connecting professional learning communities ...

6 downloads 15739 Views 1MB Size Report
May 27, 2016 - MPhil Educational Leadership and School .... efficacy (CTE) and teachers' sense of self-efficacy? 4. What are ... towards TSES, CTE and PLCs?
CONNECTING PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES, TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY AND COLLECTIVE TEACHER EFFICACY: A MIXED METHODS EXPLORATORY STUDY OF TEACHER COMMUNITIES IN MAL AYSIAN SCHOOLS.

Derk Tiong MPhil Educational Leadership and School Improvement University of Cambridge [email protected] Presentation for Kaleidoscope 2016: Graduate Student Conference at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge

‘Practitioner’… …to ‘Practitioner Researcher’. 27 May 2016

Objectives:

27 May 2016

1.

Feedback on current project (esp. qualitative analysis and ‘mixing’ data)

2.

Helpful resources

3.

Recommendations for future studies (PhD proposal)

RESEARCH?

27 May 2016

RESEARCH INTEREST?

(OECD, 2011).

27 May 2016

Attractive (Profession?) Effective (impact)

Moral Fulfilled

Resilient Curious

Reflective

Teachers who are…

Critical

Enthused Transformational With sense of agency 27 May 2016

Creative

Values

Social, Political, Historical Context

Tacit Knowledge

Reflective

Propositional Experiential

27 May 2016

MY MPHIL JOURNEY… Substantive Interests… Oct ‘15 Distributed Leadership/ Teacher Leadership

27 May 2016

Jan ‘16 The Lifeworld (Sergiovanni, 2000; Habermas, 1986)

Feb ‘16 Teacher SelfEfficacy (Bandura, 1997)

Mar ‘16 Professional Learning Communities

KEY TERMS

Professional Learning Communities

27 May 2016

Teacher Self-Efficacy Collective Teacher Efficacy

“Indeed it may be argued that professional learning is an even higher priority than children’s learning, as ignorance of how children learn and grow may be worse than no teaching at all. Bad teaching produces dysfunctional learners and justifies some of the criticisms of schooling…” John MacBeath (2009) Professor Emeritus, University of Cambridge

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES ‘Critical friendship’ ‘You will find that your greatest resources during your time here at Cambridge are your peers.’ Sue Swaffield

(ELSI Induction Session 2015/16)

27 May 2016

KEY TERMS Terms

Working Definitions

Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)

The community of teachers collaborating to improve student outcomes by focusing on critical questions and putting their learning into practice.

Teacher SelfEfficacy

‘Beliefs that human beings have in their own ability and capacity to take action and succeed’ (Bangs & Frost, 2012). Involves the expectation that the teacher will be able to facilitate student learning (Ross, 1992). Involves beliefs in instructional strategies, classroom management, student engagements.

Collective Teacher Efficacy

Involves shared practice, favourable conditions (structure & relationships), collective learning, supportive leadership and shared values & vision. (Hord, 1997)

The degree to which teachers believe their school is efficacious (Hoy, Tarter & Hoy, 2006) or that their faculty as a whole can organize and take action to have a positive effect (Goddard & Goddard, 2001) 27 May 2016

Shared & Supportive Leadership

Shared Values & Vision

Supportive Conditions (Relationships + Structures)

Effective PLCs

Collective Learning and Application 27 May 2016

Shared Personal Practice

Hord (1997)

The community of teachers collaborating to improve student outcomes.

Professional Learning Community

Constructivist Learning (Hord, 2009)*

27 May 2016

Context and Theory

Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998)

Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) Considered superior to decontextualized teacher training (Webster-wright, 2014)

27 May 2016

Greater collaboration with a focus on learning outcomes (Hipp et al 2008) Increased staff motivation and commitment (Hord, 1997)

Increased teacher self-efficacy (Weißenrieder, 2015)

Improved student outcomes in absolute and equitable terms (Vescio et al. 2008; Hallam et al. 2014)

RATIONALE FOR STUDY Personal interest in school improvement and teacher wellbeing

Scarcity of research in Malaysia on teacher self-efficacy (Murshidi et al., 2006) Valid construct across culturally diverse settings? (Klassen et al., 2008) Professional Learning Communities – policy target (Ministry of Education, 2013)

27 May 2016

RESEARCH QUESTIONS: 1. What is the relationship between professional learning communities (PLCs) and collective teacher efficacy (CTE)? 2. What is the relationship between professional learning communities (PLCs) and teachers’ sense of self efficacy (TSES)? 3. What is the relationship between collective teacher efficacy (CTE) and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy? 4. What are some possible factors that contribute towards TSES, CTE and PLCs? 27 May 2016

PARADIGM(S) Dialectic stance (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009): all paradigms are valuable but only partial worldviews. Mixed methods research necessary to improve understanding of PLCs (Dooner et al., 2008; Hairon et al., 2015).

