Theoretical perspectives

The construct of teacher efficacy is the result of two different theoretical perspectives, Rotter’s (1966) locus of control theory and Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory. According to Rotter (1966) locus of control refers to the extent a person believes that the perceived cause(s) of an intended outcome are within his/her control. “Social cognitive theory is concerned with human agency, or the ways that people exercise some level of control over their own lives” (Goddard, Hoy and Hoy, 2000: 480). The following sections present how understandings of teacher efficacy developed from these two different theories.

4.2.2.1 The first conceptual strand

Based on Rotter’s social learning theory, studies on efficacy were first conducted by the Rand Corporation. The Rand researchers were inspired by the following thoughts of Rotter’s (1966) article entitled “Generalised expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement”:

Teachers who concur that the influence of the environment overwhelms a teacher’s ability to have an impact on a student’s

learning exhibit a belief that reinforcement of their teaching efforts lies outside their control or is external to them. Teachers who express

121

confidence in their ability to teach difficult or unmotivated students evidence a belief that reinforcement of teaching activities lies within the teacher’s control or is internal (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998: 3). In 1976 the Rand researchers, based on Rotter’s thoughts, included two efficacy items (mentioned in italics below) in their questionnaire to examine the success of various reading programmes and interventions among minority students (Armor et al., 1976).

Rand item 1: “When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much because most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment”.

A teacher who agrees with this statement indicates that environmental factors overwhelm all the attempts and hard work he or she exerts in schools.

Environmental factors include realities in a student’s home or in the community, conflicts and violence in the society, socio-economic realties related to class, race and gender of the student, their emotional and cognitive needs and value given to education at home and so on. All these factors have their impact on students’ motivation and performance in the school (Tschannen-Moran et al., ibid). Rand item 2: “If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students”.

A teacher who agrees with this statement indicates confidence in his or her ability as a teacher to overcome factors that could make student learning difficult. The teachers who have confidence in their abilities as teachers show that they have adequate training and developed strategies to overcome the obstacles in educating their students (ibid.).

The Rand researchers combined the score of those two statements “to determine one overall efficacy score” (Fives, 2003: 5) and called the level of teachers’ agreement with these two statements as teacher efficacy, “a construct that

purported to reveal the extent to which a teacher believed that the consequences of teaching – student motivation and learning – were in the hands of the teacher, that is, internally controlled” (Tschannen-Moran et al., ibid: 4). According to

Tschannen-Moran et al. (ibid).

“It may have been simply a hunch or a whim, but they got results, powerful results, and the concept of teacher efficacy was born” (p. 2).

122

4.2.2.2 A second conceptual strand

As explained above, while the first strand of efficacy research was based on Rotter’s theories, a second strand emerged out of “Bandura’s social cognitive theory and his construct of self-efficacy” (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998: 6). Researchers (e.g. Zee and Koomen, 2016; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001; Ashton and Webb, 1986; Gibson and Dembo, 1984) generally credit the Stanford professor Albert Bandura (1977; 1986) for providing the theoretical framework for understanding the efficacy of teachers. Bandura (1977), in his seminal work “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioural Change” defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). Dibapile (2012) says,

The importance of belief in self-efficacy is that it acts as a mediator between knowledge and behaviours while connecting to environmental situations. Self-efficacy provides useful information for teachers with knowledge and skills; if they have a high teacher efficacy they can have an impact on the behaviours of students as well as overcome environmental challenges (p. 83).

Teacher self-efficacy

According to Goddard, Hoy and Hoy (2000), Bandura (1977) identified teacher efficacy as a type of self-efficacy – “the outcome of a cognitive process in which people construct beliefs about their capacity to perform at a given level of

competence” (p. 481). These beliefs affect how much effort individuals make, how long they can withstand the challenges they face, their resilience in times of failures and the stress they undergo in coping with demanding situations (ibid.). Hoy (2000) defines teacher self-efficacy as teachers’ confidence in the ability to promote student learning. Teacher self-efficacy is vital not only for student

success but also for the success of the teacher. According to Hoy, Hoy, and Davis (2009 in Vadahi and Lesha, 2015: 83), “greater efficacy leads to greater effort and persistence, which leads to better performance, which in turn leads to greater efficacy”.

