Understanding the nature of teachers' collective efficacy and ...

Understanding the nature of teachers’

collective efficacy and its relationship

with school structures in the context of

international schools in Shanghai

Tania Blatti

ORCID: 0000-0003-3930-9809

A thesis submitted in total fulfilment for the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Melbourne Graduate School of Education

THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

October 2021

i

Abstract

Contemporary research suggests that Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE) is

related to positive student outcomes. The goal of this research was to

understand the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy in the context of

international schools in Shanghai and specifically its relationship to school

structures. An explanatory sequential mixed method design across two linked

studies was adopted to explore the key research questions. Study One used a

survey and in-depth interviews with 9 expatriate teachers from one school to

determine the appropriateness of instruments and the relationship between

CTE and school structures. Study Two involved 323 teachers from four

international schools. Participants answered an enhanced survey, then

interviews were conducted with 13 expatriate teachers. The results indicate that

collective efficacy within the international school context is a multidimensional

construct involving group operative capabilities. These findings align with

Bandura's original intention for the CTE construct and take into account

environmental, personal and behavioural factors. Further, the study concludes

that utilising this expanded understanding of CTE in international school

settings may contribute to increased organisational effectiveness and ultimately

benefit the learning lives of students.

iii

Declaration

I declare that this thesis comprises of my own original work towards the Doctor

of Philosophy degree. All materials contained has not been submitted for any

other degree in any university. To the best of my knowledge, this thesis

contains no materials previously published or written by any other person. The

length of this thesis is within the acceptable word limit stated by the Melbourne

Graduate School of Education guidelines, exclusive of tables, maps,

bibliographies, and appendices.

Signature

Tania Blatti

v

Preface

I gratefully acknowledge that during my PhD candidature I was supported by

the Australian Research Council (ARC) stipend and the Australian Government

Training Program (RTP) scholarship for the offset of my tuition fees. The work

contained within this thesis is submitted for the purpose of the requirements for

a PhD candidature.

One manuscript was published during this period of the PhD candidature.

Some of the text on pages 82, 86-88 and 101 is from this publication:

• Blatti, T., Clinton, J., & Graham, L. (2019). Exploring collective teacher

efficacy in an international school in Shanghai. International Journal of

Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18(6), 214-235.

In this publication I was the primary author and contributed more than 50 per

cent of the content. I was responsible for the planning, execution and

preparation of the work for publication.

vii

Acknowledgements

I am truly blessed because I did not walk this journey alone. The successful

completion of this thesis would not have been possible without a village of

people who supported me both personally and professionally. I would like to

express my sincere and heartfelt appreciation to significant people, without

whom this project would not have been possible.

It is with great pleasure to express my deep sense of gratitude to my

supervisors, Professor Janet Clinton, Deputy Dean, Director, Teacher and

Teaching Effectiveness Research Hub in the Centre for Program Evaluation, and

Professor Lorraine Graham, Professor of Learning Intervention and Associate

Dean (International and Engagement). Prof. Clinton and Prof. Graham, you

both made this possible. I want to thank Prof. Clinton for giving me this

opportunity. At all the right moments you reminded me to stop and smell the

roses and take the time to pause, reflect and enjoy the learning. Prof. Graham,

your consistent guidance and support shaped and reshaped the value of my

work, your expertise was invaluable, and your timely feedback pushed me to

think deeper, sharpen my views and brought my work to a higher level. With

all my heart I thank you both for believing in me, especially during times when

I doubted myself. I am endlessly inspired by your intellect and commitment. I

am truly blessed to have you both walk alongside me, offer encouragement and

advice throughout this life changing journey.

In addition to my wonderful supervisors, I would like to thank my advisory

committee chair, Dr. Ghislain Arbour and my committee member, Dr. Jon

Quach, for their encouragement and insightful comments. I’d also like to thank

the extremely talented team of researchers at the Centre for Program Evaluation

for their valuable guidance, thought partnership and support – my sincerest

appreciation for your help. To Cathy McPherson, I deeply appreciate your

guidance, generosity, and encouragement. Thank you for taking the time to

advise me on writing with clarity and purpose. I thank Dr Janene Carey for

viii

editorial assistance with this thesis, which took the form of copyediting as

specified in Standards D and E of the Australian Standards for Editing Practice.

To all the international teachers and leaders in Shanghai who participated in

this study. I value and appreciate the time you invested to share your

experiences and insights. I hope this investigation brings richness and

usefulness to the community. To my Shanghai Jinqiao family, your generosity

overwhelms me. Thank you for always being there for me and my family.

I would like to thank my parents – my COVID-19 lockdown partners, Tom

and Sonja Krupic. You are my pillars of strength. Your love and support never

wavered and your deep desire for me to live a purposeful life motivated me to

continue to persevere and push through moments of helplessness. I owe John

and Carmen Blatti a debt of gratitude for their support and encouragement.

Last but not least, to my husband, Anthony, my lifelong partner and

unfailing supporter throughout this journey, and our children Amaia and

Aidan – you are my inspiration. Amaia and Aidan, I dedicate this work to you;

to strengthen the international education system so that you, your friends, and

the future generation of leaders are afforded the best opportunities as third

culture kids in this global world.

It not only takes a village to raise a child, but it also takes a village to deliver

this thesis. Without these people and God’s love, this thesis would not have

been possible. Together we are better!

ix

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ i

Declaration ............................................................................................................................................... iii

Preface ......................................................................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................vii

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... ix

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... xiii

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... xv

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background of the Study................................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Changes in the Global International School Market .................................................................. 3

1.3 The Problem Statement .................................................................................................................. 4

1.4 Research Significance...................................................................................................................... 6

1.5 Aims and Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 7

1.6 Research Design .............................................................................................................................. 7

1.7 Structure and Organisation of Thesis ........................................................................................... 8

1.8 Definition of Terms ......................................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 13

2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 13

2.2 Social Cognitive Theory and Efficacy ........................................................................................ 14

2.2.1 Historical development of social cognitive theory ........................................................... 14

2.2.2 Triadic reciprocal determinism ........................................................................................... 16

2.2.3 Capabilities in human functioning ..................................................................................... 17

2.2.4 Agency .................................................................................................................................... 18

2.2.5 Self-efficacy............................................................................................................................. 19

2.2.6 Sources of efficacy ................................................................................................................. 21

2.2.7 Efficacy-activated process .................................................................................................... 23

2.3 Teacher Efficacy in Schools .......................................................................................................... 25

2.3.1 Internal versus external control of reinforcement ............................................................ 26

2.3.2 Multidimensional model of teachers’ self-efficacy ........................................................... 27

2.3.3 General teaching efficacy (GTE) and personal teaching efficacy (PTE) ........................ 29

2.3.4 General efficacy and personal efficacy ............................................................................... 31

2.3.5 Cyclical nature of teacher efficacy ...................................................................................... 32

2.3.6 Teacher efficacy model ......................................................................................................... 33

x

2.4 Definitions of Collective Efficacy ................................................................................................ 34

2.5 The Evolution of Teachers’ Collective Efficacy Measurement ............................................... 36

2.5.1 Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy....................................................................................................... 37

2.5.2 Goddard .................................................................................................................................. 38

2.5.3 Tschannen-Moran and Barr ................................................................................................. 38

2.6 The Model of Teachers’ Collective Efficacy............................................................................... 39

2.6.1 Goddard, Hoy and Hoy........................................................................................................ 39

2.6.2 Adams and Forsyth ............................................................................................................... 40

2.6.3 Coordination of group dynamics ........................................................................................ 42

2.6.4 Interactive group dynamics ................................................................................................. 46

2.7 A Model for Teachers’ Collective Efficacy in Practice ............................................................. 47

2.8 The International School Functioning ........................................................................................ 54

2.9 International Schools’ Contextual Variables and Teachers’ Collective Efficacy .................. 57

2.9.1. The microsystem ................................................................................................................... 58

International school classroom setting and collective efficacy ................................................ 58

2.9.2 The mesosystem..................................................................................................................... 60

Team cohesion and collective efficacy......................................................................................... 60

School structures and collective efficacy ..................................................................................... 62

2.9.3 The Exosystem ....................................................................................................................... 63

Parent community and collective efficacy .................................................................................. 63

2.10 Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................................. 65

2.11 Teachers’ Collective Efficacy in International Schools in Shanghai .................................... 66

2.12 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 67

Chapter 3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 69

3.1 Overview of Research Methodology .......................................................................................... 69

3.2 Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 69

3.3 Philosophical Foundation for Developing the Research Study.............................................. 70

3.4 Rationale for a Mixed Methods Methodology .......................................................................... 73

3.5 The Research Design ..................................................................................................................... 73

3.6 Two-phase Sequential Mixed-methods Explanatory Design Procedure .............................. 76

3.6.1 Purposeful sampling procedure .......................................................................................... 77

3.6.2 Gaining permission ............................................................................................................... 78

3.6.3 Collecting the data................................................................................................................. 79

3.6.4 Recording the data ................................................................................................................ 79

3.6.5 Administering the data collection ....................................................................................... 80

3.6.6 Data analysis strategy ........................................................................................................... 80

Chapter 4 Method: Study One .............................................................................................................. 87

xi

4.1 Context of Study One International School ............................................................................... 87

4.1.1 Participants ............................................................................................................................. 88

4.2 Research Procedure: Phase I & II ................................................................................................ 88

4.2.1 Phase I: Survey ....................................................................................................................... 90

4.2.2 Phase II: Interviews ............................................................................................................... 95

4.2.3 Data collection and analysis................................................................................................. 97

4.2.4 Data triangulation ................................................................................................................. 99

Chapter 5 Results: Study One ............................................................................................................. 101

5.1 Phase I: Factor Structure – Collective Teacher Efficacy and School Structures Surveys .. 101

5.1.1 The collective teacher efficacy factors .............................................................................. 102

5.1.2 The school structures factors ............................................................................................. 103

5.1.3 Description of the participants .......................................................................................... 105

5.1.4. Responses on the collective teacher efficacy questionnaire ......................................... 106

5.1.5 Responses on school structures survey ............................................................................ 109

5.1.6 The relationships between school structures, teacher demographic characteristics and

collective teacher efficacy ............................................................................................................ 111

5.1.7 Contributors to the construction of collective teacher efficacy ..................................... 112

5.2 Phase II: Expatriate Teachers’ Semi-structured Interview Responses ................................. 115

5.2.1 Interview themes and subthemes ..................................................................................... 115

5.2.2 Expatriate teachers’ perspectives on collective teacher efficacy and school structures

from semi-structured interviews................................................................................................ 130

5.3 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 134

5.4 Triangulating Phase I and Phase II Data ................................................................................. 135

5.4.1 Key finding: Broadening the concept of teachers’ collective efficacy in the

international school context. ....................................................................................................... 142

5.4.2 New directions for Study Two .......................................................................................... 143

Chapter 6 Method: Study Two ........................................................................................................... 145

6.1 The Context of Four International Schools in Shanghai ........................................................ 148

6.1.1 International School A ........................................................................................................ 148

6.1.2 International School B ......................................................................................................... 149

6.1.3 International School C ........................................................................................................ 151

6.1.4 International School D ........................................................................................................ 153

6.2 Study Two Research Procedures .............................................................................................. 155

6.2.1 Study Two Instruments ...................................................................................................... 155

6.2.2 Phase II: Semi-structured interviews ................................................................................ 165

6.2.3 Data analysis strategy ......................................................................................................... 166

Chapter 7 Results: Study Two ............................................................................................................ 169

xii

7.1 Phase I Results ............................................................................................................................. 169

7.1.1 Comparing international schools survey responses ...................................................... 170

7.1.2 Description of participants in the international schools combined ............................. 171

7.1.3 Teachers’ responses on collective efficacy, team cohesion and school structures

survey items .................................................................................................................................. 172

7.1.4 Relationships between school structures, team cohesion, teacher characteristics and

collective efficacy .......................................................................................................................... 181

7.1.5 Contributors to collective efficacy..................................................................................... 184

7.1.6 Summary of results ............................................................................................................. 187

7.2 Phase II Results ............................................................................................................................ 188

7.2.1 Collective efficacy ................................................................................................................ 191

7.2.2 Team cohesion ..................................................................................................................... 210

7.2.3 School structures.................................................................................................................. 214

7.3 Summary of Phase I & II Results .............................................................................................. 217

7.4 Triangulating Study Two: Phase I and II ................................................................................. 223

7.4.1 Triangulated Results of Study Two .................................................................................. 226

Chapter 8 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 231

8.1 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................ 231

8.2 The relationship between personal, environmental and behavioural factors .................... 232

8.3 Broadening the Conceptualisation of CTE in International Schools ................................... 238

8.4 Culture of International Schools and Collective Efficacy Perceptions ................................ 252

8.5 Collective Efficacy in International Schools in Shanghai ...................................................... 256

8.6 Strengths, Limitations and Future Research ........................................................................... 260

References............................................................................................................................................... 265

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 289

Appendix A: Study One Survey ......................................................................................................... 289

Appendix B: Study One Semi-Structured Interview ..................................................................... 293

Appendix C: Study Two Survey ........................................................................................................ 295

Appendix D: Study Two Semi-Structured Interview Questions ................................................ 301

xiii

List of Tables

Table 1. Development of the Collective Efficacy Survey for an international school in Shanghai

context .............................................................................................................................................. 91

Table 2. Development of the School Structures items for an international school in Shanghai

context .............................................................................................................................................. 94

Table 3. CTE Survey, two-factor rotated solution ............................................................................. 102

Table 4. School Structures survey, factor loading ............................................................................. 104

Table 5. Frequency distributions for demographic variables (N=53)............................................. 105

Table 6. CTE questionnaire means, standard deviations, percentage of agreement.................... 106

Table 7. School Structures questionnaire, mean, standard deviation ............................................ 109

Table 8. Pearson correlations among variables.................................................................................. 112

Table 9. Predictors of Group Competence ......................................................................................... 113

Table 10. Predictors of Task Analysis ................................................................................................. 113

Table 11. Study One themes and subthemes ..................................................................................... 117

Table 12. Study One triangulation of Phase I & II ............................................................................. 137

Table 13. Participant demographic for School A ............................................................................... 149

Table 14. Participant demographic for School B................................................................................ 150

Table 15. Participant demographic for School C ............................................................................... 152

Table 16. Participant demographic for School D ............................................................................... 154

Table 17. Collective Efficacy: Teaching survey .................................................................................. 156

Table 18. Collective Efficacy: Teaching factor loadings.................................................................... 160

Table 19. Collective Efficacy: Coordination of Group Dynamics ................................................... 161

Table 20. Collective Efficacy: Interactive group dynamics .............................................................. 162

Table 21. School Structures factor loading ......................................................................................... 163

Table 22. Team Cohesion factor matrix .............................................................................................. 164

Table 23. Summary of internal reliability for all surveys ................................................................. 165

Table 24. MANOVA Results, Wilk's Lambda .................................................................................... 170

Table 25. Frequency of distributions of demographic variables (N=323)...................................... 171

Table 26. Descriptive statistics for Collective Efficacy: Teaching ................................................... 173

Table 27. Descriptive statistics for Collective Efficacy: Coordination of Group Dynamics ........ 174

Table 28. Descriptive statistics for Collective Efficacy: Interactive Group Dynamics ................. 175

Table 29. Descriptive statistics for Task Cohesion ............................................................................ 177

Table 30. Descriptive statistics for Social Cohesion .......................................................................... 178

Table 31. Descriptive statistics for School Structures........................................................................ 179

Table 32. Summary of descriptive statistics for study variables ..................................................... 181

xiv

Table 33. Pearson correlations among variable coefficients (n=323) .............................................. 182

Table 34. Predictors of Collective Efficacy.......................................................................................... 184

Table 35. Themes/sub-themes including number of participant discussions .............................. 190

Table 36. Triangulated themes ............................................................................................................. 224

xv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Triadic reciprocal determinism ............................................................................................. 16

Figure 2. Sources of efficacy ................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 3. Four elements of efficacy-activated process ........................................................................ 23

Figure 4. Timeline of significant studies contributing to the teacher efficacy construct ............... 26

Figure 5. A model of teachers’ sense of efficacy: The multidimensional construct ....................... 28

Figure 6. The cyclical nature of teacher efficacy .................................................................................. 32

Figure 7. Proposed model of the formation, influence and change of perceived collective efficacy

in schools ......................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 8. A hypothesised model of teachers’ collective efficacy ....................................................... 41

Figure 9. Degree of interdependency .................................................................................................... 44

Figure 10. The professional learning cycle ........................................................................................... 53

Figure 11. International school functioning in triadic reciprocal determinism .............................. 56

Figure 12. Framework for understanding the international educational environment ................ 57

Figure 13. Conceptual framework guiding the study ........................................................................ 65

Figure 14. Philosophical foundation for developing this research study ........................................ 72

Figure 15. Overview of the research design ......................................................................................... 74

Figure 16. Design procedure for Phase I and Phase II ........................................................................ 77

Figure 17. Administration of data collection for both Study One and Study Two ........................ 80

Figure 18. Explanatory sequential design ............................................................................................ 81

Figure 19. Coding for Study One & Two .............................................................................................. 84

Figure 20. Study One, Phase I and II procedure .................................................................................. 89

Figure 21. Connecting interview themes and subthemes ................................................................ 116

Figure 22. Triangulated results of Study One .................................................................................... 142

Figure 23. Progression of studies ......................................................................................................... 146

Figure 24. Significant predictors of collective efficacy ..................................................................... 185

Figure 25. Connective interview themes and sub-themes ............................................................... 189

Figure 26. Triadic reciprocal causation ............................................................................................... 233

Figure 27. Study One. Investigating school structures and collective efficacy ............................. 234

Figure 28. Study One. Triangulated results school structures and collective efficacy ................ 235

Figure 29. Simplified model of teachers’ collective efficacy ............................................................ 239

Figure 30. Broadening conceptualisation of teachers’ collective efficacy ...................................... 239

Figure 31.Triangulated results of Study Two .................................................................................... 241

Figure 32. Collective teacher efficacy in international schools in Shanghai .................................. 258

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

The future can be better than the present and WE have the power to make that so.