Personal professional learning as a researcher (Jang et al., 2008; Bliss, 2008) and a consumer of literature (Perry & Nichols, 2015).

27 May 2016

RESEARCH DESIGN Construct

Instrument

Professional Learning Community

Professional Learning Community Assessment – Revised (Olivier & Hipp, 2010)

Teacher Self-Efficacy

Collective Teacher Efficacy

N

Procedures (SPSS+Amos)

96 1. Descriptive Statistics (46.4%) 2. Spearman’s rho (Comparing constructs) 3. ANOVA (Background Teacher’s Sense of Self-Efficacy 90 information) Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, (43.5%) 4. Cronbach’s Alpha 2001) 5. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Collective Teacher Beliefs Scale 79 (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004) (38.2%)

Question

Instruments

Sample

RQ4 – what contributes…

Semi-structured interviews (Skype)

Teachers who volunteered through the questionnaire

27 May 2016

ACCESSING SCHOOLS 1. Invited private Malaysian schools to participate (criterion: teachers must be accessible via institutional emails) 2. 6 schools agreed (4 schools participated) 3. Sent emails with questionnaire link (Surveymonkey)

4. Issued periodic reminders to increase response rates 5. Gathered volunteers for interview through questionnaires. Purposive sampling

Distance Self-selection bias 27 May 2016

INSTRUMENTS 54-item questionnaire

Reliability measures: Cronbach’s alpha – 5 sub-scales from Hord (1997)

Professional Learning Community Assessment – Revised (Oliver et al., 2003; Oliver & Hipp, 2010)



Shared and Supportive Leadership (.94)



Shared Values and Vision (.92)



Collective Learning and Application (.91)



Shared Personal Practice (.87)



Supportive Conditions-Relationships (.82)

Amended to sixstep Likert Scale*



Supportive Conditions-Structures (.88)



Construct validity: Confirmatory Factor Analysis & Expert Study (Oliver & Hipp, 2010)

27 May 2016

MEASURING TEACHER SELFEFFICACY 2 questionnaires: 1. 12-item CTB scale (TschannenMoran & Barr, 2004) 2. 24-item TSES instrument (TschannenMoran & Hoy, 2001) Data collection instruments selected on the basis of high reliability scores, brevity, high construct validity and frequent use. 27 May 2016

REQUISITE FOR QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS Harrington (2008): "It may be possible to treat the variables (on a Likert-type category) as continuous/interval when there are at least five response categories, the sample size is sufficiently large, and the data are approximately normally distributed (i.e. not extreme skewness or kurtosis)" (p. 45)

27 May 2016

1. DATA DISTRIBUTION Statistics N

Valid Missing Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis

27 May 2016

TSES 96 0 .016

CTB

90 6 -.158

PLCA

79 17 -.731

.246

.254

.271

-.717

-.129

1.436

.488

.503

.535

27 May 2016

2. CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS Model fit confirmed factor structures.

Teacher’s Sense of Self Efficacy 1. Student Engagement 2. Instructional Strategies 3. Classroom Management

27 May 2016

2. CFA (2) Collective Teacher Beliefs (Efficacy)

1. Instructional Strategies 2. Student Discipline

27 May 2016

CFA (3) Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised

1. Shared and Supportive Leadership 2. Shared Vision and Values 3. Collective Learning and Application 4. Shared Personal Practice 5. Supportive Conditions (Relationships)

6. Supportive Conditions (Structures)

27 May 2016

3. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY (1) Scales

Items

TSES Scale (N= 96)

1-24

Subscale 1

Efficacy in Student Engagement (TSES_SE)

Subscale 2

Subscale 3

27 May 2016

Number α of items 0.957 24

1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 22

8

0.885

Efficacy in Instructional Strategies (TSES_IS)

7, 10, 11,17, 18, 20, 23, 24

8

0.899

Efficacy in Classroom Management (TSES_CM)

3, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21

8

0.930

3. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY (2) CTB Scale (N=90)

25-36

12

0.9 50

Subscale Collective Efficacy in Instructional Strategies 1 (CTB_IS)

25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 35

6

0.9 27

Subscale Collective efficacy in 2 Student Discipline

27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 36

6

0.9 15

27 May 2016

3. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY (3) PLCA-R (N=79)

37-88

52

0.981

Subscale 1

Shared and Supportive Leadership

37-47

11

0.934

Subscale 2

Shared Values and Vision

48-56

9

0.946

Subscale 3

Collective Learning and Application

57-66

10

0.946

Subscale 4

Shared Personal Practice

67-73

7

0.914

Subscale 5

Supportive Conditions (Relationships) Supportive Conditions (Structures)

74-78

5

0.872

79-88

10

0.898

Subscale 6

27 May 2016

4. CORRELATIONS (SPEARMAN’S) Correlations between scales Spearman’s rho

TSES

Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N

CTB

Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N

PLCA-R

Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N

27 May 2016

TSES 1.000

CTB .439**

PLCA-R .339**

.

