staff unity around improving achievement and use collaborative processes to develop staff members’ skills in interpreting performance outcomes and determining the next actions. It is highly likely that this would increase collective efficacy.

Teachers’ perceptions of their own capabilities might have contributed to the overall beliefs of a staff that were greater than the sum of individuals’ views and were probably more apt to influence collective efficacy when there were factors that affected staff members’ interpretations of efficacy information (Ross et al., 2003), which could have been the case in schools that all received high achievement ratings from the state. Teachers in the ten schools commented that support and feedback from their principals contributed to their effectiveness in working with students. Because the middle schools in this study had teams or professional learning community in place, it was more likely

162

that they were able to process and be collectively influenced by past achievement. The cumulative effect of individual positive interpretations of this information could have increased collective efficacy (Goddard, et al., 2000) and along with the opportunities for discussing and acting on the interpretation of it, supports the correlation between teacher and collective efficacy.

Goddard (2001) noted that the collective use of past mastery experience influenced future actions. The three or more years of Outstanding ratings received by schools in this study may have a continually affirming effect that in turn leads to actions that lead to a cycle of collective efficacy and high performance. Within the six school districts represented, there were middle schools in three of them with similar SES that did not maintain Outstanding ratings for three years and did not receive it in 2010-2011, although almost half of them did receive the highest rating at least once in a three-year period. In two of the school districts, there were only the two middle schools that participated in the study and in one district, there was a 10% difference in SES between the school that received Outstanding ratings for three years and the four other middle schools. This suggests that the mastery experience and collective efficacy cycle exist in the schools selected for the study. Results from this study indicate that individual teacher efficacy and achievement information can be effectively processed when principals focus collaboration on student achievement, and if the dynamic for

interpretation is robust and focused on future actions, collective efficacy can emerge in a school and contribute to strong academic performance.

The significant correlation between teacher academic efficacy and collective academic efficacy, and between teacher behavioral efficacy and collective behavioral

163

efficacy, corresponds to previous findings in three areas: (a) the subscales used to measure teacher and collective efficacy, (b) the relationship between teacher efficacy and collective efficacy, and (c) the effects of an academic focus. The teacher efficacy and collective efficacy surveys used in the study were developed using key elements of earlier instruments. Both surveys identified subscales for the two areas of teaching that covered most of the key teaching tasks (Goddard, 2002; Tschannen-Moran &

Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). The areas referred to as academic efficacy and behavior efficacy in this study were called instructional strategies and student discipline in previous studies, and strong correlations existed between the subscales and overall teaching efficacy and collective efficacy. This suggests that the relationship between teacher efficacy and collective efficacy includes the subscales of academic and behavioral efficacy.

Results from my study strengthen previous findings about the relationship between achievement and efficacy. Teacher academic efficacy promotes student achievement (Allinder, 1994; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Bandura, 1993) and there is a reciprocal relationship between collective efficacy and student achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). In addition to demonstrating high levels of achievement in reading and mathematics, the 10 schools in my study were characterized by an emphasis on high expectations and academic excellence. Collective efficacy is a key predictor of differences in reading and mathematics achievement in schools (Bandura, 1993; Goddard et al., 2000). This study affirmed the potential for improving achievement in schools by developing collective efficacy within a teaching staff. By regularly using achievement data and having participatory processes in place that involve the entire

164

staff in interpreting results and determining actions based on those results, principals could ensure that mastery experience is a continual and relevant source of collective efficacy. Increasing collective efficacy might contribute greatly to improving achievement.

Question 2: Findings and Interpretation about the Difference between Overall