- adapted from David Brooks, Lost in the crowd

Teachers are the most important resource in educational institutions. The way

schools achieve successful learning for all students is one of the greatest

challenges for policymakers and experts in education worldwide. One construct

systematically associated with successful student learning is the collective

efficacy beliefs of teachers. There is evidence to suggest that when teachers

believe that together, they can make a difference to student learning, no matter

the circumstances, they set higher aspirational goals and demonstrate stronger

motivational investments to facilitate greater student achievements (Donohoo,

2018; Goddard et al., 2015; Sandoval et al., 2011).

Collective teacher efficacy refers to the judgement of one another’s

capabilities to organise and execute the course of action required to reach a

desired result (Bandura, 1993, 1997). These collective beliefs mobilise actions

that enable organisations to attain extraordinary levels of performance.

Collective efficacy is an important organisational property because it testifies to

the degree to which teachers work together effectively and resiliently to reach

set goals. It reflects the normative expectations of groups within an

organisation. Groups that thrive demonstrate a robust sense of capability

through effort, resilience and effective collaboration in pursuit of goals. In

contrast, groups that do not thrive avoid challenges, accept the status quo, have

lower expectations, and succumb easily to setbacks. Therefore, a robust sense of

collective efficacy can energise and motivate teachers to make the best use of

their capabilities, while a diminished sense of collective efficacy can cripple

teachers and weaken their skills. This suggests that strengthening collective

efficacy beliefs of the faculty results in productive patterns of teaching

behaviour that can improve student achievement. While collective efficacy in

2

schools has been explored in literature during the last two decades, knowledge

about the nature of relationships between teachers’ collective efficacy and the

international school context in Shanghai, China has not been investigated.

1.1 Background of the Study

The People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”) is the world’s largest

populated country with over 1.39 billion people. Since China opened its borders

to trade, there has been rapid economic growth and an accelerated pace of

globalisation. In the Shanghai municipality, the population is 26.32 million.

Households in Shanghai and Beijing spend more on education than those in

other cities across the globe. According to Daxue Consulting (2020), there are

513,000 children in China enrolled in an international style of education with

15% attending foreign-owned international schools and 75% attending Chinese-

owned international schools. In 2010, there were 351 international schools and

today there are 821 international schools in China. China is the world’s largest

source of outbound students with over 608,400 students studying overseas. As

this number increases, it drives the demand for English-medium, Western-style

education. Parents are motivated by the desire for their children to learn

English and obtain globally recognised qualifications that will provide

pathways into top international universities.

The Chinese law restricts local children from attending foreign-owned

international schools unless they hold a foreign passport or at least one parent

obtains a foreign passport. Given these strict regulations and increasing

demand for English-medium international education among the local Chinese

community, many foreign-owned international schools have partnered with

Chinese-owned private international bilingual schools to meet local demand.

International Schools Council (ISC) Research forecasts continued growth of up

to 48 new international schools in China in the next few years (2020). The key

selection criteria for parents are based on the assurance of high-quality

3

education delivered by well-trained Western teachers. The greatest challenge

for international schools is sourcing and hiring suitable teachers and leaders.

The most expensive international schools worldwide are found in Asia,

specifically China. Shanghai’s foreign-international schools top this list with

average cost of tuition ranging from $20,000 to $37,000 USD per academic year

(Blake, 2019). Foreign-Chinese and expatriate families invest heavily in

education and demand academic excellence, which places immense pressure

from all stakeholders on international schools to attain high student

achievement scores. This pressure from parents and schools impacts the

decision-making processes of leaders and teachers and intensifies focus on

performance-based accountability measures. Consequently, an emphasis on

performance results often leaves little focus on alternative approaches to

motivating and empowering teachers to discover ways to improve educational

outcomes for all students.

1.2 Changes in the Global International School Market

In July 2020, research identified a noteworthy movement in the international

school market (ISC Research, 2020). A shift in demand saw increased student

enrolment in international schools from local nationals in Asia and decreased

enrolment from Western expatriates. As a result, foreign-owned international

schools have had to adapt quickly and increase their provision for bilingual

teaching and learning practices. Globally there are 11,616 international schools

(Stacey, 2020). These international schools are situated in countries where

English is not the native language but the demand for English language

proficiency is high. Since 2015 student enrolment in international schools in

South-Eastern Asia has increased by 31.5% to 563,500 students, and in Eastern

Asia by 33.3% to 627,200 students. Over the same period, the most rapid growth

has been in Southern Asia, where student enrolment increased by 64.6% to

763,900 students. Currently, there are 5,820,000 students attending international

4

schools, with more than half of the global demand (56.85%) in Asia (Merriman,

2020).

1.3 The Problem Statement

Given the rapid global changes within the international school market in

Shanghai, and a lack of knowledge regarding the cultural ramifications of the

emergence of Western style schools in China, the objective of this investigation

is to create a deeper understanding of the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy

and its relationship with school structures.

Expatriate teachers are considered the most valuable human resource of

these international schools because of Chinese parents’ desire for their children

to receive a Western education, learn with a global perspective and gain a clear

pathway into top Western universities abroad. Therefore, this investigation is

not a comparative study and will primarily focus on expatriate teachers because

in foreign-owned international schools they make up the majority of the

teaching faculty who are responsible for delivering an English medium

curriculum. The host country teachers (Chinese) represent a small number of

the faculty and are responsible for teaching Mandarin language classes. Study

One explores expatriate teachers’ perspectives regarding collective efficacy and

school structures to gain an initial understanding of these concepts, and Study

Two surveys all international (expatriates and host country) teachers’

perspectives regarding collective efficacy and school structures.

As previously mentioned, the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its

relationships with school structures in the context of international schools in

Shanghai is not known. Despite an abundance of research on the positive

consequence of collective efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Goddard, 2001; Goddard et

al., 2000; Hattie, 2016; Ross & Gray, 2006), most often in Western schools, more

research is needed to explain this powerful notion of collective efficacy in the

context of foreign-owned international schools in China (Klassen et al., 2011).

5

Additionally, there has been some debate about the measurement of

collective efficacy. Several approaches to measuring perceptions of collective

efficacy include aggregate measures of individual self-efficacy (teachers are

required to respond to “I…” referent statements), aggregate group-referent

capability perceptions (teachers respond to “we…” referent statements), or

groups are asked to openly discuss and come to a consensus regarding their

collective efficacy. The latter is susceptible to social desirability and the

difference between the “I” and “we” refers to the perception of the object of

efficacy. Considering collective efficacy is a group-level attribute that is more

than the sum of its individual members, group-referent statements seem more

aligned with the construct and are employed in this research.

This examination of the relationships between teachers’ collective efficacy

and school structures is based on a theoretical framework provided by social

cognitive theory, a view that explains behavior is affected by (and affects) the

reciprocal influences of cognitive and environmental forces (Bandura, 1986).

Previous researchers have examined elements of collective efficacy, mostly in

Western societies; this present study yields new insights about the nature of

collective efficacy and its relationship with school structures in the context of

international schools in Shanghai, China.

China has the largest growth in the number of international schools in the

world and predominately employs expatriate teachers to work in these schools

(Merriman, 2020). Therefore, understanding the nature of relationships between

teachers’ collective efficacy and the international school context is worthy of

attention as these schools seek to maintain their competitive edge by creating an

organisation that maintains the focus of high-quality educators on achieving

successful student results. Empowering teachers with the belief that together

they can surmount challenges presented to create optimal learning

environments potentially influences teachers’ self-referent thoughts, their

choice of teaching strategies and, ultimately, student learning (Goddard et al.,

2004). Accordingly, this study endeavours to contribute to the growing body of

6

knowledge about collective efficacy in international schools by examining

variables that have received little attention within this context.

1.4 Research Significance

Studying the perceptions of teachers is an important task given their impact on

student outcomes. There is evidence that collective efficacy beliefs have the

potential to increase organisational effectiveness (Moosa, 2021; Schechter &

Tschannen‐Moran, 2006). Therefore, it is important to understand how to foster

these positive beliefs and how to encourage conditions that inspire and mobilise

teachers to exercise agency. Previous studies have predominately been

quantitative investigations in Western societies and schools; none have been

conducted in an international school setting. Considering the significance of

understanding collective efficacy within school contexts, this study intends to

investigate teacher perceptions of collective efficacy in international schools in

Shanghai. There is a dearth of research on the type of structures that exist in this

cultural setting, and an understanding of how these structures relate to teacher

perceptions of collective efficacy will be a significant contribution to increased

organisational effectiveness and ultimately benefit the learning lives of students

(Klassen et. al., 2011; Pajares, 2007).

Specifically, as current survey scales and frameworks focus on future-

orientated perceptions of collective teacher efficacy, they do not consider

teachers’ beliefs in their collective ability to collaborate and effectively engage

with one another or acknowledge important contextual factors that influence

teacher behaviour in international school settings. Additionally, current studies

do not incorporate the voices of teachers to describe more precisely the meaning

behind their perceived beliefs and how context may influence their behaviours.

Only a few studies in education have conducted in-depth, qualitative research

into the structural and social aspects of school environments and their

relationship with collective efficacy (eg., Morales, 2016; Nordick, 2017; Salloum,

2011). As quantitative or qualitative results alone may be inadequate in

7

describing and explaining expatriate teachers’ experiences, a need exists to

obtain quantitative results that are explained by qualitative data. Such a study

would include the unique voices of expatriate teachers because they are an

understudied group and crucial to international schools. Therefore, their

perspective is valuable to better understand how collective efficacy functions

within the context of international schools in Shanghai.

This study attempts to fill the identified research gap by collecting survey

and interview data from teachers’ perspectives regarding their experiences with

collective efficacy in international schools in Shanghai. In practice, these results

may provide insights about the factors that shape teachers’ judgements and will

advance our current understanding of collective efficacy and its relationships

with context.

1.5 Aims and Research Questions

The overarching aim for this investigation is to enhance our knowledge

regarding the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its relationships with

school structures in the context of international schools in Shanghai. This will

be achieved through a two-phase mixed methods sequential explanatory

design. The following research questions will be pursued:

1. What are expatriate teachers’ perspectives regarding collective efficacy

and school structures?

2. What are the broader international teachers’ perspectives regarding

collective efficacy and school structures?

3. What are the factors that relate to teachers’ perspectives of collective

efficacy in international schools in Shanghai?

1.6 Research Design

A two-phased, mixed methods, sequential, explanatory design (Creswell &

Plano Clark, 2017) was carried out by conducting two studies. The purpose of

8

this design was to obtain survey results from a purposeful sample of

international teachers, then to explain the results with follow-up, in-depth,

semi-structured interviews. In Study One, the first, quantitative phase of the

study, survey data from expatriate teachers in one school were collected to

determine associations between collective teacher efficacy, school structures,

and teacher demographic information. The second phase, the qualitative phase,

was conducted as a follow-up to explain the survey data and included

participants working in the same school. The results of Study One were used to

inform Study Two and identify areas for further investigation.

Study Two, Phase I, collected survey data from four international schools.

Phase II, the qualitative phase, collected data from semi-structured interviews

among expatriate teachers in the same four schools, and was used to further

explain survey data results. The triangulation of data provided a

comprehensive understanding of teachers’ collective efficacy and its

relationships with the international school context.

1.7 Structure and Organisation of Thesis

This thesis is comprised of eight chapters. Chapter 1 introduced the

overarching purpose of the investigation. It included a short discussion of the

value of collective efficacy in education settings and the current global

international school market within the context in Shanghai. The remaining

sections focused on the problem statement, research significance, aims, research

questions and research design.

Chapter 2 reviews the literature. The purpose of this chapter is to outline the

current state of knowledge about teachers’ collective efficacy in education. A

synthesis of previous research around the central themes of school structures,

team cohesion, teacher demographic characteristics and their relationships with

the construct of teachers’ collective efficacy brings attention to the line of

inquiry relevant to this thesis.

9

Chapter 3 provides an overview of the research methodology. This chapter

includes a rationale for the two-phased mixed methods sequential explanatory

design, its theoretical positioning and the data collection and data analysis

strategies selected.

Chapter 4 outlines the methods undertaken for Study One in the context of

international schools. In this chapter, the development of the survey instrument

for Phase I, and the interview questions in Phase II of the investigation are

described. Chapter 5 presents the results of Phase I, Phase II and the

triangulation of data.

Chapter 6 connects Study One and Study Two. It outlines the research

design for Study Two, describes the context and demographics of the four

participating international schools in Shanghai, and details the development of

the surveys and interview protocols used. Chapter 7 presents the findings of

Phase I, Phase II, and the triangulation of data.

Chapter 8 is the final chapter of the thesis. It consists of a discussion which

links the findings of both studies to literature and highlights the strengths and

limitations of the investigation. This chapter also offers recommendations and

implications for further research.

1.8 Definition of Terms

Social Cognitive Theory is “a view of human functioning that accords a

central role to cognitive, vicarious, self-regulatory, and self-reflective processes

of human adaptation and change. People are viewed as self-organising,

proactive, self-reflecting and self-regulating rather than as reactive organisms

shaped and shepherded by environmental forces or driven by concealed inner

impulses. Human functioning is viewed as a product of the dynamic interplay

of personal, behavioural and environmental influences” (Pajeres, 2002, p.1).

Human Agency has three modes: individual, proxy and collective.

Individually, people exercise agency through the intentionally of actions to

10

influence circumstances. In this view, people are self-organising, proactive, self-

regulating, and self-reflecting. People are not passive observers of their

behaviours. Proxy agency refers to a means of acting through others who have

the resources and knowledge to act on their behalf to achieve a desired

outcome. Collective agency refers to working interdependently with others

through interdependent effort. This process involves the pooling of knowledge,

skills, resources and acting in ways that are aligned to a shared vision for their

future (Bandura, 2006). The four core dimensions of agency include

intentionality, forethought, self-regulation, and self-reflectiveness. Bandura

emphasises that “The metacognitive capability to reflect upon oneself and the

adequacy of one’s thoughts and actions is the most distinctly human core

property of agency” (Bandura, 2006, p.165).

Triadic Reciprocal Determinism is a “transactional view of self and society,

internal personal factors in the form of cognitive, affective, and biological

events; behaviour; and environmental events all operate as interactive

determination that influence one another bidirectionally” (Bandura, 1997, p.6).

People do not operate as autonomous agents, nor is their behaviour wholly

determined by situational influences. Human functioning is a product of a

reciprocal interplay of intrapersonal (cognitive), behavioural, and

environmental determinants (Bandura, 1986).

Self-Efficacy is defined as "people's judgments of their capabilities to

organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of

performances" (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Self-efficacy beliefs provide the

foundation for human motivation and determine how people feel, think,

motivate themselves and behave (Bandura, 1997).

Collective Efficacy refers to “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint

capability to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce

given levels of attainment” (Bandura, 1997, p. 477).

Teachers’ Collective Efficacy is the collective performance of a social

system involving interactive, coordinative and synergistic dynamics that

11

contribute to an emergent group-level property (Bandura, 2006). It refers to “the

perceptions of teachers in a school that the faculty as a whole will have a

positive effect on the students” (Goddard et al., 2000).

Team Cohesion is defined as an active process in which the group members

are unified in the pursuit of purposes and goals (Carron, 1982). There are two

main considerations: Task Cohesion is the “extent of motivation towards

achieving the organisation’s goals and objectives” and Social Cohesion refers to

the “motivation to develop and maintain social relationships with the group”

(Carless & De Paola, 2000, p. 73).

School Structures refer to the formalisation and centralisation features of

schools. These bureaucratic structures vary along a single continuum with

‘enabling’ at one extreme to ‘hindering’ at the other. Formalisation and

centralisation are fundamental features. Formalisation refers to the extent to

which the rules, regulations and procedures are coercive or enabling.

