The Influence of Collective Efficacy on Mathematics Instruction in Urban Schools

Although, researchers have repeatedly demonstrated the positive relationship between collective efficacy and student achievement (e.g., Goddard, 2001; TschannenMoran & Barr, 2004), little research focuses on the mechanism of this connection. At the time of this writing, this study is one of the first to examine this association. Insight into how collective efficacy relates to teacher practice can lead to a better understanding of improving instruction, student achievement, and schools in general. In this paper, we explore the relationship between collective efficacy and middle school mathematics instruction in two urban school districts undertaking education reform. Using survey data and video recorded classroom lessons from 109 teachers across 25 schools, we employ multilevel modeling to find a modest and statistically significant relationship between collective efficacy and mathematics instruction, as measured by the Instructional Quality Assessment. RUNNING HEAD: Collective efficacy and instruction 2 Introduction American schools are under continual, immense pressure to close the persistent achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their more advantaged peers (e.g. National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2013). In order to narrow these gaps, numerous policymakers and district leaders have sought to improve instruction across whole systems. However, these instructional reform efforts are often ushered in quickly and rarely meet success (e.g., Elmore, 1996; Gamoran et al., 2003). In order for these school reform efforts to make persistent changes in teachers’ practice, districts must leverage systematic supports (Cobb & Jackson, 2011) geared towards improving pedagogy. For example, districts might invest heavily in resources and strategies such as curricular materials, ongoing professional development, instructional coaching, or professional learning communities. Many district and school leaders though fail to take advantage of a critical systematic support when adopting reform: collective efficacy. Emerging from his work on social cognitive theory, Bandura defined collective efficacy as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given levels of attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 477). In the context of elementary and secondary education, does the faculty believe in their motivation and skill to educate all students? School-wide collective efficacy has a consistent link to student achievement above and beyond that of prior performance and socioeconomic status (Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004; Hoy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002; Goddard, LoGerfo, & Hoy, 2004; Salloum, under review). Goddard and colleagues (Goddard, Goddard, Kim, & Miller, 2015) extended this line of inquiry by exploring the role that collective efficacy, RUNNING HEAD: Collective efficacy and instruction 3 as well as principal leadership, plays in teachers’ instructional improvement efforts. In this paper, we continue this work by directly examining the connection between collective efficacy and instruction. If policymakers and district leaders hope to improve instruction across a system and thereby close achievement gaps, collective efficacy may be a key condition in facilitating support structures. Thus, in this paper, we explore the relationship between collective efficacy and mathematics instruction in two urban school districts undertaking education reform. Review of the Literature In this study, we consider the interaction between collective efficacy and classroom instruction. We begin this section by reviewing the literature on collective efficacy through the lens of social cognitive theory and then briefly explore the research linking collective efficacy to student achievement. Next, we employ Cohen and Ball’s (1999) instructional framework, which argues that the environment in which instruction is embedded greatly impacts interactions between the teacher, students, and content. Finally, we argue that collective efficacy, as an aspect of the instructional environment, can influence instruction. What is Collective Efficacy? Collective efficacy is a group’s belief in its capabilities to achieve a common goal. Using social cognitive theory as a framework, Bandura (1997) posits that, “efficacy beliefs influence the degree of persistence and creativity with which individuals and groups approach prospective tasks” (Goddard et al., 2015, p. 507). As a learning theory, RUNNING HEAD: Collective efficacy and instruction 4 social cognitive theory espouses that a person’s knowledge and behaviors are heavily influenced by the behaviors and attitudes a person observes around them (Bandura, 1986). In schools, this means that teachers’ beliefs and actions are greatly affected by the beliefs and actions of their fellow teachers as well as students, parents, and school leaders. For example, a teacher will be more likely to attempt a new instructional technique if he or she sees the rest of the faculty embrace the new pedagogy. Bandura (1986, 1997) posited that four differences sources shape all efficacy beliefs: mastery (enacted) experiences, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and affective states, and researchers have shown how these aspects can influence a group’s collective efficacy (e.g., Goddard, 2001; Goddard et al., 2015). This emergent group property is more than the sum of its parts as several factors may contribute to collective efficacy: the knowledge and skills of those in the organization; how the organization is managed, structured, and led (Goddard & Salloum, 2012); and relationships and interactions between colleagues (Somech & Darch-Zahavy, 2000; Moolenaar, Sleegers, & Daly, 2012; Berebitsky & Salloum, under review). While a school might be populated with competent teachers, collective efficacy will not characterize the faculty if the teachers do not believe in their collective capability. Whether naturally occurring or engineered, collective efficacy matters to group goal attainment. When applying social cognitive theory to education, schools with a robust sense of collective efficacy approach difficult tasks as challenges to overcome as opposed to impossible undertakings. Such organizations set high goals for themselves and maintain a strong commitment to meeting these goals. When faced with a setback, highly efficacious teachers are resilient and therefore recover quickly (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). RUNNING HEAD: Collective efficacy and instruction 5 Teachers in schools with higher levels of efficacy attribute failure to insufficient effort, knowledge, or skill. Research has shown that teachers in schools with higher levels of collective efficacy tend to engage in more reflective dialogue (Lim & Eo, 2014), exhibit more professional commitment (Ware & Kitsantas, 2007), and report greater job satisfaction (Caprara et al., 2013). In comparison, schools with lower levels of collective efficacy tend to shy away from difficult tasks. Organizations with lower efficacy may have modest ambitions and weak commitment to the goals they set. When faced with an impediment, these groups focus on their shortcomings and give up quickly. Because school faculties with low levels of efficacy may attribute poor performance as a deficit in student aptitude, they are unlikely to be as resilient and could quickly lose faith in their capability (Bandura, 1997; Salloum, 2011). Therefore, faculties with similar skill levels but variant levels of collective efficacy may engage students in instruction in fundamentally different ways. The Relationship Between Collective Efficacy and Achievement Perhaps the most important reason researchers pursue collective efficacy is the powerful relationship with student achievement (e.g. Bandura, 1993; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). In Bandura’s (1993) seminal study, collective efficacy was positively and significantly related to school-level achievement in both mathematics and reading. Multilevel work by Goddard, Hoy, and Woolfolk Hoy (2000) supported and expanded upon Bandura’s initial scholarship by establishing a relationship between collective efficacy and individual student achievement in mathematics and reading in urban elementary schools after controlling for race and socioeconomic status. A number RUNNING HEAD: Collective efficacy and instruction 6 of quantitative studies have linked collective efficacy to student performance in elementary (e.g., Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000), middle (e.g., Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004), and high school contexts (e.g., Hoy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002; Goddard, LoGerfo, & Hoy, 2004). Other researchers have explored this link qualitatively in low socioeconomic (e.g., Parker, Hannah, & Topping, 2006) and international contexts (e.g., Klassen, Chong, Huan, Wong, Kates, & Hannok, 2008). While these studies illustrate the consistent association between collective efficacy and student achievement, few researchers have empirically examined whether or not this is strictly a direct association or whether collective efficacy may influence student learning through some other mechanism. We hypothesize that one potential way that collective efficacy could ultimately affect student achievement is via the core of teachers’ work: instruction. Instruction Defined At the most basic level, the process of teaching and learning is based on interactions between a teacher and her students around educational materials (Cohen & Ball, 1999). Consistent with this viewpoint, instruction requires all three elements. Figure 1 presents this conceptual model, illustrating the fundamental elements of the classroom ecology: the triad of teacher, students, and content, which is embedded in environments (e.g., Cohen Raudenbush & Ball, 2003; Sizer, 1984). The sides of the triangle indicate three central relationships composing instruction: (1) teacher and student, (2)