.000

.002

96

90

79

.439**

1.000

.535**

.000

.

.000

90

90

79

.339**

.535**

1.000

.002

.000

.

79

79

79

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

5. COMPARING MEANS (ANOVA) Background information

Gender Years of Teaching Experience Years spent at school Qualification

27 May 2016

ANOVA (Teacher’s Experience)

TSES

Between Groups Within Groups Total

CTB

Between Groups Within Groups Total

PLCA 27 May 2016

Between Groups

Within Groups

Sum of Squares

Mean Square

df

18.192

4

4.548

81.051

91

.891

99.243

95

4.833

4

1.208

119.643

85

1.408

124.475

89

3.915

4

.979

47.618

74

.643

F

Sig.

5.106

.001**

.858

.492

1.521

.205

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS Q4: What are some possible factors that contribute towards TSES, CTE and PLCs? Interviews with 5 teachers (1 Mathematics, 2 English, 1 Science, 1 Physical Education) Grounded theory approach (initial open coding -> axial coding -> selective coding) (Strauss & Corbin, 1998)

Mixing data (?)

27 May 2016

LIMITATIONS Not ‘fully mixed’ and ‘equal status’ (Kington et al., 2011)

‘Grounded theory’? Saturation. Overstretched Sampling method Response rates (88-item questionnaire) Overstretched?

Unit of analysis -> Departments?

27 May 2016

CONUNDRUMS Inductive Vs Deductive Coding? Mixed methods vs Multi methods? Equal vs Unequal Methods?

27 May 2016

27 May 2016

1.

Feedback on current project (esp. qualitative analysis and ‘mixing’ data)

2.

Helpful resources

3.

Recommendations for future studies (PhD proposal)

REFERENCES (1) Dooner, A.-M., Mandzuk, D., & Clifton, R. A. (2008). Stages of collaboration and the realities of professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 564–574. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.009 Hairon, S., Goh, J. W. P., & Lin, T.-B. (2014). Distributed leadership to support PLCs in Asian pragmatic Singapore schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 17(3), 370–386. http://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2013.829586 Harrington, D. (2008). Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hipp, K. K., Huffman, J. B., Pankake, A. M., & Olivier, D. F. (2008). Sustaining professional learning communities: Case studies. Journal of Educational Change, 9(2), 173–195. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-007-9060-8

Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED410659

27 May 2016

REFERENCES (2) Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher Efficacy Research 1998—2009: Signs of Progress or Unfulfilled Promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21–43. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (Preschool to Post-Secondary). Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Murshidi, R., Konting, M. M., Elias, H., & Fooi, F. S. (2006). Sense of Efficacy Among Beginning Teachers in Sarawak. Teaching Education, 17(3), 265–275. http://doi.org/10.1080/10476210600849730

OECD. (2011). Building a High Quality Teaching Profession - Lessons

from Around the World. Background Report for the International Summit on the Teaching Profession. Paris: OECD. 27 May 2016

REFERENCES (3) Olivier, D. F., & Hipp, K. K. (2010). Assessing and Analyzing Schools as Professional Learning Communities. In K. K. Hipp & J. B. Huffman,

Demystifying professional learning communities: School leadership at its best. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Olivier, D. F., Hipp, K. K., & Huffman, J. B. (2003). Professional learning community assessment. In J. Huffman & K. K. Hipp, Reculturing schools as professional learning communities. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press. Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher Efficacy and the Effects of Coaching on Student Achievement. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de L’éducation, 17(1), 51–65. http://doi.org/10.2307/1495395 27 May 2016

REFERENCES (4) Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2010). Overview of Contemporary Issues in Mixed Methods Research. In Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural research (Second, pp. 1–44). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering Student Learning: The Relationship of Collective Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189–209. http://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503706

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1 27 May 2016

REFERENCES (5) Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004 Weißenrieder, J., Roesken-Winter, B., Schueler, S., Binner, E., & Blömeke, S. (2015). Scaling CPD through professional learning communities: development of teachers’ self-efficacy in relation to collaboration. ZDM, 47(1), 27–38. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11858015-0673-8 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, And Identity (New Ed edition). Cambridge University Press. 27 May 2016

THANK YOU

27 May 2016