Centralisation refers to the locus of control for organisational decision making

and the degree to which teachers participate in the process (Hoy & Sweetland,

2001).

13

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 Overview

Collective efficacy research has increased and gained popularity in schools over

the past three years. This is largely due to its potential to enhance

organisational effectiveness and improve educational outcomes. Despite this,

further research is needed to understand how perceptions of group capability

contribute to an organisational culture among international teachers. The

overarching aim of this study is to understand the nature of the relationship

between teachers’ collective efficacy and international school structures in

Shanghai. This chapter describes the theoretical background of collective

efficacy and reviews the historical evolution. This review will establish how this

investigation builds on existing evidence and the literature base and connects

social cognitive theory with concepts of school structures, the social system, and

teachers’ collective efficacy.

Several questions guided the review of the literature:

• What is social cognitive theory and how does efficacy align with the

theory?

• What is the existing research on teacher efficacy in schools?

• What research exists that focuses on the development of teachers’

collective efficacy?

• What research describes the implications of collective efficacy in

practice?

• What research focuses on the relationship between contextual

variables and teachers’ collective efficacy?

• What research on international schools has been conducted in the

field of collective efficacy?

14

First, the historical development of social cognitive theory is introduced. The

evolution from Julian Rotter’s social learning theory is described and leads to a

review of Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory. The concepts of triadic

reciprocal determinism, the different sources of efficacy beliefs and the

psychological processes through which efficacy beliefs impact people’s

capability to take some control over life’s path are reviewed to build

understanding of how efficacy aligns with social cognitive theory. Next, self-

efficacy is described as an important component of social cognitive theory,

followed by an explanation of how it develops and its impact on behaviour.

This explanation precedes the next section, which outlines the existing research

on teacher efficacy; specifically, its development, measurement and

consequences. The third section explores the existing research on efficacy at an

organisational level and focuses on teachers’ collective efficacy (TCE). Debates

regarding the definition, measurement and conceptualisation of TCE are

presented. The fourth section examines the relationship between contextual

variables and TCE and outlines the practices and impact associated with

efficacious schools. The last section examines the existing literature on collective

efficacy in Shanghai international schools. The chapter concludes with a

summary of findings and presents a conceptual framework that guides the

research.

2.2 Social Cognitive Theory and Efficacy

2.2.1 Historical development of social cognitive theory

A review of the historical development of social cognitive theory is crucial to

understanding the concept of efficacy. Prior to the work of Rotter (1966), the

popular view of learning was associated with behaviourism, which connects

stimuli and actions through reward and consequences. The behavioural

learning theory is used to help understand how to motivate students in the

classroom. Teachers use positive reinforcement for desirable behaviour and

punishment to discourage less desirable behaviour. It is through the repetition

15

of reinforcement that students learn the correlation between stimulus and

response. Skinner (1967), an American behavioural psychologist, defined

operant conditioning as a learning process that modifies behaviour through

reinforcement (tells you what to do) or punishment (tells you what not to do).

His research established that behaviour can be governed by control of the

environment; Skinner wrote, “control the environment and you will see order

in behaviour” (Skinner, 1967, p.339).

Rotter (1966) was the first to propose a belief that diverged from traditional

behaviourism and focused on individual and environmental influences. While

Rotter’s (1996) social learning theory stems from similar ideas as behavioural

learning theory, whereby both agree about the importance of external

influences on behaviour, social learning theory adds an internal psychological

process that is posited to impact behavioural responses. Rotter’s social learning

theory predicted behaviour focused on expectancies: people engage in

behaviour that will lead to a particular outcome. It included an additional

component that focused also on notions of internal and external control, which

Rotter dubbed “locus of control” (1966). Internal locus of control describes

events that are perceived as within a person’s control and external locus of

control refers to events that are perceived as externally controlled. Research into

locus of control has a long history and has identified that individuals who

possess a high internal locus of control are likely to exert effort to make

improvements to their environment and are generally resilient to outside

pressure (Rotter & Mulry, 1965; Seeman & Evans, 1962).

The study of social learning theory gained momentum through the work of

Bandura who expanded the concept by adding a key component of self-efficacy

(1977). This shifted views away from social learning theory towards social

cognitive theory. Bandura argued that people endeavour to take command over

some events in their lives through intentionality, forethought, action and choice

(Bandura, 1986). The level of motivation, affective states and action people take

are based on what they believe to be objectively true; therefore, people function

16

as contributors to their own motivation and are neither entirely driven by

internal drives nor controlled by the environment. Social cognitive theory

brought attention to human behaviour through triadic reciprocal determinism

and the idea that functioning is a product of multiple reciprocally interacting

influences.

2.2.2 Triadic reciprocal determinism

Behaviouristic theories described human behaviour through unidirectional

causation whereby behaviour was simply shaped by environmental influences

or cognitive factors. Social cognitive theories, however, favour a triadic

reciprocal determinism model of causation in which personal factors,

behaviour, and environmental factors all interact with one another in a

bidirectional manner (Figure 1). However, reciprocal causation does not mean

that the three determinates are of equal strength; the strength of their influence

will vary depending on the context and activity.

Figure 1. Triadic reciprocal determinism

between behavioural, personal and environmental factors (Bandura, 1997)

Bandura states, “what people think, believe, and feel affect how they

behave. The natural and extrinsic effects of their actions, in turn, partly

determine their thought patterns and affective reactions” (1986, p.25). An

examination of this relationship is underpinned by Bandura’s theoretical

framework on social cognitive theory—a notion that a person’s behaviour is

continually influenced by the reciprocal effects of personal and environmental

factors. Personal factors within the triadic reciprocal determinism model

Behavioural Factors

Environmental Factors

Personal Factors

17

include cognitive, affective and biological properties. Individuals hold their

own unique set of beliefs, emotions and abilities to function in particular

settings. Behavioural factors involve individuals’ choices and actions, and the

environmental factors are events and circumstances that are external forces to

individuals. A person’s belief regarding their capability (personal factors) can

be shaped by prior experiences (behavioural factors) and feedback about their

performance (environmental factors) and will influence the actions they take in

the future and the environments they select. For example, I have never been ice-

skating and I have not been motivated to try it because I doubt my ability.

However, if I were to go to an ice-skating rink and learn that the skill is

attainable and receive feedback through encouragement and praise from those

around me, it is likely I would return to the ice-skating rink, thus altering my

beliefs about my abilities. The choices we make determine our life pathways. It

is through interactions between our beliefs, actions and environment that we

develop the confidence to direct the course of our lives. Social cognitive theory

and triadic reciprocal determinism describe this dynamic and active human

functioning and explain why some people thrive by taking risks and others lack

the confidence. Bandura points out several core cognitive capabilities involved

in enabling people to choose effective life paths to capitalise on opportunities

and resist situations that may lead to harm. Capabilities in human functioning

include symbolising, vicarious learning, forethought, self-regulation and self-

reflection.

2.2.3 Capabilities in human functioning

The first capability in human functioning, as described by Bandura (1989), is

symbolising, which enables people to use symbols to make sense of their

environment. It is via our capacity to think and cognitively process information

from external sources through stories, pictures and actions that we give

meaning to experiences. This can expand our knowledge and organise what we

know for potential future use (Bandura, 1989).

18

The second capability, vicarious learning, facilitates learning via observing

the behaviour of others, as well as its outcomes (rewards and/or punishments).

Bandura (1989) comments that the transmission of symbolic information

through technology is rapid, and the effectiveness of vicarious learning

depends on the amount of attention, retention, interpretation and motivation of

individuals; these processes determine which actions individuals take from

symbolic information.

The capability of forethought is the third capability in Bandura’s social

cognitive theory. Through a process of planning and goal setting, individuals

can anticipate likely consequences that produce desired outcomes. An essential

component of this planning and goal-setting success is related to the fourth

capability of self-regulation. Bandura (1989) comments that people need to be

able to rely on themselves and not on others to help with shaping their

behaviour. People who have the self-discipline to control thoughts, feelings and

actions are more able to direct their actions to achieve their desired outcomes.

Central to the notion of self-regulation is self-efficacy, which is belief in one’s

ability to attain the goal set and persevere when presented with challenges. The

fifth capability influencing human functioning is self-reflection. Bandura said

that via thinking, individuals analyse and evaluate their actions and

experiences to elicit knowledge and alter their thought processes. Self-reflection

is a metacognitive process that enables people to gain a deeper understanding

of their experiences. Bandura (2006) believed that another central component to

triadic reciprocal determinism was agency, which significantly affects

behaviour.

2.2.4 Agency

Agency is the capacity to intentionally influence one’s actions to effect change

(Bandura, 2001). Bandura refers to human agency as an individual’s ability to

take control over one’s actions and contribute to the environment. This

conceptualisation differs from behaviourist theories that focus on responses to

external forces because Bandura focuses on the importance of an individual’s

19

ability to shape elements of their environment to serve an intended purpose. As

Bandura concludes, “to be an agent is to intentionally make things happen by

one’s actions” (2001, p.2).

The central components of agency that align with social cognitive theory

involve intentionality, forethought, motivation, self-regulation and self-

reflectiveness. These span three modes of agency: personal, proxy and collective

(Bandura, 2000). Personal agency through intentionality refers to actions that

are driven by the person that may have unanticipated outcomes. Forethought

refers to the planning that serves to direct action to shape a desired future. The

level of motivation to continue to sustain effort is monitored through self-

regulation and the metacognitive process of self-reflectiveness evaluates one’s

functioning. When people do not have direct control over their circumstances,

they use proxy agency and cease personal control for responsibilities and give

control to another person who they believe possesses the adequate capabilities.

Collective agency refers to the shared responsibility of a group of people who

work together to accomplish outcomes that cannot be achieved on their own

(Bandura, 2000). Collective agency is exercised through group action and

requires interdependent efforts.

According to Bandura, agency reflects personal, proxy or collective control

over outcomes. Social cognitive theory proposes an integrated system that helps

explain human behaviour through a triadic reciprocal determination. The next

section will narrow in on how personal cognitive factors influence functioning

through self-efficacy.

2.2.5 Self-efficacy

Through agency, people make causal contributions to their own lives. Self-

efficacy, as detailed in Bandura’s Self-efficacy in changing societies (1995), asserts

that “among all the mechanisms of agency, none is more central or pervasive

than people’s beliefs of personal efficacy” (p.2). The judgement of one’s

estimation for potential success provides an explanation for differences between

20

individual performances. Bandura (1997) claims that “perceived self-efficacy

refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to organise and execute the courses of

actions required to produce given attainments” (p.3). It is through the cognitive

regulation of motivation, affect and action that self-efficacy beliefs significantly

contribute to human attainment.

Within the model of triadic reciprocal determinism, personal factors affect

human functioning as much as behavioural and environmental factors.

Therefore, individuals’ beliefs about their ability to exert control over

circumstances influence behaviour choices. Without this power, there would be

no incentive to act. Our self-efficacy beliefs determine the degree of confidence

we possess as we make judgements and choose to act. Bandura states that we

are not bound by our environment; rather we are active and purposeful in our

pursuits and interact with our context to influence behaviour. Given

individuals have the skills required to act, the amount of effort invested will

depend on the level of motivation and incentive to act. Bandura (1977)

concludes that “efficacy expectations are a major determinant of people’s choice

of activities, how much effort they will expend, and of how long they will

sustain effort in dealing with stressful situations” (p.194).

Self-efficacy is a subjective expectation of how likely you are to successfully

execute the behaviour required to produce an agreed outcome. Efficacy

expectation is the conviction that one can perform the specific behaviour of a

particular task in a given situation (Bandura, 1977). Bandura (1997) claims that

one’s efficacy expectations can differ in magnitude, generality and strength

depending on the context and the goal. For example, some teachers may feel

confident to speak in front of large groups of children but feel different levels of

efficacy if required to speak at a staff meeting in front of their colleagues. While

public speaking may be a generalised skill, one’s efficacy level may vary

according to the specific context.

21

2.2.6 Sources of efficacy

It has been over four decades since Bandura first introduced the concept of

efficacy. Efficacy is defined as the ability to produce an intended result which

stems from one’s belief in one’s own ability to effect change. Bandura and

others have proven that efficacy can be influenced and developed in four ways:

mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and though

understanding one’s psychological affect/state (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997; Hoy,

2000). This is depicted in Figure 2.

Mastery experiences are the most powerful and influential source of efficacy

because people discover that the task is attainable through their direct

experience. When people experience success, it influences their perspectives on

what they can achieve, thus strengthening self-efficacy beliefs. When working

towards developing new skills, it is crucial that success is felt. Efficacy beliefs

can be weakened if failure is experienced during the early phases of learning.

Scaffolding learning is important throughout the process so that individuals

build skills before tackling more complex tasks. Once a task is mastered

through feedback and support, confidence in ability is established. In this case,

occasional setbacks will not be perceived as a threat and, instead, may propel

actions to further strengthen resilience (Bandura, 1977). However, if success

Figure 2. Sources of efficacy

Bandura (1977)

22

comes too easily to individuals in the early phases of learning and is

accompanied by expectations of quick results, learners may become easily

discouraged if failure occurs. Bandura (1998) claims that “a resilient sense of

efficacy requires experience in overcoming obstacles through perseverant effort.

By sticking it out through tough times people emerge more able and stronger

from adversity” (p.54).

2.2.6.2 Vicarious experiences

The second strongest source of efficacy refers to observing someone else

perform an activity. Observing models of success offers insights into how best

to handle situations and can influence personal beliefs about one’s own ability.

However, vicarious experiences are only beneficial if the observer is convinced

of their potential for replicating the model in similar situations (Bandura, 1977).

Learning vicariously permits observers to witness success and feel inspired to

re-enact behaviour.

2.2.6.3 Social persuasion

The third source of efficacy is social or verbal persuasion. The idea is loosely

related to feedback from a credible and trustworthy source, someone who

encourages the learner to succeed. Instructional coaches and principals can play

a vital role in providing verbal persuasion through corrective feedback and

carefully structured opportunities for individuals to experience success.

2.2.6.4 Affective/Psychological states

Lastly, the least powerful source of efficacy are affective or psychological states

of individuals. We draw information about our confidence in our abilities from

psychological cues related to safety, fear, anger and anxiety, which all

contribute to a sense of competency. People tend to be more willing to embrace

setbacks, take risks, and learn from experiences when they are not feeling

vulnerable and anxious. Low arousal is generally accompanied by success

23

while high levels of nervousness can impede individuals’ confident execution

of tasks (Bandura, 1997).

2.2.7 Efficacy-activated process

There are four major processes operating together to activate efficacy and

regulate human functioning. These include the cognitive, motivational, affective

and selection processes displayed in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Four elements of efficacy-activated process

(Bandura, 1995)

Bandura (1995) claims that courses of action are initiated by thought and

efficacy beliefs determine the type of anticipatory scenarios people consider.

Individuals with a high sense of efficacy visualise successful scenarios.

Conversely those with a low sense of efficacy visualise failure. Goal setting is

also influenced by the self-appraisal of capabilities because challenging goals

require firmer commitment and a stronger sense of self-efficacy for individuals

to remain focused and resilient when faced with setbacks (Locke & Latham,

1990).

24

An individual’s ability to self-regulate in terms of their motivation is

cognitively generated. People set goals, plan courses of action, and motivate

themselves based on beliefs of what they can accomplish. Efficacy beliefs

function within three types of cognitive motivation, developed by different

theories— causal attributions (attribution theory), outcome expectancies

(expectancy-value theory), and goals (goal theory). Causal attributions are

influenced by efficacy beliefs. According to attribution theory, highly

efficacious people attribute failure to insufficient effort and inefficacious people

attribute failure to low ability (McAuley, 1991). Causal attributes influence

motivation through beliefs about efficacy (Chwalisz et al., 1992). Motivation is

also regulated by the expectation that specific actions will produce outcomes,

which is partially governed by efficacy beliefs. In general, people do not pursue

goals if they judge that they lack the capability. Setting challenging goals and

evaluating one’s own performance motivates people as they seek satisfaction

from meeting fulfilling goals.

The affective process concerns the exercise of control over one’s own

consciousness to cope with stress when faced with threatening or challenging

situations. These emotional responses can debilitate coping behaviour and

efficacy beliefs without a capability to regulate stress and anxiety. Individuals

who believe they can control negative thoughts have a stronger sense of self

efficacy than those who succumb to anxiety and depression (Bandura, 1995).

The last efficacy-activated process to be discussed relates to the selection

process of environments that cultivate certain lifestyles. Bandura (1995) states

that self-efficacy can determine people’s destinies by influencing the types of

activities and environments they choose to participate in. People select

environments and tasks they judge themselves capable of managing. This can

influence their direction because the environments individuals choose to

operate within will promote certain competencies, values and interests.