123

4.2.2.3 Conceptual confusion of teacher efficacy

According to Goddard, Hoy and Hoy (2000) there is some confusion about the nature of teacher efficacy as it has been effected from two separate conceptual strands. They say that some have assumed that Rotter’s internal locus of control and Bandura’s perceived self-efficacy are more or less the same. In explaining the difference between the two concepts Bandura (1977) pointed out that beliefs about one's capability to produce certain actions (perceived self- efficacy) are not the same as beliefs about whether actions affect outcomes (locus of control). Locus of control and perceived self-efficacy have no empirical relationship with each other. Rotter’s internal and external locus of control is not related to personal efficacy but primarily concerned with causal beliefs about the relationship between actions and outcomes.

4.2.2.4 Two classes of expectations

According to Bandura (1977) there are two classes of expectations that can influence human behaviour: an efficacy expectation, the "conviction that one can successfully execute the behaviour required to produce the outcome" and an outcome expectation, "a person's estimate that a given behaviour will lead to certain outcomes" (p. 193).

The former is the conviction that one has the ability, knowledge, and skills to successfully execute the behaviour or actions required to produce the desired outcome(s). The latter represents a person’s

estimate of the likely consequences (impact) of performing a task at the self-expected level of performance. That is, outcome expectancy is the belief that a given behaviour or action will indeed lead to expected outcome(s) (Gavora, 2010: 2).

Coladarci (1992), Enochs, Smith and Huinker (2000) and Woodcock (2011) explain the aforementioned two classes of expectations within the context of teaching. For example, an outcome expectation is illustrated by the teacher who believes that skilful instruction can overcome external influences (issues of family and environment) on the student. “Here, efficacy is expressed not for oneself but, rather for an abstract collective of teachers” (Coladarci, ibid: 324). “An efficacy expectation, in contrast, would be reflected by the teacher's confidence that he or

124

she personally is capable of such [skilful] instruction” (ibid.). Hoy and Woolfolk (1990) named these two classes of expectation as "general teaching efficacy" and "personal teaching efficacy" (also Cf. Woodcock, 2011). Coladarci (ibid.)

simplified this distinction to "general efficacy" and "personal efficacy". Bandura (1977; also Cf. Bandura, 2006 and Woodcock, 2011) argued that a teacher who possesses a high level of personal efficacy may have lower general efficacy. It is because of his or her belief that the home and environmental factors external to the teacher’s control have a greater impact on student learning than the teacher. In contrast, a new teacher may believe that teachers, in general, can teach their students effectively, but the teacher him/herself lacks the skills to teach the lesson effectively.

Gavora (ibid.) says that if a teacher is going to be successful, he or she should possess both high efficacy expectation and high outcome expectation.

Importantly, if the teacher possesses the former and lacks the latter, it is unlikely that the teacher will be successful even if he or she is professionally qualified.

4.2.2.5 Four sources of efficacy

According to Bandura (1997; also see Gavora, 2010) there are four sources which can facilitate the development of high teacher self-efficacy: i) mastery experiences, ii) vicarious experiences, iii) social persuasion and iv)

psychological and emotional states.

i) Mastery experiences

Mastery experiences are the most powerful source of efficacy information. “These experiences are situations in which teachers demonstrate their own

teaching success, thus proving that they are competent teachers” (Gavora, ibid: 2). However, Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) say that not all successful

experiences encourage efficacy. For example when success is gained “through extensive external assistance, relatively late in learning, or on an easy and

125

unimportant task” efficacy is not enhanced (p. 19). Goddard, Hoy and Hoy (2000) support this contention as they say that when success is frequent or too easy, failure may produce discouragement. Gavora (ibid) observes that when things go wrong in teaching this can lead to teachers experiencing low self- efficacy:

Whenever teachers engage in teaching activities, they interpret their results and use these interpretations to develop beliefs about their ability to engage in similar activities. If these activities are consistently

successful, they tend to raise self-efficacy or, conversely, if these activities typically produce failure, self-efficacy is likely to be lowered. Therefore, if a teacher initially has a low sense of efficacy, it will bring doubt about his/her abilities. Such doubt likely will result in failure in teaching, and also reinforce low self-efficacy (ibid: 3).

