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