Self-efficacy beliefs are developed through the interaction of social cognitive

theory’s triadic reciprocal causation model and psychological processes which

25

impact people’s capability to take control over their own life path. This

pervasive belief is a vital element that explains human functioning and why

some individuals are successful. The notion of efficacy is equally important in

education. Teachers’ beliefs in their ability to influence student learning,

student difficulties and student performance are at the heart of making a

difference for students. Imagine schools filled with teachers with a high belief in

their ability to effect change for every student. They would feel confident to set

high learning goals, be open to adopting innovative teaching methods, and

persevere when things did not go as planned. The next section will explore the

research on teacher efficacy with attention to its development, measurement

and consequences.

2.3 Teacher Efficacy in Schools

A review of how self-efficacy has progressed in the field of education is vital to

this study. This review has a specific focus on the research of self-efficacy in

teachers. Over the past 40 years, teacher efficacy has been investigated and

measured to establish its relationship with various school variables. Teacher

self-efficacy is defined as the beliefs teachers possess in their own capability to

foster student learning and engagement (Hoy, 2000). Moolenaar et al. (2012)

found that a teacher’s belief in their ability to promote positive change for

students has a real impact on student motivation and subsequent achievements.

According to Jerald (2007), teachers with a strong sense of efficacy exhibit the

following behaviours: more effective planning and organising, willing to try

new ideas to meet the needs of children, more resilient and persistent with

challenges, and more patient with children who make mistakes.

A teacher’s sense of efficacy impacts patterns of teaching practice that affect

student learning. Shaughnessy (2004) interviewed a renowned researcher in the

field of teacher efficacy, Anita Woolfolk Hoy, who described the practical

implications of teacher efficacy research:

26

Teachers who set high goals, who persist, who try another strategy when

one approach is found wanting—in other words, teachers who have a

high sense of efficacy and act on it—are more likely to have students

who learn (pp. 156-157).

As previously outlined, the first studies of teacher efficacy emerged from

two theoretical frameworks, Rotter’s social learning theory and generalised

expectancies of reinforcement (1966) followed by Bandura’s social cognitive

theory and self-efficacy (1977). The subsequent sections survey the history of

teacher efficacy and how researchers have progressively shaped the construct

and refined instruments for its measurement. As displayed in Figure 4, teacher

efficacy emerged in the 1970s and dominated until the early 2000s, when

research began to shift and focus on the construct of collective efficacy.

Figure 4. Timeline of significant studies contributing to the teacher efficacy construct

2.3.1 Internal versus external control of reinforcement

In the late seventies, researchers from a non-profit institution called the Rand

Corporation were inspired by Rotter’s (1966) article titled ‘Generalized

expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement’. They

incorporated two efficacy items on a questionnaire that determined whether

(Rand Item 1) teachers believed the environment overwhelmed their ability to

impact students’ learning thus indicating that teaching efforts lie outside of

their control (external), or (Rand Item 2) teachers believed in their ability to

teach even the most difficult students and teaching efforts lie within their direct

control (internal). Both items were based on Rotter’s study of internal and

external control. The two Rand Items on surveys are listed below:

1976 & 1977

Armor et al,

Berman et al

1982

Ashton & Webb

1984

Gibson & Dembo

1993

Hoy & Woolfolk

1998

Tschannen-Moran,

Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy

2001

Tschannen-Moran and Hoy

27

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’ (general teaching efficacy GTC)

Rand Item 2 ‘If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most

difficult or unmotivated students’ (personal teaching efficacy PTC).

The first Rand study to incorporate these items was conducted by Armor et

al. (1976), who found the efficacy of teachers was a contributing factor to the

success of reading programs and interventions in inner-city Los Angeles

schools. The second Rand study to incorporate these items was conducted by

Berman et al. (1977) who identified factors contributing to innovative programs

in schools. Both studies were the first to highlight that teacher efficacy was

related to student performance.

The evaluation of the extent to which teachers believed that reinforcement of

actions lay within or beyond their direct control was instrumental in the

measurement of teacher efficacy and generated numerous adaptations and

expansions by researchers who explored the construct further. The work of

researchers who extended the Rand survey items to reflect a multidimensional

concept aligned with social cognitive theory will be reviewed next.

2.3.2 Multidimensional model of teachers’ self-efficacy

The two Rand studies by Armor et al. (1976) and Berman et al. (1977) defined

teachers’ sense of efficacy as “the extent to which the teacher believed he or she

had the capacity to affect student performance” (Berman et al, 1977, p. 137) and

was measured by obtaining a total score on two items. However, Ashton et al.

(1982) found that the two items were conceptually different and not

significantly correlated. They discovered that the first Rand item of general

teaching efficacy corresponded with outcome expectation, and the second item

of personal teaching efficacy referred to teachers’ specific assessment of

personal competence and, thus, treated these as two separate dimensions.

Additionally, Ashton et al. (1982) were guided by Bandura’s (1977) social

28

cognitive theory instead of only focusing on internal or external control. Their

model identified self-efficacy as a cognitive mechanism for processing

information and regulating behaviour. As described by Bandura (1977), a sense

of self-efficacy is acquired through confidence of personal competence in the

ability to perform behaviours necessary to achieve desired goals, with the

strength of conviction determining an individual’s behaviour in initiating and

sustaining effort. Therefore, expectations of personal efficacy influence future

learning and motivation, and behaviour is controlled by personal efficacy

beliefs rather than the reinforcement of consequences. Ashton and Webb (1986)

developed the multidimensional model of teachers’ sense of efficacy, presented

in Figure 5.

Figure 5. A model of teachers’ sense of efficacy: The multidimensional construct

Adapted from Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement (p.5),

by P. Ashton and R. Webb, 1986, Longman. Copyright 1986 by Longman Inc.

At the top of the model are generalised beliefs about the response-outcome

relationship, which influences (and is influenced by) both teaching efficacy and

generalised beliefs about perceived self-efficacy. These two dimensions are

integrated to form a sense of personal teaching efficacy, which is demonstrated

by teaching behaviours and student performance. Ashton and Webb (1986)

argue that it is important to distinguish between teaching efficacy and personal

efficacy because appropriate interventions depend on whether teachers believe

Generalised Beliefs about Response-Outcome

Contingencies

Generalised Beliefs about

Percieved Self-Efficacy

Sense of Personal Teaching Efficacy

(Specific Beliefs about One's Personal Competence in

Motivating Students)

Sense of Teaching Efficacy

(Specific Beliefs about Teachers' Ability to Motivate

Students)

29

that some students cannot learn and there is nothing teachers can do, or they

only doubt their own ability to motivate particular students in specific

situations. Therefore, addressing each of these dimensions requires different

interventions.

2.3.3 General teaching efficacy (GTE) and personal teaching efficacy (PTE)

While Ashton and Webb were working on distinguishing between teaching

efficacy and personal efficacy, Gibson and Dembo (1984) were developing a 30-

item instrument called the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES), designed to capture

indications of general teaching efficacy (GTE) and personal teaching efficacy

(PTE). The items on their instrument were aligned to Bandura’s concepts of self-

efficacy (PTE) and outcome expectancy (GTE). Gibson and Dembo predicted

and found that teachers high on both PTE and GTE exhibited high levels of

confidence and persistence, made a greater effort with struggling students,

provided more instructional time to students, divided their class into small

groups, focused on instruction and offered quality feedback to students. In

contrast, teachers with low levels of PTE and GTE gave up easily when

confronted with challenging students. Given that GTE and PTE were found to

be independent from one another, research distinguishing between these

differences began to emerge. Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) found that “teachers

may believe that teaching in general can have little effect on students and they

are (or are not) exceptions to this rule” (p. 357).

In the 1990s, several researchers continued to modify and revise the popular

Gibson and Dembo Teacher Efficacy Scale to suit their research purposes.

Researchers used the TES tool to investigate the impact of teachers’ sense of

efficacy and its relationship with their behaviours and attitudes towards

teaching, student outcomes, context, subject matter and classroom

management. Coladarci (1992) found that teacher efficacy was related to levels

of professional commitment for in-service teachers in both elementary and

middle school. Additionally, Evans and Tribble (1986) found that preservice

teachers’ efficacy was related to levels of professional commitment in both

30

elementary and middle school. Allinder (1994) also demonstrated that PTE was

related to instructional experimentation and a teacher’s willingness to adopt

new teaching methodologies, levels of planning, organisation, and fairness in

teaching. These researchers also found relationships between levels of GTE,

enthusiasm, and clarity in teaching. Similarly, studies by Moore and Esselman

(1992) established that students in the second and fifth grades who had teachers

with a greater sense of GTE outperformed their peers in math. In 1990,

Woolfolk et al. (1990) discovered that teachers with a stronger sense of PTE

were given more positive evaluations from their students. Overall, the studies

reviewed here support the hypothesis that higher PTE and/or GTE positively

impacts teaching and learning.

The Gibson and Dembo instrument was also used to explore teachers’ sense

of efficacy within subject areas. Enochs and Riggs (1990) adapted the Gibson

and Dembo instrument to measure efficacy of teaching science. The Science

Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (STEBI) was found to contain two separate

factors: personal science teaching efficacy (PSTE) and science teaching outcome

expectancy (STOE). These findings are consistent with the Gibson and Dembo

measure of efficacy. Similarly, studies demonstrated that teachers with a higher

sense of PSTE spent more time developing the science concept being studied

(Riggs & Jesunathadas, 1993) and those with low PSTE spent less time teaching

science, used text-based methods, and made fewer positive changes in their

beliefs about how children learn science (Riggs, 1995).

In 1990, Emmer and Hickman adapted the Gibson and Dembo instrument to

reflect the domain of classroom management. Their instrument sought to

measure three efficacy subscales: efficacy for discipline and classroom

management; external influences; and personal teaching efficacy among

preservice teachers. Their findings revealed that preservice teachers with higher

PTE enlist assistance from colleagues to help with discipline problems (Emmer

& Hickman, 1990).

31

Considering all this evidence, it seems that the Teacher Efficacy Scale has

been influential in the field of education. However, concerns were expressed by

researchers regarding the interpretation of outcome expectancy. According to

Bandura’s self-efficacy theory, outcome expectancy is distinct from efficacy

expectations. Efficacy expectations refer to one’s conviction about capability to

orchestrate the necessary actions to perform a task, while outcome expectancy

refers to an individual’s judgement of the likely consequences of the task

(Bandura, 1986). As a result, Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) sought to address these

concerns and made additional modifications to the Teacher Efficacy Scale.

2.3.4 General efficacy and personal efficacy

Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) modified the Gibson and Dembo Teacher Efficacy

Scale to include five general teaching efficacy (outcomes expectancy) items and

five personal teaching efficacy (efficacy expectations) items. This scale was used

to explore the relationships of efficacy with aspects of a healthy school climate

(institutional integrity, principal influence, consideration, resource support,

morale, and academic emphasis) as measured by the Organizational Health

Inventory (OHI) survey. Findings revealed that teachers’ general efficacy and

personal efficacy are two sets of separate beliefs and constructs. Personal

efficacy for improving student learning was strengthened by a healthy school

climate that incorporated a strong academic emphasis and supportive principal

leadership. General teaching efficacy was predicted by institutional integrity,

which refers to protecting teachers from unreasonable outside demands and

teacher morale.

Bandura (1997) noted that efficacy beliefs vary on dimensions which have

performance implications and, therefore, measures need to account for these

specific performance demands within a particular domain of functioning. He

claimed that “efficacy is not a decontextualised trait upon which situational

conditions act. Nor do situational circumstances ‘determine’ efficacy beliefs”

(Bandura, 1997, p.42). Therefore, teachers do not feel efficacious in all teaching

situations and efficacy measures should include a level of specificity across

32

teaching tasks and subject knowledge. Bandura’s appeal for efficacy measures

to include items related to varied teaching tasks was responded to by

Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy.

2.3.5 Cyclical nature of teacher efficacy

Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) offered an integrated model of teacher efficacy

based on Bandura’s critiques and existing lines of research. The model in Figure

6 presents the cyclical nature of teacher efficacy. Within this model, Bandura’s

four sources of efficacy information (i.e., mastery experiences, vicarious

experiences, social persuasion, and affective or psychological states) are

processed cognitively and used to consider the teaching task (outcome

expectancies) and weighed up against personal teaching competencies. This

process leads to teachers' sense of efficacy and manifests in behaviours and

attitudes that influence performance and create new sources of efficacy.

Figure 6. The cyclical nature of teacher efficacy

From “Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and Measure,” by M. Tschannen-Moran, A. W. Hoy and

W. K. Hoy, 1998, Review of Educational Research, 68(2), p.228.

This integrated model highlights two important features: 1) the analysis of

teaching task (and its context) and 2) assessment of personal teaching

competencies. The analysis of the teaching task and its context was

operationalised using a modified version of GTE measures about teaching in

general but offered more specified items about the context of the teaching task.

Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) suggested that teachers judge the level of

33

difficulty of tasks and develop a plan based on elements within the context such

as (but not limited to) students’ motivation and ability levels, instructional

resources and strategies, school community, and leadership support. The task

requirements and context were then to be considered in relation to personal

teaching competencies such as knowledge, skills, personality traits and teaching

capabilities to form teachers’ sense of efficacy.

2.3.6 Teacher efficacy model

Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) developed a new measure of teacher efficacy

that was based on the teacher efficacy model in Figure 6 and Bandura’s

unpublished teacher-efficacy measure. Items were evaluated and narrowed to

produce the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES), now known as

Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES). There are 24-item and 12-item versions

of this measure. These scales capture an analysis of the teaching task and

personal teaching competencies, specifically relevant to teaching. The scale also

captures both internal and external components that make up teacher efficacy.

Teacher efficacy has been studied extensively and findings indicate that it

may also be an important facilitating element of a school’s climate that can

increase educational effectiveness (Bobbett, 2001; Tschannan-Moran et al. 1998).

Teachers with high self-efficacy, as measured by this instrument, are more

prevalent in higher performing schools (Oliver, 2001). However, Tschannen-

Moran et al. (1998) acknowledge the limitations of their work and that the

dominant mode of their investigations has been quantitative. This offers a

narrow focus on the knowledge and beliefs of teachers and does not explore the

“cultural meaning of efficacy in terms of roles, expectations, and social relations

that are important in the construct of those teacher beliefs” (p. 203). In 2001,

they recommended that the research community further expand conceptions of

teacher efficacy to include other perspectives and methodologies (Tschannen-

Moran & Hoy, 2001).

34

Given that teacher efficacy influences what goes on in the classroom and has

been linked to student achievement (Armor et al., 1976; Ashton et al., 1982;

Berman et al., 1977; Ross, 1992), instructional strategies (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990),

professional commitment (Ross & Gray, 2006) and teacher burn out (Skaalvik &

Skaalvik, 2007), the unit of analysis concerns the individual teacher. To connect

efficacy to broader school organisational level requires a group level of analysis.

This led researchers to shift their focus from the concept of self-efficacy to

collective efficacy. The next sections describe the general concept of collective

efficacy and its application to teachers in schools.

2.4 Definitions of Collective Efficacy

Collective efficacy is commonly described as a group’s belief in their ability to

achieve a common goal. In education, it is the perception of teachers that

together they can make an educational difference to their students. This appears

to be a simple notion that actually requires close analysis of social constructs

and group dynamics. The conceptual definition of collective efficacy has caused

many debates among scholars.

Collective efficacy and self-efficacy are separate concepts; they differ in their

unit of agency: individual versus collective. Collective efficacy involves the

performance capability of the entire social system, whereas self-efficacy

involves the performance capability of the individual. However, the two

concepts are connected because when people must depend on one another to

accomplish goals, group attainment rests on the personal efficacies of each

member.

Collective efficacy is an emergent group-level property because it requires

people to work interdependently on tasks and coordinate how to work

together. Working and interacting with others means that all members of the

group are affected by the beliefs, attitudes, values and motivation of each

individual member which, in turn, impacts the functioning of the organisation

(Bandura, 1997). Consequently, collective efficacy is not the sum of individual’s

35

efficacy, rather it is an aggregation of members’ beliefs about the group’s

capability to accomplish goals (Bandura, 1997, 2000).

Bandura (1997) states that collective efficacy is highly important for

understanding organisational functioning and that confidence in a group’s

collective capability contributes to individual action. A key feature of collective

efficacy refers to the performance capability of the entire social system and

these beliefs affect the extent to which members exert effort to work together

and persevere through challenges to produce results and achieve a common

purpose.

In the 1980s and 1990s, collective efficacy was commonly defined as group

members’ overall collective ability to act effectively. For example, Bandura

(1986) suggested that it involved “perceptions of the groups’ efficacy to effect

change” (p.451). Shea and Guzzo (1987) called the construct group potency and

stated that it was “the collective belief of a group” (p.355). Likewise, Shamir

(1990) described collective efficacy as “the perceived probability that collective

effort will result in collective accomplishments” (p.316). Weldon and Weingart

(1993) identified collective efficacy as “an individual’s judgement of how well

the group can execute actions required to perform the task” (p.11).

