How School Leaders Might Promote Higher Levels of Collective Teacher Efficacy at the Level of School and Team

Abstract

Leaders search for effective leadership practices to ensure success. A quantitative study was conducted to determine what behaviors a leader could use to improve collective teacher efficacy at the level of the entire faculty and at the level of grade level teams. This article focuses on using the inverse relationship between transformational leadership and collective teacher efficacy to strengthen efficacy of teachers of English Language Learners. The Collective Efficacy Scale (Goddard, 2001) was modified to measure the perceptions of teachers at both levels; entire faculty's collective efficacy and the collective efficacy of their team. Thus, this article also provides leaders with important information regarding teaming within schools. The significant difference found between collective teacher efficacy at the level of school and team, provides important information for leaders to consider as they support professional learning teams. Success for all would be promoted as leaders increase efficacy within teams by employing the concepts of developing leadership teams and purposeful learning communities (Hill & Lundquist, 2008).

The relationship between teacher leadership and collective teacher efficacy in Chinese upper secondary schools

“…The third approach involves telling stories of past successes to remind individual teachers or teams of their abilities. The final approach to improving collective teacher efficacy is through affective states, which entail fostering excitement and pleasure in the accomplishments or tasks being pursued (Goddard et al , 2004; Prelli, 2016).…”

Teacher Leadership Practices That Foster Efficacy and Equity in Schools

“…Conversely, Prelli (2016) found a negative relationship between transformational leadership and CTE. Additionally, in a few studies of organizations outside of education, authentic leadership was positively correlated with collective efficacy (Xiong & Fang, 2014), as were transactional and transformational leadership (Sudha, Shahnawaz, & Farhat, 2016), whereas laissez-faire leadership was negatively correlated with collective efficacy (Sudha et al, 2016).…”

“…In an attempt to more clearly understand how the construct of leadership relates to both teacher efficacy and CTE, the researcher considered the leadership of principals (inclusive of instructional, transformational, transactional, authentic, and laissez-faire), teachers, and a few types of leaders outside of education. Literature is still emerging in these areas, and several studies have indicated that leadership positively and significantly correlates with efficacy beliefs (R. Goddard et al, 2015;Hallinger, Hosseingholizadeh, Hashemi, & Kouhsari, 2017;Ninković & Knežević Florić, 2018;Ross & Gray, 2006); however, the findings have been somewhat mixed in regard to principal leadership (Fancera & Bliss, 2011;Prelli, 2016). Findings have been more conclusive in the area of teacher leadership, showing more consistent, strong connections to CTE in the literature (Angelle et al, 2011;Angelle & Teague, 2014;Derrington & Angelle, 2013).…”

Peer observation to foster collective teacher efficacy: teachers' perceptions about collegial visits

“…, 2015). In climates where collective responsibility, continued learning and collaboration are facilitated, CTE exists (Prelli, 2016). Despite what is known, research focused on how to establish or enhance CTE within schools has yet to be extensively explored (Mosoge et al.…”