ii) Vicarious experiences

Vicarious experience is viewed as learning from observing the successes of other teachers. Gavora (ibid.) says that when teachers observe and model their success their colleagues may learn from their successes which in turn will enhance their positive self-efficacy. In the same manner, observing the failures of other teachers despite the individual teacher making a strong effort may affect efficacy beliefs negatively and lead the teacher to the conclusion that teaching is difficult and unmanageable (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Huber (1996) connects vicarious experiences with individual and collective teacher efficacy (see also section 4.2.2.7). Just as vicarious experiences enhance personal teacher efficacy, they also promote collective teacher efficacy because “organizations learn by observing other organizations” (Goddard, Hoy and Hoy, ibid: 484).

iii) Social persuasion

Coaching and encouraging feed-back given by colleagues or superiors may influence teacher self-efficacy positively (Gavora, ibid.). Formal teacher development programmes such as course work and professional development workshops provide teachers with information about their teaching career, strategies and methods for teachers to enhance their skills. However, such

126

skills may not enhance teachers’ efficacy until they successfully use those skills to enhance students’ learning (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Goddard, Hoy and Hoy, ibid.). Goddard, Hoy and Hoy (ibid.) contend that verbal persuasion alone is not sufficient but teachers have to encounter “models of success and positive direct experience” (p. 484) to promote their collective teacher efficacy. Emotional support also enhances teachers’ self-efficacy (Gavora, ibid.).

iv) Psychological and emotional states

Gavora says that teachers’ self-efficacy judgements are influenced by their psychological and emotional states. While teachers’ excitement and

enthusiasm can indicate success in teaching stress, anxiety and other negative emotional states may lead teachers to negatively judge their own teaching abilities and skills.

Hoy (2000) views the school setting itself, particularly the situations which help to make novice teachers feel settled in their school, “as having a potentially powerful impact on a teacher’s sense of efficacy” (p. 43). For example, offering help to new teachers can be an important way as this may help them not to experience a series of failures which in turn affect mastery experiences, one of the prime sources of a sense of efficacy (Hoy, ibid.). Henson (2001) says that self-efficacy beliefs are considered as the major mediators for our behaviour, and particularly, behavioural change. Other works of Bandura continued to develop for over two decades (cf. Bandura, 1982, 1986, 1993, 1996) and his works “defend the idea that our beliefs in our abilities powerfully affect our behaviour, motivation, and ultimately our success or failure” (Henson, 2001: 3).

Bandura (1997 as cited in Henson, 2001: 3) “proposed that because self- efficacy beliefs were explicitly self-referent in nature and directed toward perceived abilities given specific tasks, they were powerful predictors of behaviour”.

127

4.2.2.6 Implication of sources of efficacy in Jaffna context

Since the current study investigates how the teaching efficacy of English teachers is affected by various problems and challenges, it is appropriate to consider the sources which promote or are likely to promote the efficacy of the teachers of English in the context of Jaffna in Sri Lanka.

Regarding mastery experiences, unlike the teachers in high-performing schools, the teachers in low-performing schools may rarely have successful teaching experiences as their students generally have lower levels of English (see discussion in 7.3 of Chapter Seven). Recurrent experiences of the

researcher as a teacher of English with his colleagues in rural schools suggest that their students’ poor performance made them feel discouraged and

frustrated.

Vicarious experiences are more likely to be associated with the teachers in high-performing schools than those in low-performing schools. This is because, according to the extensive teaching experience of the researcher in the context of Jaffna, the former have opportunities to teach with experienced colleagues, but the latter do not have such opportunities in their small and rural schools. In some cases, the teachers in low-performing schools are likely to be deprived of vicarious experiences totally as they are teaching English as sole teachers in their schools (the experiences of teachers in low- performing schools who are the sole teacher of English in their school is discussed further in Chapter Seven).