Many of these definitions have caused significant confusion regarding the

conceptualisation and measurement of collective efficacy. Some definitions

refer to the perceptions of the collective and others reflect individual-level

beliefs or a combination of both. Gist (1987) and Shamir (1990) called for clarity

regarding how to aggregate and interpret collective efficacy responses and

measurements. As a result, Zaccaro et al. (1995) argued that measuring

collective efficacy by the sum of individual judgements misses key elements of

the concept—interaction, coordination and integration. Self-efficacy refers to an

individual’s belief about knowledge, skills and ability to perform the desired

goal. Collective efficacy reflects a group’s beliefs about the knowledge, skills

and abilities of each member and how well they can coordinate, exchange,

combine and distribute resources.

36

Given the conceptual shift from self to collective, the definition and attempts

to measure the construct required an acknowledgement of “both judgements of

members’ abilities and perceptions of how well group members work together

in achieving collective outcomes” (Zaccaro et al., 1995, p. 308). Zaccaro et al.

(1995) suggest that collective efficacy represents “a sense of collective

competence shared among individuals when allocating, coordinating, and

integrating their resources in a successful concerted response to specific

situational demands” (p. 309). This view is supported by Bandura (1997), who

defines collective efficacy as “a group’s shared belief in the conjoint capabilities

to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of

attainment” (Bandura, 1997, p.477). Bandura (1997) argues that this collective

belief “centers on the group’s operative capabilities and that group functioning

is a product of the interactive and coordinative dynamics of its group

members” (p. 477). Given this definition, measures of collective efficacy

therefore move to determining perceptions of how well group members can

work together in pursuit of goals. Next, a review of the research on the concept

of teachers’ collective efficacy and its measurement is presented.

2.5 The Evolution of Teachers’ Collective Efficacy Measurement

Collective efficacy is known as an important school-level property because it

reflects beliefs about teachers’ capability to collectively achieve school goals.

Chubb (1988) highlighted the importance of understanding the school as a

whole because schools are complex organisations made of individual parts that

determine norms, goals, leadership, climate and collegiality, all factors which

influence teaching and learning. In Chubb’s (1988) research, little differences in

classroom instruction and school structures between high and low performing

schools were found. Rather the differences were evident in leadership

expectations and teacher autonomy. When leadership set higher expectations

and teachers had more authority over classroom-level decisions, student

performance was higher.

37

Research by Bandura (1993, 1997) regarding the influence of teachers’

collective efficacy on student achievement was instrumental in raising

awareness of the conditions that can spur groups into productive action.

Findings from path analyses indicated that collective efficacy contributed more

to academic achievement in reading and mathematics than socioeconomic

status (1993). These results suggested that the way in which teachers work

together to achieve success stems from a sense of collective responsibility,

interdependence and group operative capabilities (Bandura, 1997). Bandura’s

research on collective efficacy in education caught the attention of Goddard

(1998) who found that shared perceptions about the functioning of the school as

a whole were associated with patterns of productive teaching behaviours. In the

review that follows, the evolution of the model and measurement of teachers’

collective efficacy is examined.

2.5.1 Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy

Goddard (1998) and Goddard et al. (2000) developed a collective teacher

efficacy model and instrument for use in schools based on the Tschannen-

Moran et al. (1998) version of teacher efficacy. The model and instrument were

adapted to reflect judgement in group capability rather than individual

capability. The measure included questions that captured an evaluation of

group competence (GC) and task analysis (TA) through both negatively and

positively worded items. For example:

• Teachers in this school are well prepared to teach the subjects they

are assigned to teach (GC+).

• The lack of instructional materials and supplies in this school

makes teaching very difficult (TA-) (Goddard et al., 2000, p.488).

After a preliminary review and a pilot study with a sample of 46 teachers,

one from each of 46 schools, responses to a 21-item survey were submitted to

principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation. Results indicated that items

did not load on the two factors as expected. In fact, five items loaded .40 or

higher on both factors, with the correlation coefficient indicating a strong

38

relation (r = .71, p<.001) between the factors. These dual loadings indicated that

collective efficacy results from a cognitive process that integrates group

competence and task analysis. This suggests that “perceptions of group

capability to successfully educate students result when teachers consider the

level of difficulty of the teaching task (in relation) to their perceptions of group

competence” (Goddard et al., 2000, p.485). This means analysis of the teaching

task and competence occur simultaneously, and collective efficacy emerges

when teachers make judgements of their colleagues’ teaching competence.

2.5.2 Goddard

Based on the study using the 21-item measurement mentioned previously,

Goddard (2002) reanalysed and modified the scale to contain 12-items. This

survey was more parsimonious as it represented equal proportions of GC and

TA positive and negative items. A total of 452 teachers in 47 schools

participated in a subsequent study. In Goddard (2002), a one-factor solution

was extracted, with all but 1 item correlating .73 or above and analysis

explaining 64.10% of the variance. The 12-item scale yielded high internal

consistency (alpha = .94). These results suggest that the 12-item scale was

equally as effective as the 21-item scale, and that the single factor explained

more of the total item variation than the 12-item scale.

2.5.3 Tschannen-Moran and Barr

In 2004, Tschannen-Moran and Barr added to the body of knowledge on

teachers’ collective efficacy. Their study sought to explain the relationship

between teachers’ collective efficacy and student achievement in middle

schools. They developed a 12-item Collective Teacher Belief Scale (CTBS) to

measure teacher collective efficacy. Their scale contained two subscales:

instructional strategies and student discipline. Teachers were asked to rate

items on a 9-point Likert scale. In a study of 66 schools, the 12-item CTBS scale

had a reliability of .96. This study found teachers’ collective efficacy to be

significantly and positively related to student achievement. Further, the study

39

suggested that strengthening teachers’ sense of collective efficacy may assist in

improving effective schools and student achievement.

2.6 The Model of Teachers’ Collective Efficacy

2.6.1 Goddard, Hoy and Hoy

Goddard et al. (2004) developed a collective efficacy model for schools as

shown in Figure 7. Their model is a blend of Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy

beliefs and Tschannen-Moran et. al.’s (1998) integrated efficacy model. The

cyclical nature of the model represents both reciprocal causality and the

potential for organisational change.

Goddard et al.’s (2004) model of collective teacher efficacy draws on

Bandura’s four sources of efficacy information that are processed cognitively

through analysis, attributions, and interpretation. This information is weighed

Figure 7. Proposed model of the formation, influence and change of perceived collective efficacy in

schools

From “Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future

directions,” by R. D. Goddard, W. K Hoy and A. W. Hoy, 2004, Educational Researcher, 33(3), p.11.

40

against an analysis of the teaching task and an assessment of teaching

competence which then leads to perceived collective efficacy. Collective efficacy

beliefs are influenced by (and influence) an organisation’s cultural norms and

teachers’ sense of efficacy leading to productive patterns of teaching behaviour

and effective organisational outcomes.

Bandura’s four sources of efficacy also contribute to the development of

collective teacher efficacy in this model. The first and most valuable source for

school organisations is mastery experiences because as groups experience

success from persistent effort, they strengthen their beliefs in one another’s

capability. Prior academic achievement of an organisation has been found to be

an influential component of collective efficacy (Ross et al., 2004). While group

failures may undermine collective efficacy, they may also offer opportunities

for members to bind together and overcome challenges. This strengthens

resilience and confidence in one another’s capabilities. The second collective

efficacy source, vicarious experience, refers to providing opportunities to

modify and learn through observation of how other schools, who are in similar

situations, can succeed. This offers models to replicate strategies, processes and

procedures. The third source, social persuasion, can be provided in the form of

performance feedback or encouragement from a credible other, such as a

principal or instructional coach. Social persuasion also includes socialisation

practices whereby faculty members learn the cultural norms regarding which

behaviours are expected and accepted within the organisation. The last source

of information, affective states, refers to how the organisation reacts to stress. At

an organisational level, stress can be experienced as pressure from parents and

community or governing boards. According to Goddard et al. (2000)

organisations with low efficacy react to stress in a dysfunctional manner.

2.6.2 Adams and Forsyth

Additional research by Adams and Forsyth (2006) argued that collective

efficacy does not solely rely on Bandura’s sources of efficacy, and that

contextual variables also impact teachers’ sense of collective efficacy. Adams

41

and Forsyth (2006) analysed the teaching task and included consideration of

present contextual variables within schools.

Adams and Forsyth’s (2006) study found contextual school variables

influenced teacher perception of teaching tasks and operated as a source of

efficacy producing teachers’ beliefs. Contextual variables within the

environment may include resources, student and faculty demographics, school

structures, physical environment and school size. Adams and Forsyth (2006)

argued that Bandura’s four sources occurred in the past and should be

redefined as ‘remote’ influences. Instead, it is the contextual conditions which

occur in the present that influence teaching tasks and are ‘proximate’ sources of

efficacy information. Figure 8 displays Adams and Forsyth’s (2006)

hypothesised model of teachers’ collective efficacy. This model broadens

sources of efficacy and reclassifies them to include past experiences and

variables within schools’ environments.

The hypothesised model in Figure 8 integrates the locus of control with

Bandura’s social cognitive understandings. This depicts how contextual

variables (proximate sources) can incorporate internal and external control over

contextual conditions that may hinder or enable efficacy.

Figure 8. A hypothesised model of teachers’ collective efficacy

Adapted from” Proximate sources of collective teacher efficacy,” by C. M. Adams and P. B.

Forsyth, 2006, Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6), p.639. Copyright by Emeraldinsight.

42

In the same vein, Zaccaro et al., (1995) writes that measures of collective

efficacy should include an evaluation of teachers’ perceptions regarding how

well the group can work together in pursuit of group goals. They suggest that a

comprehensive understanding of how perceived competence contributes to

individual action requires recognition that individuals do not operate in

isolation and behaviour is partially explained by social context. This view is

supported by Bandura (1997) who states that collective efficacy centres on the

group’s operative capabilities and is a product of the interactive dynamics of

group members. This means that a strong perception of collective efficacy

reflects effective group functioning and organisational learning, which creates

an emergent property that is more than the sum of its individual attributes.

Bandura (1997) concludes that both interactive group dynamics and

coordination of group dynamics are instrumental to the analysis of teachers’

collective efficacy because they constitute key forms of mastery experiences for

teachers. In social cognitive theory, mastery experiences are described as vital to

the construction of professional capabilities that give rise to efficacy beliefs. In

the next section, a review of the research on collective efficacy and the

coordination of group dynamics and interactive group dynamics is outlined.

2.6.3 Coordination of group dynamics

The coordination of group dynamics refers to the relationships between

teachers that impact their ability to work and learn together. Zaccaro et al.

(1995) state, “collective efficacy refers to a group member's beliefs not only

about how well each and every other group member can marshal individual

resources to accomplish the group task, but also how well group members can

coordinate and combine their resources” (p. 311). The coordination of group

dynamics among teachers involves elements of collegiality and

interdependence.

Collegiality refers to a set of practices and culture that supports adults to

learn together. It is the sense of teamwork and shared responsibility among

43

team members. Teachers share, co-construct, trust, debate, empower, and learn

together. The act of turning to another colleague for advice is evidence of

having faith in an individual’s capability. Berebitsky and Salloum (2017) found

that when teachers turned to one another for advice regarding teaching and

learning, collective efficacy tended to be higher. While their research did not

conclude exploring a causal relationship, the efficient dissemination of

knowledge and resources was found to increase the frequency of the kind of

mastery and vicarious experiences that raise collective efficacy. Similarly, Parise

and Spillane (2010) found that teachers who seek advice on instruction are more

likely to advance their practice.

Judging the quality of collegiality provides teachers with an opportunity to

view their colleagues as capable of effective instructional practice related to

improvements in student learning. When there is genuine collegiality,

professional learning is ongoing and integrated into the culture of the school.

According to Harris (2014) in her book, Distributed leadership matters, genuine

collegiality is a central component to building effective professional learning

communities (PLC). This enables the development of new knowledge and

instructional practice through joint work. However, when collegiality is

contrived, teachers’ efforts are diverted by administrative demands and they

are forced to collaborate on compulsory goals in a fixed time and space

(Hargreaves, 1994; 2011). Research by Wang (2015) found that genuine

collegiality enhances collaboration, collective inquiry and shared responsibility,

while contrived collegiality hinders collaborative endeavours.

Confidence in one another’s ability stems from collegial sharing and

supporting each other to experiment with instructional strategies and commit

to continuous improvement. A meta-analysis by Gully et al. (2002) revealed that

the relationship between collective efficacy and performance was stronger

when interdependence among team members was high. They observed that

“when the task and context encourage coordination, communication and

cooperation among members, team-efficacy is related more strongly to

44

performance than when interdependence is low” (p.827).

Therefore, the degree of interdependency among teachers governs the

amount of effort required to produce group results. For example, a low degree

of interdependency among individuals means they do not rely on one another

to perform their roles. A high interdependency means that individuals must

work together well, have a close coordination of roles, and have effective

communication and cooperative goals (Saavedra et al, 1993).

In order to achieve joint work, teachers are motivated to participate to the

degree that they require each other’s contribution in order to succeed in their

own work. The greater the interdependence, the more it stimulates greater use

of all collaborative modes (Little, 1990).

Figure 9. Degree of interdependency

A continuum for increasing demands for collective autonomy (Little, 1990)

The four concepts in Figure 9 are adapted from Little’s (1990) provisional

continuum of collegial relations, which range from low interdependency

(independence) to high interdependency (interdependence). The first and

lowest form of collegiality pertains to storytelling and scanning for ideas. In this

environment, teachers gain information through exchanging stories about

experiences. The collegial relations can be described as close whereby teachers

offer one another sympathy and moral support but this is principally for social

reasons. At this point, teachers remain distant from each other’s classrooms and

Storytelling and

Scanning

Aid and Assistance

SharingJoint Work

45

remain independent, away from scrutiny and collegiality, and reinforce a

culture of individualism and conservatism. According to Little (1990),

storytelling fosters norms of privacy, mutual support and sustains patterns of

independent practice among teachers.

The second concept refers to aid and assistance whereby colleagues provide

one another with help and advice; however, only when asked. In this

environment, teachers preserve boundaries between warranted and

unwarranted advice and refrain from advocating strategies until specifically

asked.

The third concept of collegiality highlights the system of sharing resources

and encouraging a more open exchange of opinions. In this environment,

teaching is considered less private and more public. Teachers pool ideas and

methods by exposing their own and others’ choices of curriculum and

instructional practices. Productive debate regarding instructional priorities

occurs and samples of work are open to scrutiny, providing an opportunity to

learn about each other’s work. Teachers may witness one another’s work, but it

does not necessarily transfer into their practice.

The highest, most optimal degree of interdependency rests on joint work

among teachers who share the responsibility for teaching. Teachers engage in

collective action and pursue a united course. Independent action and choices

are guided by the priorities of the collective. Members debate curriculum,

monitor progress, and meet regularly, both formally and informally. They

discuss action research projects in classrooms, develop a common set of

standards to diagnose student learning, and decide on appropriate

interventions. In this environment, teachers are motivated to collaborate

because they require one another’s contribution to succeed in their own work.

According to Bettini et al. (2016), the degree of interdependency and acceptance

of collaborative processes among staff propel them to use productive patterns

of behaviour that accompany higher academic standards.

46

2.6.4 Interactive group dynamics

Evidently, the interactions between group members are key to successful teams

and strengthen collective efficacy. Research by Mackenzie (2000) found a

positive relationship between collaboration and collective efficacy among

teachers and concluded that confidence in one another’s capability was

strengthened through interaction. Along these same lines, a three-year study on

teaming called Project Aristotle was conducted by Google. The findings

indicated that understanding and influencing group norms were key to

improving teams. Project Aristotle found two common traits of successful

teams: psychological safety and open communication. All team members had

the same opportunity to talk and were able to pick up on each other’s feelings.

When team members speak as much as they need to, are sensitive to one

another’s moods, and share personal stories and emotions, the whole becomes

greater than the sum of its parts (Duhigg, 2016).

Further, Hargreaves and O’Connor (2018) investigated collaborative designs

of schools and the deliberate ways in which teachers work together. They

selected four continents with diverse cultures and found that high-performing

Asian systems actively support pedagogical innovation and collaborative

professional development by creating “cultures and traditions that value

collective good, individual sacrifice, harmony, hierarchy and humility in a

context that accords high value to and respect for learning, teaching, expertise

and authority” (p.40). The results of this study indicated that the interactions

between group members are key to successful teams. Research by Ross and

Bruce (2007) also found that when collective efficacy was high, teachers were

more open to receiving new ideas and trying new instructional strategies.

According to Donohoo and Katz (2019) in their book, Quality implementation,

an open-to-learning stance is a key feature of a mastery-orientated

environment. Teachers interact openly about the challenges they are facing and

pose questions that are relevant to their students. In contrast, a knowing stance

reflects a performance environment where teachers advocate for the status quo

47

rather than inquire about teaching and learning. They do not seek or pay

attention to feedback because they see no reason to change instructional

strategies. Bloomberg and Pitchford (2016) state that when there is significant

emphasis on performance and test scores, the causal link between teaching and

learning often becomes compromised. In performance-orientated environments,

where teachers continually experience successful outcomes from test scores, it

becomes harder to see a reason to adjust teaching strategies (Ashford, 1989).

Research by Sitkin (1992) refers to a closed learning stance as an “upward”

overconfident efficacy spiral that reduces the need to actively search for cause-

and-effect relationships and inquire into student learning.

Teams that possess high collective efficacy effectively interact and

coordinate their group dynamics. They share the responsibility of monitoring

group success and openly discuss teaching and learning as part of their ongoing

professional development. Hoy and colleagues (2002) identified that this

internal cycle of professional learning reinforced the normative and behavioural

environment of schools and is essential for building collective efficacy.

2.7 A Model for Teachers’ Collective Efficacy in Practice

Bandura (1997) defines collective efficacy as a “group’s shared belief in its

conjoint capabilities to organise and execute courses of action required to

produce given levels of attainment” (p. 477). These shared beliefs constitute an

emergent school-level property that is related to organisational outcomes.

Theoretically, beliefs grow from interactive group dynamics which centre on

the group’s operative capabilities creating an emergent-level property that is

more than the sum of its individual parts (Bandura, 1997). Research by

Goddard et al. (2000) claims that teachers’ shared attitudes about their conjoint

influence on student learning is a result of their interactive group dynamics,

which are based on an analysis of the teaching task and the evaluation of

teaching competence. These beliefs are a result of collaborative activities which

48

provide mastery opportunities for learning through vicarious experiences,

social persuasion and the emotional tone of the group.

As previously displayed in Figure 7, Goddard et al. adapted the teacher

efficacy model posed by Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) to describe the cyclical

nature of CTE. The conceptual model reflects the formation of collective efficacy

beliefs. Bandura’s (1997) four sources of efficacy-shaping information related to

this figure are mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion,

and affective states enabling groups to strengthen collective efficacy

perceptions. As Bandura states, collective efficacy “concerns the performance

capability of a social system as a whole” (1997, p.496). In studying collective

efficacy beliefs, then, there is an opportunity to also understand the

organisational culture of the school. An important aspect that will deepen the

current theoretical understanding and practical knowledge concerns the

function of groups and how teachers manage their interactive group dynamics

and work together to produce the desired results. Considering that efficacy

beliefs are an important element of an organisation’s operative culture, the way

the perceptions of group capability might be changed to strengthen an

organisational culture is vital.

Collective efficacy is an important organisational property because it testifies to

the degree to which teachers work together effectively and resiliently to reach

set goals. It reflects the normative expectations of groups within an

organisation. Groups that thrive demonstrate a robust sense of capability

through effort, resilience and effective collaboration in pursuit of goals. In

contrast, groups that do not thrive avoid challenges, accept the status quo, have

lower expectations, and succumb easily to setbacks. Therefore, a robust sense of

collective efficacy can energise and motivate teachers to make the best use of

their capabilities, while a diminished sense of collective efficacy can cripple

teachers and weaken their skills. This suggests that strengthening collective

efficacy beliefs of the faculty results in productive patterns of teaching

behaviour that can improve student achievement. While collective efficacy in

49

schools has been explored in literature during the last two decades, knowledge

about the nature of relationships between teachers’ collective efficacy and the

international school context in Shanghai has not been investigated.

This notion of teachers’ collective efficacy has gained much attention in

education due to its predictive value for student achievement. Bandura (1993)

was the first to bring about awareness that collective efficacy is more impactful

on student learning than socio-economic status. Since then, numerous studies

have shown that when teachers believe in their collective capability to

positively influence student learning, the outcome is increased student

achievement (Bandura, 1997; Goddard, 2001; Goddard et al., 2000; Ross & Gray,

2006). This is evident in the visible learning research by Professor John Hattie

(2016), who found that the shared belief in combined efforts has greater

influence on student outcomes than independent efforts and can produce close

to four years of student growth in learning in one academic year (d=1.57). This

impact results from educators working together collaboratively, sharing the

same determination and objectives for instructional development, and

implementing effective teaching and learning strategies in order to promote

successful learning experiences (Hattie et al., 2015). On a personal and

professional level, Klassen et al. (2010) found that teachers’ collective efficacy is

an important factor that also predicts job satisfaction across South Korean and

North American contexts. Specifically, they highlighted that teachers’ collective

efficacy for student discipline and instructional strategies were modestly but

significantly associated with job satisfaction across both collectivist and

individualist cultural settings.

Reviewing past research on teachers’ individual sense of efficacy

demonstrates an association with increased efforts to try different instructional

practices (Allinder, 1994), a more organised and prepared approach when

dealing with struggling students, more confidence and enthusiasm about

teaching (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), more resilience to deal with managing

classroom behaviour to promote student engagement (Wang et al., 1993), and

50

stronger teacher commitment and willingness to accept responsibility for all

student learning and academic outcomes (Lee et al., 2011; Ware & Kitsantas,

2007).

Peer-reviewed articles published between 2000–2018 regarding the

productive patterns of behaviours that facilitate student attainment resulting

from teachers’ shared sense of collective efficacy were explored and synthesised

by Donohoo (2018), who found that CTE was associated positively with a

deeper implementation of school improvement initiatives (Cantrell & Callaway,

2008; Parks & Solmon, 2007; Tschannen-Moran, 2001), higher expectation for

academic attainment (Chong et al., 2010; Wilcox et al., 2014), increased culture

of academic optimism (Kirby & DiPaola, 2011), higher commitment to students

and the teaching profession (Chong et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2011), greater job

satisfaction, lower levels of stress and burnout (Avanzia et al., 2015; Caprara et

al., 2003; Klassen et al., 2010; Lim & Eo, 2014) and more positive attitudes

towards assisting students with special needs (Urton et al., 2014). Collective

efficacy was associated negatively with environments where performance

orientation goals were prevalent and value was placed on social comparison of

ability and high-test scores (Ciani et al., 2008).

Thus, it appears that teachers’ individual and collective sense of efficacy is a

significant predictor of productive patterns of behaviour that influence student

outcomes. Fundamentally, both self and collective efficacy derive from social

cognitive theory and involve making choices throughout the exercise of agency.

However, they are conceptually distinct. Self-efficacy involves confidence in

one’s own ability to execute a course of action to attain goals, whereas collective

efficacy is concerned with the conviction that group members can successfully

execute the behaviour required to produce the outcomes. Therefore, the

collective efficacy construct should include an added organisational dimension

of beliefs about the conjoint capability of a school faculty. Research by Goddard

et al. (2004) states that further research is needed to better understand how

organisational learning affects collective efficacy. As there is strong growing

51

evidence regarding the importance of teachers’ collective efficacy beliefs to

successful student outcomes, it is worthwhile to focus on what aids the

construction of such powerful beliefs in the context of international schools in

Shanghai.

Understanding teachers’ sense of collective efficacy is important because of

its possible effect on students’ learning. Generally, in schools where teachers

have a positive perception of their students, learning is enhanced. Lightfoot

(1983) found this to be true in schools with students from disadvantaged

backgrounds. There is vast literature demonstrating that effective schools

contain teachers who believe that children are capable of learning and that

ineffective schools contain teachers who believe that students are incapable of

learning.

Evidently, these belief systems manifest in teachers’ actions: in effective

schools, teachers spend time on quality instruction; as opposed to ineffective

schools, where class time is spent on classroom management and busywork.

This suggests that when teachers believe they are teaching more able students,

they work more effectively, which produces both confident teachers and

students. However, teaching is not a private endeavour as teachers share a

collective mission to educate students and must work together through team

planning, team teaching, sharing resources, and, most importantly, learning

together.

When teachers learn together, reflect on instructional practices, engage in

reflective dialogue and develop shared values and a vision to improve student

learning through collaborative inquiry, they strengthen group functioning,

which significantly influences student learning (Darling-Hammond &

Richardson, 2009; Lomos et al., 2011; Louis & Kruse, 1995; Vescio et al., 2008).

According to research by Donohoo & Katz (2019) and Bloomberg and Pitchford

(2016), progressive inquiry methodology enables teams to attribute success to

specific teacher-implemented instructional actions and not to external causes. A

specific focus on the cause-and-effect relationship between teaching and

52

learning provides mastery experiences. This enables teachers to realise their

group efforts cause learning and this strengthens collective efficacy.

Given that collective efficacy is a higher order determinate with a broad

influence on teachers’ attitudinal, affective and motivational behaviours

(Bandura, 1986), it represents the quality of the school culture through the ways

teachers interact on teaching and learning. Schools that engage in the

collaborative inquiry process increase their collective efficacy. In addition,

research by Tschannen-Moran and Barr (2004) indicated that teacher

collaboration can influence efficacy beliefs by nurturing an environment that

values instructional experimentation, engagement with advice seeking

behaviour, and joint work. Through collaborating and developing solutions,

teachers’ sense of collective efficacy increases. According to Langer and Colton

(2005) “schools that engage in collaborative inquiry develop a sense of collective

efficacy that helps educators reconnect with their original point of passion:

ensuring student success” (p.26).

Research by Voelkel (2011) also found a positive relationship between

collective efficacy and professional learning communities that incorporated

collaborative inquiry. Further research by Bruce and Flynn (2013) discovered

that teachers involved in a 3-year cycle of collaborative inquiry felt more

confident in instructional decisions and held a positive view regarding teachers’

capabilities to cause student learning. The cycle of inquiry provided a structure

for teachers to shift their analysis of attributes and understand how their actions

cause learning (Donohoo, 2017; Gallimore et al., 2009).

The collaborative inquiry process enabled teachers to see the causal

connections between their teaching and learning and was empowering. In

Fisher et al.’s (2020) publication, they refer to a professional learning cycle

drawing on the research of DeWitt (2019), Donohoo (2013) and Knight (2007)

which highlights the phases that put collective efficacy in action (Figure 10).

53

Figure 10. The professional learning cycle

From The teacher credibility and collective efficacy playbook, Grades K-12 (p. 236), by D.

Fisher, N. Frey and D. Smith, 2020, Corwin Press. Copyright 2020 by Corwin Press, Inc.

The first phase of this learning cycle begins when teachers identify the

common challenge and develop a shared goal so that tasks progress towards

this goal and actions are mobilised to yield results. The use of assessment data

assists with establishing the common challenge. The second phase refers to

building knowledge and skills through professional learning sessions about

new teaching approaches/strategies. The third phase involves safe practice and

collaborative planning which provides teachers with the opportunity to

experiment and take on new approaches. The fourth phase involves opening up

their practice and collaboratively planning; this includes co-teaching, observing

and conversing about one another’s practice. These are conditions that help

teachers share insights about instructional effectiveness, by co-analysing and

co-reflecting on student learning and determining adjustments and next steps.

The last phase includes monitoring, measuring and modifying through

collaborative planning. This involves meeting regularly (formally and

informally) to discuss experiences, provide one another with feedback, interpret

evidence of student learning, modify practice, celebrate success, and devise

strategies to overcome any challenges

When collective efficacy is firmly established in practice groups, teachers are

willing to learn together to re-examine and improve instruction. According to

Identify Common Challenge

Build Knowledge and Skills

Safe Practice Collaborative

Planning

Opening Up Practice

Collaborative Planning

Monitor, Measure, Modify

Collaborative Planning

54

Donohoo and Katz (2019), when teachers engage in a cycle of progressive

inquiry methodology it “shines light on the cause-and-effect relationship

between teaching and learning” (p.52). These mastery experiences build

confidence in one another’s capabilities through ongoing professional

conversations and reflections that are focused on assessing their impact on

student learning (Bandura, 1997; Bloomberg & Pitchford, 2016; Donohoo &

Velascao, 2016).

The cycle of professional learning phases in Figure 10 also supports the

“normative and behavioural environment of the school” (Hoy et al., 2002, p. 79),

which is instrumental in developing positive interdependences that strengthen

teachers’ sense of collective efficacy. Since the cultural norms of a school reflect

that school’s context, it is important to understand the factors within the school

environment. The next section of the literature review will explain how

personal factors, behaviour and environmental events influence one another to

determine international school functioning.

2.8 The International School Functioning

A school culture is made up of a set of assumptions and beliefs developed by

existing members who have overcome past problems and worked through

challenges that have contributed to the development of local knowledge

regarding what works well. This information is passed on to new members who

consequently adopt a similar line of thinking and behaviours (Schein, 2006).

Schools are interactive social systems whereby the relationships between

administrators, teachers and students influence instructional methods (Hoy &

Miskel, 2012). Participants of the school community learn to adapt their

behaviour in accordance with the behavioural patterns of the group, as

regulated by the established group norms (Coleman, 1987). These norms govern

group behaviour and influence the interactions between personal, behavioural

and environmental factors in what is known as triadic reciprocal determinism

55

(Bandura, 1997). Therefore, teacher behaviours are both influenced and

influence the environment created by these norms.

Bandura's theory (1977) of triadic reciprocal determinism explains how

personal factors, behaviour and environmental events influence one another

bidirectionally to determine human functioning. He contends that people are

products and producers of their environment because not only does the

environment influence thinking, but also the control to influence the course of

events that shape lives through setting goals, planning, tackling challenges,

learning through others, and deriving meaning from the environment

(Bandura, 2000). Bandura (1989) also claims that the ability to reflect and

evaluate actions is the most important capability because it leads to deeper

learning which propels further action. Social cognitive theory explains the

choices teachers make to exercise personal agency. The need to have control

over events that affect lives permeates actions. The level of motivation to act is

based on beliefs to produce the desired effects. These efficacy beliefs are the

major source of action influencing thought patterns (whether sabotaging,

regulating or self-aiding), level of effort, perseverance when faced with

obstacles and resilience to setbacks. Efficacy beliefs are the core of human

agency. How well we think we can do something (efficacy beliefs) affects the

choices made in pursuit of achieving goals (human agency). However, people

do not operate in isolation and there are factors within social structures that

influence functioning.

At the organisational level, the triadic reciprocal determinism model can be

adopted to describe how international schools function (Figure 11), with the

‘personal’ factors referring to the ‘internal forces’ of the organisation. These can

include the school structures, efficacy beliefs, attitudes and values of teachers,

leaders and students. In this model, ‘behaviour’ refers to the actions of teachers,

leaders and students. It illustrates how teachers collaborate, engage and

instruct, and how leaders, teachers and students interact with one another. The

‘environmental’ events are the external forces which involve the community

56

and their perception of education. Three determinants—personal, behavioural

and environmental forces—interact to influence efficacy that drives actions.

However, these determinants do not exert influence simultaneously, rather

their relative influence can vary depending on the situation. School leaders

should consider each determinate by examining and identifying the forces

within the system that can be modified in order to enhance the organisational

effectiveness.

Figure 11. International school functioning in triadic reciprocal determinism

Adapted from Bandura (1986).

The theory holds that the triadic relationship between personal, behaviour

and environmental forces is reciprocal because they influence each other and

are determinants of one another. When applied to schools, Figure 11 describes

how the organisation operates. An examination of the relationships between

what people believe and feel affect how they behave is underpinned by

Bandura’s theoretical framework of social cognitive theory—a notion that a

person’s behaviour is continually influenced by the reciprocal effects of

cognitive and environmental factors. Bandura writes: “A group’s attainments

are the product not only of shared knowledge and skills of its different

members, but also of the interactive, coordinative, and synergistic dynamics of

their transactions” (2000, p.75). Teachers’ collective efficacy beliefs grow out of

these interactions with others and form an essential element that gives rise to

the normative environment of a school. Additionally, teachers’ behaviours are

also influenced by the characteristics of the students they teach, and their

57

instructional activities are partially shaped by this context. The next section will

analyse the contextual variables related to collective efficacy utilising a

framework by Bronfenbrenner (1976) for understanding the educational

environment.

2.9 International Schools’ Contextual Variables and Teachers’

Collective Efficacy

A variety of studies provide insights into the environmental features that

influence teachers’ collective efficacy. In this literature review, these contextual

influences are discussed with reference to a framework that was adapted from

Bronfenbrenner’s (1996) framework for understanding the nested arrangement

of variables within an educational environment. The framework for this study

consists of three layers: the microsystem (classroom setting), the mesosystem

(school campus), and the exosystem (the wider community), as displayed in

Figure 12.