The continuous professional development programmes, seminars and workshop conducted regularly by the Department of Education in Sri Lanka as social persuasion are more or less equally available to the teachers both in low and high-performing schools (see discussion in 7.4 of Chapter Seven). However the teachers in high-performing schools are likely to enjoy more social persuasion than their counterparts as the former tend to teach with senior colleagues who might give feedback and encouragement to their junior teachers (see discussion in 7.4 of Chapter Seven).

128

As discussed in Chapter Two (2.1.3) teachers in Sri Lanka, particularly the teachers in the North and East of Sri Lanka, were directly exposed to the civil war and its consequences such as internal displacements, social insecurity, low income, destruction of cultural values among students and many others. These can negatively contribute to the psychological and emotional states of teachers which is one of the sources of teachers’ efficacy.

The above mentioned problems and challenges associated with the sources of teacher efficacy in the schools in Jaffna imply that the current study needs to explore to what extent an absence of sources of efficacy contributes to a lack of teaching efficacy amongst teachers of English.

4.2.2.7 Collective teacher efficacy

Collective teacher efficacy relates to the perception a group of teachers have about their ability to affect the academic performance of their students (Ramos et al., 2014). Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000) define this as the perceptions of teachers in a school that their efforts as a whole will positively affect student learning. According to these researchers teachers’ shared beliefs shape the normative environment of the school they teach in and become an important aspect of the culture of the school.

Based on the social cognitive theory of Bandura (1997), collective teacher efficacy is related “to the way people exert some control over their own lives, or to the beliefs in their own capacities to produce certain action” (Ramos et al., ibid: 179). “Therefore, the collective efficacy refers to the exercise of the action in the ambit of the group, being comprehended as the shared beliefs by the body of teachers to produce effects over determined actions” (ibid., Cf:Bandura, 1997). Five and Looney (2009) contend that like a personal sense of efficacy collective efficacy beliefs for groups can have effect on their “goal setting, motivation, effort and persistence with challenging tasks or situations” (p. 183).

129

4.2.2.8 Collective efficacy as a property of schools

Bandura (1993; 1997 in Goddard et al., 2000) views collective teacher efficacy as an important school property. This is because of the relationship between teacher efficacy and student performance as Goddard et al. contend,

Just as individual teacher efficacy may partially explain the effect of teachers on student achievement, from an organizational perspective, collective teacher efficacy may help to explain the differential effect that schools have on student achievement (p. 483).

Hence, collective teacher efficacy has the potential to explain how schools differ in achieving their objective i.e., student learning (ibid.). Therefore in the current study it will be important to ascertain whether teachers in high and low-

performing schools have different perceptions of their teaching efficacy, and if such perceptions as Goddard et al (ibid) contend are illustrative of the ways in which schools in Jaffna differ in their approach in achieving student

learning/success in acquiring English.

The literature reviewed on collective teacher efficacy generated themes such as teachers’ attitude of togetherness in achieving their goals, importance of the collective teacher efficacy to foster parent-teacher relationships and the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and the academic pressof the school. These themes are outlined below.

i) Attitude of togetherness

Protheroe (2008) contends that teachers in a school who are characterised by a “together we can do” attitude are more likely to face challenges and are less likely to give up. However, it is argued that teachers with a low level of collective efficacy are reluctant to accept responsibility for their student failures, but instead are ready to blame students’ socio-economic state and their lack of knowledge as the causes for their failure.

ii) Collective teacher efficacy and parent-teacher relationship

The study of Brinson and Steiner (2007) finds a positive impact of collective efficacy on parent-teacher relationships. According to these authors, the teachers who are confident in their abilities and effectiveness are more willing to welcome

130

parents’ contribution in their children’s academic performance. Brinson and Steiner also say that collective efficacy also tends to enhance teacher commitment to school as it encourages individual teachers to share with others what they know.

iii) Collective teacher efficacy and academic press of the school The work of Hoy, Sweetland and Smith (2002) found a positive relationship between teachers’ collective efficacy and the academic press, that is “the extent to which the school is driven by a quest for academic excellence” (ibid: 79) of the school. They said that when teachers’ collective efficacy is strong the school has a strong focus on academic pursuits which not only help teachers persist but also to reinforce “a pattern of shared beliefs” (ibid: 89) held by the teachers. Hence