Figure 12. Framework for understanding the international educational environment

(Bronfenbrenner, 1976)

Exosystem

Community

- Parental Characteristics

Mesosystem

School Setting

- School Structures

- Team Cohesion

Microsystem

Classroom Setting

- Teacher characteristics

- Student characteristics

58

The inner layer, microsystem, consists of the teacher’s classroom setting. The

characteristics likely to influence teachers’ sense of collective efficacy include

student characteristics and teacher characteristics. The middle layer, mesosystem,

consists of the environment outside the individual classroom and involves

interactions between teachers and the influences of the school structures. The

outer layer, exosystem, refers to the wider parent community and context in

which the school is situated. In the following section, the literature is reviewed

with reference to each layer of the school, the environment and its influences on

teachers’ collective efficacy.

2.9.1. The microsystem

International school classroom setting and collective efficacy

In the framework for understanding the educational environment, the

classroom contains elements that influence teachers’ sense of collective efficacy,

such as student characteristics and teacher characteristics. International teachers

are multicultural, bringing rich, diverse experiences. Research by Bailey (2015)

illustrated that teachers pursue careers in international schools for a range of

reasons including to learn more about life, to escape from personal or

professional problems, to learn about a different culture, to explore a different

country, or develop their professional community.

According to Holopainen and Björkman (1998) personal characteristics of

successful expatriates include a high tolerance to stress, a high capacity to

interact effectively with different groups of people and develop close

relationships, and an aptitude to learn the social norms. Teachers in

international schools need to have a mindset that enables independence and

openness. This may challenge their own way of thinking, encourage them to be

flexible and to acclimate according to the cultural context. Joslin (2002) states:

No matter how well prepared, technically capable or socially adept in a

multicultural environment the teacher is as an individual, a school may only

be as good as the combined efforts of its staff (p.52).

59

Therefore, it is vital for international school leaders to understand the

collective capacity of their school. Research by Goddard (2001) suggests that

teacher characteristics are important contextual variables to consider when

establishing teachers’ sense of collective efficacy. However, there has been little

discussion and research regarding the effects of teacher characteristics and

collective efficacy. Dissertations by Egger (2006) and Kurz (2001) found no

significant correlation between teacher demographic variables and teachers’

sense of collective efficacy. In contrast, Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) found

that novice teachers were generally more positive and had higher efficacy.

In Klassen’s seminal paper, ‘Teacher stress: The mediating role of collective

efficacy beliefs’, he points out the difference between job stress and job

satisfaction. Job stress is referred to as “the experience of negative emotions

resulting from a teacher’s work” (2010, p. 343) and job satisfaction as a sense of

fulfilment from daily tasks associated with the job. Klassen (2010) writes that

these have impacts on performance, commitment and mental and physical well-

being. Job stress can lead to depression and burn out. Klassen found that

“collective efficacy of teachers is related not only to student achievement but

also serves as a job resource that mediates the effect on stress from student

behaviour on job satisfaction” (2010, p. 349). This finding was also found in

Skaalvik and Skaalvik’s (2007) research which explored the correlation between

teacher and collective efficacy on teacher burnout. Both papers suggest that

collective efficacy can help mitigate the negative impact of stress associated

with teaching and highlight the significance of developing a strong sense of

collective efficacy within schools.

Numerous studies have indicated that students’ characteristics are related to

teacher expectations and teaching effectiveness (Brophy, 1983; Weinstein, 2002).

Research by Sweetland and Hoy (2000), for example, demonstrated that when

students contribute to a positive academic climate, teachers feel empowered in

their collective capability and believe they can foster positive school outcomes.

Teachers’ expectations about students’ abilities play an influential role and

60

affect their sense of collective efficacy, and subsequent teaching behaviour such

as setting high expectations. When teachers convey high expectations for

students, their instruction is organised and clear. They also spend more time on

instructional activities, which increases student achievement (Wang et al., 1993).

Bandura (1997) writes that the contribution of student characteristics to the

school environment can cause a positive bidirectional influence. When staff

firmly believe that through their efforts, they are able to motivate and educate

students, and this is realised through higher outcomes, it can alter teachers’

beliefs about their capability and sense of collective efficacy. Consequently,

when students experience success, they respond optimistically to the respect

they get from parents, teachers, and their peers for their academic achievements

(McGuigan & Hoy, 2006; Smith & Hoy, 2007). Additionally, when teachers are

aware of their impact on student achievements, they feel valued and motivated,

and as a result teacher attrition rates are reduced (McLaughlin, 1991;

Rosenholtz, 1989; Sederberg & Clark, 1990).

2.9.2 The mesosystem

Team cohesion and collective efficacy

The environment outside an individual teacher’s classroom consists of

interactions between teachers and their school structures. Given the unique

setting of international schools where foreigners are employed to work,

expatriates generally rely on each other for support with professional and

personal matters—their colleagues are their main system of support within the

foreign country. Therefore, social networks are more inclined to be highly dense

and develop strong instrumental functions. This leads to more trusting

relationships because friends become ‘family’ and offer a support network.

The idea that school faculty work together to foster student learning could

be described as cohesive. The cohesiveness among staff is important because

school cultures develop through the interactions people encounter (Peterson &

Deal, 1998). While collective efficacy and student success are positively related

61

(Goddard et al., 2000), studies by Fullan and Quinn (2016) conclude that schools

that foster collaboration also increase student outcomes. Research by Ross et al.

(2004) also found that the cohesiveness of staff was related to collective efficacy

through an increased knowledge of one another, which enables effective

construction of persuasive arguments. This means that as the group acquires

more control over its members, there is greater approval of group norms,

functions, and performance standards. Likewise, Zaccaro et al. (1995), the

seminal research by Cartwright (1968) and Forsyth (1990) hold the view that

cohesion is an antecedent of collective efficacy. As cohesion increases, the group

as a whole gains more influence over individual members, leading to greater

acceptance of accountability measures and stronger resistance to obstacles.

Carron et al. (1985) define group cohesion as an active process consisting of

motivation towards achieving group goals in the context of social support.

Levine and Moreland (1990) add that a group’s culture is socially processed,

and norms and customs are sources of information for new group members.

Therefore, the social environment and the group culture encourage shared

beliefs about collective competence and collective actions, which are also

influenced by social conditions within a group (Carron et al., 1985).

Given the reciprocal nature of the constructs of cohesion and collective

efficacy, it is plausible that cohesion could be predictive of collective efficacy.

Research by Paskevich et al. (1999) found that various aspects of collective

efficacy were correlated with group cohesion, specifically, task-related aspects

among volleyball players. This finding is consistent with previous research that

demonstrated players from effective teams retained higher levels of task

cohesion than those from less successful teams. It has also been suggested that

cohesion could be either an important antecedent or consequence of collective

efficacy (Spink, 1990). However, not all research finds that high cohesion and

high collective efficacy lead to organisational effectiveness as deeply cohesive

groups may be subject to counterproductive “group think”.

62

According to Janis (1982) “group think” arises when people work closely

together, share similar values, and fear a crisis. As a result, psychological

pressure to conform emerges and group think occurs. This can stifle critical

thinking, creativity and may result in irrational actions. Similarly, Gist (1987)

writes that group think might reflect unrealistically high efficacy perceptions.

This view is supported by Whyte (1998) who proposed a new model indicating

that overly high collective efficacy may also lead to symptoms of group think,

as an expression of greater willingness to adhere to the group’s majority. While

high collective efficacy may contribute to the “group think” phenomena as

negatively framing decision-making and collaborative norms, the

administrative and structural organisation of schools can also influence group

norms to foster collective efficacy (Adams & Forsyth, 2006; Hoy et al., 2006).

School structures and collective efficacy

Adams and Forsyth (2006) suggest that schools could improve collective teacher

efficacy by increasing school structures that enable teachers to perform their

best through developing a culture that supports the interactions necessary to

produce collective efficacy. Research by Leithwood and Sun (2012) indicated

that leaders have a significant positive impact on the school culture by

increasing teacher commitment and empowerment through building consensus

on goals and sharing the decision-making process. According to Hoy et al.

(2001) school structures consist of a bipolar continuum indicating the degree of

bureaucracy with enabling at one end and coercive at the other. Hoy and

Sweetland (2001) developed an instrument to operationalise their theory of

school structures as a continuum. The internal validity of their shorter survey of

12 questions showed a high alpha = 0.95. However, Tschannen-Moran (2001)

clarified that school structures were not necessarily a school characteristic but a

reflection of how leadership was conducted. Mitchell and Tarter (2016) add that

leadership behaviours influence teachers’ work and the collective efficacy of a

school faculty. In the same vein Bandura (1993) notes that leadership is an

important source of efficacy because it provides teachers with social persuasion

63

regarding their belief in their collective ability. School leaders are catalysts for

teacher collaboration (Goddard et al., 2015). How they orchestrate the school

determines whether the culture is toxic and negative or focused on growth and

positive (Barth, 2002). They create norms that enable professionalism and trust

among the faculty (Hallinger et al., 1996; Tschannen-Moran et al., 2014) and

develop structures to help sustain collective efficacy through establishing

teacher teams, effective communication, and collaborative decision-making

(Willingham, 2019). These are school structures that support teachers to

overcome barriers (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009).

A recent study by Nordick (2017) identified that enabling school structures

were directly related to building teacher collective efficacy. Specifically,

teachers identified that having time to engage in professional learning

communities during the day and involvement in decision-making and goal

setting, leveraging their strengths to take part in school programs, supporting

the development of collaborative teams and positive communication skills were

all part of school structures that nurtured teachers’ sense of collective efficacy.

This view is supported by Gray and Summers (2016) who write that when

enabling structures are in place, collaborative structures are more likely to be

present. The next section highlights the impact of the environment external to

the school building on teachers’ sense of collective efficacy.

2.9.3 The Exosystem

Parent community and collective efficacy

The parent community represents the broader context in which the school is

situated. The culture, values and beliefs of students’ families influence teachers’

sense of collective efficacy. Hoy et al. (2002) argue that a drive for academic

excellence and a strong expectation for academic performance from the wider

community sets the normative environment of the school and constitutes

behavioural norms that support the vision for achieving academic excellence. In

the same vein, Hoy et al. (2006) found that higher collective efficacy is

associated with increased rates of parental involvement. This view is supported

64

by Bandura (1997) who notes that the family plays a key role in children’s

success in school. He notes that a distinguishing feature of an efficacious school

is the level of involvement of parents as partners in their children’s education.

Epstein (1990) adds that when parents place value on education, children

experience greater academic progress.

Research by Stevenson et al. (1990) suggests that the socialisation practices

in Asia promote proxy control with parents. Parents who mediate between

home and school by encouraging children to be self-disciplined and successful

set appropriate norms and expectations. This is aligned with traditional

socialisation practices within Asia as an essential life goal that can only be

achieved through hard work and discipline (Schneider and Lee, 1990).

Accordingly, Kim and Park (2006) found that Asian students are generally more

focused and less disruptive than Western students and Asian parents are more

willing to spend money on educational support for their children. Additionally,

Hoover-Dempsey et al. (1992) identified that the higher a parent’s self-efficacy

regarding their ability to instruct their children, the more they regarded

education as a shared responsibility and participated in the learning process,

which impacted teachers’ perceptions of students’ learning capability.

Every part of the school ecosystem has the potential to influence teachers’

judgement of their collective efficacy. How teachers treat one another and are

sensitive to the nuances and interact with their students matters. In order to

understand the nature of collective efficacy, we must take into account the

variables within the school environment. Teachers’ interactions between

students, colleagues, leaders and parents are critical to consider when seeking

to understand collective efficacy in greater depth. As mentioned earlier,

Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986) proposes that human functioning is a

product and a process between personal, behaviour and environmental factors.

People do not live in isolation; they are products and producers of their

interactions and interdependencies with others (Bandura, 1993). In the next

65

section, the comprehensive literature review is condensed into the study’s

conceptual framework.

2.10 Conceptual Framework

For this study, a conceptual framework provides a visual representation of the

concepts that emerged from the literature review, as displayed in Figure 13.

These concepts guided the development of the research questions and the

methodology chosen to answer them.

Figure 13. Conceptual framework guiding the study

Based on the literature review, Figure 13 shows that the school context is

made up of layers that include school structures, team cohesion, teacher

characteristics, student characteristics and family characteristics. These

influence (and are influenced by) teachers’ sense of collective efficacy which

involves an analysis of the teaching task and teaching competence, interactive

group dynamics and coordination of group dynamics. Teachers’ collective

66

efficacy is influenced by their interpretation of Bandura’s four sources of

efficacy and their capabilities, which in turn drives action.

2.11 Teachers’ Collective Efficacy in International Schools in

Shanghai

International schools have a mix of multinational teachers who bring a range of

cultural norms, educational views, levels of professionalism, educational

backgrounds and perceptions of societal behaviour (Hayden, 2006). The

strategy employed to identify studies on collective teacher efficacy in

international schools included a keyword combination search on a

computerised database: Sage online, Ebscohost, Proquest, Informit, Ovid and

Web of Science. The combinations that were most helpful included “collective

teacher efficacy”, “international schools”, “collect* efficacy”, “teach*”, and

“student achieve*”.

Two studies were found investigating collective teacher efficacy in

international school settings (Gray & Summers, 2016; Hardin, 2010). Hardin

(2010) employed a quantitative study to test social cognitive theory by

comparing the perceptions of teachers working in strong professional learning

communities with those who did not. Hardin (2010) endeavoured to

understand whether international schools with strong professional learning

communities had higher levels of collective teacher efficacy than teachers in

schools without organised learning communities. The findings suggested a

strong positive relationship between five dimensions of PLC and collective

teacher efficacy. The location of these international schools was not provided.

Gray and Summers (2016) explored the role of enabling school structures,

collegial trust, and collective efficacy in 15 pre-kindergarten to 12th grade

international, private schools in South and Central America and Mexico.

Results demonstrated that the local culture and school norms influenced the

climate of the school and as the enabling school structures, collegial trust, and

67

collective efficacy became more established, professional learning communities

were likely to develop.

Although both studies investigated collective efficacy in international

schools, the specific context of international schools in Shanghai was not

explicitly explored. Furthermore, neither study explored the relationships

between teachers’ perception of collective efficacy and its relationships with

school structures.

2.12 Research Questions

This study aims to understand the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its

relationship with school structures in the context of international schools in

Shanghai. The following research questions will guide the investigation:

1. What are expatriate teachers’ perceptions regarding collective efficacy

and school structures?

2. What are the broader international teachers’ perceptions regarding

collective efficacy and school structures?

3. What are the factors that relate to teachers’ perception of collective


In the next chapter, Chapter 3 Methodology, the overall approach for the

investigation is outlined. The rationale underpinning the methodology,

philosophical considerations, procedures, materials used to gather data and

participant selection process are described. The methodology section clearly

explains why the methods employed are most suitable to answering the

research questions.

69

Chapter 3 Methodology

This chapter provides an overview of the rationale for a mixed methods

methodology, including the general philosophical foundation for the research,

justification for the mixed-methods sequential explanatory research design,

data collection procedures, and the analysis strategies appropriate for

answering the research questions.

3.1 Overview of Research Methodology

This study sought to examine the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its

relationships with school structures in the context of international schools in

Shanghai. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was chosen to

obtain survey results from a purposeful sample of international teachers,

followed by in-depth semi-structured interviews to explain these results. In

Study One, Phase I, survey data from expatriate teachers in one school were

collected to determine associations between teachers’ collective efficacy, school

structures, and teachers’ demographic information. In Phase II, semi-structured

interviews were conducted as a follow up with participants from the same

school to help to explain the survey data. The results of Study One informed

Study Two by identifying areas for further investigation.

Study Two, Phase I, collected survey data from staff of four international

schools. Phase II involved semi-structured interviews with expatriate teachers

from these same four schools. The triangulation of data provided a

comprehensive understanding of teachers’ collective efficacy and its

relationship with school structures within international schools in Shanghai.

3.2 Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study:

70

1. What are expatriate teachers’ perspectives regarding collective efficacy and

school structures?

2. What are the broader international teachers’ perspectives regarding collective

efficacy and school structures?

3. What are the factors that relate to teachers’ perspectives of collective efficacy

in international schools in Shanghai?

3.3 Philosophical Foundation for Developing the Research Study

This section outlines the assumptions, philosophical lens and basic set of beliefs

that guided the actions for gaining knowledge throughout this investigation.

The type of knowledge the researcher seeks and how the evidence is to be

interpreted is based on worldview perspectives and epistemologies

incorporating ideas from the philosophy of science. As outlined by Crotty and

Crotty (1998), the main research inquiry elements include: (1) philosophical

assumptions (worldview, epistemology, ontology, axiology), (2) theoretical

lens, (3) methodological approach, and (4) methods of data collection.

To deeply understand the process and practice of the behavioural,

contextual and cognitive aspects of collective efficacy in international schools, a

multiple worldview incorporating post-positivist and constructivist approaches

was adopted as the philosophical orientation that guided the research process.

According to Guba and Lincoln (1994) a paradigm is a set of beliefs that

represents the nature of the world and helps determine a set of criteria for the

research inquiry. This worldview guides the way the scientific inquiry is carried

out and how the investigator comes to know truth and reality. A paradigm

directs the types of research questions, methodological approach, and criteria

for evaluating the reliability and trustworthiness of the study (Cooksey &

McDonald, 2011; Scotland, 2012).

In this study, a multiple worldview lens assumes that knowledge is

comprised of various interpretations that are context-dependent and

71

constructed through interactions. Assumptions about knowledge are

underpinned by a post-positivist and a constructivist theoretical positioning

(Davidson, 2000). Knowledge that develops through a post-positivist lens is

based on careful observation and measurement of objective reality (Creswell et

al., 2003). This is achieved through developing numeric measurements of

behaviours of participants. Post-positivists adopt a deterministic philosophy

whereby probability determines outcome. In this view, truth can never be fully

apprehended; however, through statistical analysis one can conclude that there

is a high probability that truth has been obtained (Guba, 1990).

To complement this methodology and gain a richer understanding of the

complexity of phenomenon under study, an additional paradigm was included

— constructivism. A constructivist’s positioning of knowledge is dependent on

understanding of the human mind; what is known is not separate from the

knower (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Constructivists assume that individuals seek

understanding from their context and develop meanings from their

experiences.

In this study the intent was to interpret the meanings others have about

their world. Through open-ended questions, understanding was constructed as

participants shared their views. The assumption relevant to the interviews

conducted in this study is that humans make sense of their world based on their

social perspectives and inquiry seeks to interpret and construct these meanings

(Merriam, 2002). Multiple realities are unveiled through a mixed methods

approach which assumes that people are bound together by an entanglement of

interrelationships that shape, and are shaped by, their environment.

The epistemological approach was diverse because the multiple worldview

values both objective and subjective knowledge during different phases of the

study. The ontological perspective considered both singular and multiple

viewpoints of teachers in international schools. The singular perspective

evaluated behaviour and the environment from a social cognitive stance via

surveys, then switched to exploring individual teachers’ multiple perspectives

72

using semi-structured interviews. This approach abandons any forced-choice

dichotomy between post positivism and constructivism and applies a practical

philosophy to guide methodological decisions (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003).

Incorporating multiple phases through the collection of both survey and

interview data enabled reflection on both data sources and potentially a deeper

comprehensive view of the situation. Figure 14 provides an overview of the

theoretical and methodological foundations of this study.

Figure 14. Philosophical foundation for developing this research study

As the overall objective for this research was to explore collective efficacy in

international schools from a social cognitive perspective and unpack the

interplay between behaviour, cognitive factors and the environment, one data

source was an insufficient means for explaining these interactive dimensions.

Multiple methods of data collection were needed to help gain deeper insights

into the reciprocal influences that act on teachers’ shared beliefs in their

73

collective capability.

The design of this study is explained in the next section. A mixed methods

sequential explanatory design, research procedures, data collection and analysis

strategy are presented in the sections that follow.

3.4 Rationale for a Mixed Methods Methodology

A mixed methods approach was chosen for this study because the combination

of data forms (open-ended and closed-ended information) offered a stronger

understanding of the phenomena and research questions, thus providing more

insights. The robust set of results is counterbalanced by the strengths and offset

by the weaknesses of each other, so the combination of both data sets provides a

more comprehensive approach. Given the complexity of the collective efficacy

phenomenon, this investigation required research methods that provided a way

to investigate multiple perspectives and bring together the results from

quantitative and qualitative data. It was necessary to go beyond the bounds of

numbers within surveys or words from interviews and combine both forms to

provide a thorough analysis. Therefore, a mixed methods approach was

adopted in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of teachers’ collective

efficacy and its relationship with school structures within international schools

in Shanghai.

3.5 The Research Design

There were several key decisions involved in choosing the appropriate mixed

methods design for this research. Considerations were made about the

quantitative and qualitative phases of the study; the sequential timing of the

phases and the procedure for mixing data collected. The specific design that

best addressed the research problem was an explanatory sequential design

whereby Phase I results are expanded and explained by Phase II results, with

participants providing in-depth, follow-up explanations for the findings in

Phase I (Creswell et al., 2003). This design utilises the qualitative data to help

74

explain and build on the initial quantitative results (Creswell et al., 2003;

Morgan, 1998; Morse, 1991; Tashakkori et al., 1998). An overview of the

research design is displayed in Figure 15.

Figure 15. Overview of the research design

Given the dearth of research on collective efficacy in Shanghai and

longstanding debates among scholars regarding the definition of collective

efficacy, this research focused on understanding the nature of collective efficacy

and explaining its elements and interaction with the context in greater detail.

Phase II of the explanatory sequential design provided an opportunity to

‘follow-up’ with teachers regarding their responses on surveys. This important

75

element of the design provided a deeper explanation of collective efficacy in

this context.

The focus of Study One was twofold, to understand expatriate teachers’

perceptions regarding collective efficacy and school structures and to trial the

surveys. To achieve this, survey data were collected and analysed (Phase I) in

one international school. Analysis of the survey data with expatriate teachers

highlighted areas requiring further clarification and guided the construction of

a semi-structured interview protocol. Semi-structured interviews were

conducted after three weeks of the survey with voluntary participants. The data

from Phase I and Phase II was triangulated to determine further areas of

inquiry and inform the development of Study Two.

The focus of Study Two was to understand more broadly international

(expatriate and host country) teachers’ perceptions regarding collective efficacy

and school structures. Building on the results of Study One, surveys were

refined and data were collected across four international schools in Shanghai

(Phase I). Again, the analysis of survey results informed the development of the

semi-structured interview protocol and voluntary participants provided

additional explanations for results.

The reasons for triangulating Phase I and Phase II were to explain results,

seek convergence, divergence, and corroboration of evidence from different

sources and phases of data collection (Greene et al., 1989). According to Bryman

(2006) triangulating data provides greater validity because of the explanatory

power gained when one phase is used to help explain the findings generated by

the other phase. This method also offers greater credibility of results as both

approaches enhance the integrity of findings.

In the following sections, the data collection procedure for a two-phase

sequential mixed-methods explanatory design is outlined and details provided

regarding how the two studies and phases were scaffolded, analysed,

connected and triangulated.

76

3.6 Two-phase Sequential Mixed-methods Explanatory Design

Procedure

The procedural steps involved in conducting a two-phase explanatory mixed

methods strategy are relatively straightforward. The first step involves the

development of surveys, their implementation and the collection and analysis

of data. The second step requires the identification of specific survey results

that call for additional explanation, which guides the development and

refinement of semi-structured interview questions. Data collection protocols

and sampling procedures are designed to be aligned with this information and

the research questions set for the investigation. In the third step, the semi-

structured interview results are analysed and interpreted to explain and add

insights to the survey results (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Creswell et al., 2003).

These steps are outlined in Figure 16. Carrying out these steps requires careful

consideration of sampling procedures, permission protocols, and data collection

and recording procedures.

77

Figure 16. Design procedure for Phase I and Phase II

3.6.1 Purposeful sampling procedure

Teachers in Shanghai schools were selected to participate because of their

direct experience with collective efficacy in the context central to this

investigation. Considering the dual nature of the research design in both Study

One and Study Two, two different sampling procedures were adopted.

Study One was conducted in one international school with expatriate

teachers because the intent was to trial the survey and establish the nature of

collective efficacy. Expatriate teachers make up the majority of the teaching

faculty and are responsible for delivering an English medium curriculum in

foreign-owned international schools. Phase I aimed to obtain survey responses

from a homogenous group of teachers. An online survey was administered via

email to PK-12 teachers. Phase II of the investigation sought to explain the

survey results, and teachers who participated in the first phase were invited to

78

voluntarily participate in the follow-up semi-structured interview with

expatriate teachers. Study One results were used to inform the development of

Study Two.

Study Two was conducted across four international schools. In Study Two,

the online survey was administered to both expatriate and host country PK-12

teachers. However, in Phase II, host country teachers did not participate in the

semi-structured interviews because the focus of the study was on expatriate

teachers who make up over 90% of foreign-owned international schools. A

small number of expatriate teachers voluntarily participated in semi-structured

interviews, this gained their perspectives and provide a comprehensive

illustration of collective efficacy and contextual factors. To minimise the burden

on teachers, a non-probabilistic sampling strategy was applied in both phases

which meant that data was collected from those who volunteered to participate.

3.6.2 Gaining permission

Permission was gained from different governing bodies before the research was

conducted. Prior to reaching out to international school directors, a project

application was submitted to the University of Melbourne’s Human Research

Ethics Committee (HREC). The application provided comprehensive details of

the project, plain language statements, consent forms and protocols for data

collection. The application was thoroughly reviewed to ensure full compliance.

Upon HREC approval, the researcher emailed school directors with a

summary of the proposed study and a request to schedule an introductory

meeting. During these meetings, the researcher outlined the objectives,

activities, expected timeline and data collection procedures for the study. Once

approval was obtained from school directors, an email was sent to all PK-12

staff with a link to an online survey and plain language statement. Participation

in the study was voluntary. The researcher reinforced voluntary participation in

all communication to teachers including the plain language statement, consent

forms and protocols. These documents reiterated confidentiality and ensured

79

that participants understood they were under no obligation to take part in this

study due to their employment with the associated international school.

Following the completion of the survey, expatriate teachers who had indicated

their interest were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview.

Interviews were conducted during a three-week period in Study One and Study

Two.

3.6.3 Collecting the data

Both Study One and Study Two adopted the same two-phase explanatory

sequential data collection procedure. In Phase I, the surveys collected closed-

ended questions based on predetermined response scales. Teachers were asked

to rate their answers to a series of questions on a 6-point Likert scale ranging

from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. In Phase II, information was

obtained from open-ended questions and some of these were predetermined

based on the Phase I results and others emerged as the one-to-one semi-

structured interviews progressed. The interviews were audio recorded and

transcribed for thematic analysis.

3.6.4 Recording the data

The approach to systematically gathering information and recording data was

based on consideration of the research questions and requirements for data

analysis. In Phase I, the researcher adapted existing instruments to best suit the

context of international schools. Secure computer-based methods such as

Qualtrics, Microsoft Excel and SPSS were used to carefully record and organise

data. Personal identifiable information was removed, and individual teachers

were randomly assigned a number. The second phase of data collection utilised

an interview protocol. The protocol provided space to record essential data

about the interview such as the date, time and location. This protocol helped the

researcher stay focused and organised. Each interview was audio recorded to

ensure accurate transcription of participant responses.

80

3.6.5 Administering the data collection

The timing of the distribution of surveys was negotiated with international

school directors and the timing of semi-structured interviews was arranged

with expatriate teachers. Figure 17 outlines the administration of the data

collection for Study One, which was administered to expatriate teachers only

and subsequently Study Two, Phase I incorporated the perspectives of the host

country teachers.

Figure 17. Administration of data collection for both Study One and Study Two

3.6.6 Data analysis strategy

The data analysis strategy included the initial collection of survey data (Phase I)

and analysis. These results were used to inform follow-up through the

collection of semi-structured interview data (Phase II). There were three points

of data analysis: (1) survey data analysis, (2) semi-structured interview data

analysis, and (3) triangulation of data which yielded insights and explanations

of the initial survey data findings. Figure 18 outlines the sequence of data

collection and analysis in an explanatory sequential design.

81

Figure 18. Explanatory sequential design

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017).

Rigorous data analysis procedures were undertaken at each phase of the

investigation. Both phases were analysed separately before they were

considered together. The basic data analysis procedures for each phase

involved preparing, exploring and analysing the data, as outlined below.

3.6.6.1 Phase I - Survey data analysis

The survey data analysis required preparing, exploring, analysing and

connecting Phase I findings to inform the development of Phase II. Combining

the data from Phase I and Phase II forms an in-depth understanding of the

study.

Preparing. Prior to data collection, a codebook was developed which listed

the variables, their definitions, items requiring inverted scoring, scoring rules,

SPSS coding procedures, when and why new variables were computed and

imputation methods. Once the survey was closed, data were prepared for

analysis. The pre-determined code book was used to guide the cleaning and

coding process using Statistical Program for Social Science (SPSS) software and

Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Mean imputation was the method used for

handling missing data (Jakobsen et al., 2017). The missing variables were

estimated through a mean imputing process by calculating the mean of the

observed values for available data.

82

Exploring. The data were inspected for descriptive information including

mean, standard deviations, variance of responses to each item, and frequency of

demographic variables. Normality of data distribution and linearity of

independent variables were examined on scatterplots and histograms. A visual

inspection of the histogram of residuals and scatterplots determined normal or

non-normal linearity and homoscedasticity among variables. Skewness and

kurtosis were inspected using histograms and descriptive statistics. To address

the issue of multicollinearity, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was examined.

The variance inflation factor and tolerance are both widely used measures of

the degree of multicollinearity; a VIF of 10 or higher indicates multicollinearity

(O’Brien, 2007). A Durbin-Watson statistic test was used to indicate existence of

autocorrelation in the residuals.

Analysing. The type of statistical test employed was selected based on

whether results could address the research questions. The cleaned and coded

data were uploaded into SPSS version 25.0 for Windows. The following

statistical tests were applied: exploratory factor analysis, Pearson correlation

coefficients, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), and multiple linear

regression (MLR). The rationale for each test is described below.

• Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to uncover the underlying

relationship between the latent variables. It assists in determining

constructs and concepts (Child, 2006). Due to the small sample size,

Study One applied principal axis factoring method (PFA) with varimax

rotation for factor extraction. It was appropriate to utilise principal axis

factoring method in Study Two, with maximum likelihood due to the

larger sample size. Cronbach Alpha, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and

Bartlett’s test of sphericity were conducted to determine the validity and

appropriateness of the instruments.

• A Pearson correlation was chosen as an adequate statistical analysis

when assessing the strength of association between two continuous level

variables. A series of correlation matrixes were used to explore the

83

relationships between constructs. Correlation coefficients can potentially

range from 0 (no relationship) to 1 (perfect positive/inverse linear

relationship). Cohen’s (1992) standard was applied to interpret the

strength of the correlations. Coefficients between .10 and .29 represent a

small association; .30 and .49 medium association; above .50 represent a

large relationship. Also, the Pearson correlation coefficient was selected

to measure the strength of the linear relationship between variables. This

was considered an appropriate measurement given that the variables

were mostly continuous and the ordinal variables (representing years,

level of expertise, number of years employed) on an interval scale. Point-

biserial correlation coefficient coding was applied for gender (Female=0,

Male=1) and teacher (Host=0, Expatriate=1) variables.

• A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) examined the

statistical differences between a combination of different groups of

independent variables. A MANOVA determines whether the

independent variable groupings simultaneously explain a statistically

significant amount of the variance in the dependent variable (Tabachnick

& Fidell, 2013).

• Multiple linear regression (MLR) was used to establish associations

between variables. Multiple linear regression is a statistical technique

that enables several explanatory variables to predict the outcome of the

response variable. A multiple linear regression analysis is conducted to

test whether independent variables significantly predict the dependent

variable.

3.6.6.2 Phase II – Semi-structured interviews

The interview data were transcribed using a word processor program and

uploaded into NVivo 12.6.0 for coding. A preliminary understanding of the

data was achieved upon an initial reading of the transcripts that involved

making memos and determining broad trends within and across the data. A

qualitative code book was developed from the literature review and Phase I

84

data analysis. During the Phase II data analysis, codes were added and themes

were discovered. Within-case and across-case themes were compared before

assertions and generalisations were summarised.

The researcher applied both deductive and inductive reasoning through a

two-level data analysis scheme (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.61). The analysis

began with a list of emic codes which were drawn from Phase I and the

conceptual framework. Initially a deductive approach to data analysis assisted

by determining and framing meaning. At the second level, the researcher

developed emic codes from emergent themes. This process was inductive.

Pattern codes were considered for analysis. These included: (1) categories and

themes, (2) causes and explanations, (3) relationships among people, and (4)

theoretical constructs. The researcher also recorded reflective passages and

memos to synthesise to higher levels of analytic meaning. The map below in

Figure 19 demonstrates how data from Study One and Study Two were

evaluated to generate a summary of results.

Figure 19. Coding for Study One & Two

This chapter discussed the methodological approach underpinning this

study and the rationale for selecting a mixed-methods sequential explanatory

85

research design. Strategies for data collection and analysis were highlighted.

The next chapter will outline the process for Study One, Phase I and Phase II.

87

Chapter 4 Method: Study One

This chapter describes how data were collected at an international school in

Shanghai to determine expatriate teachers’ perceptions regarding collective

efficacy and school structures and identify the factors relating to their

perception of collective efficacy. The first section describes the context and the

purposefully-selected participant sample for Study One. Following this,

measurement instruments, data collection and analysis procedures are

described.

4.1 Context of Study One International School

The participants selected for this research were expatriate teachers working

across Pre-Kindergarten to Year 12 level in one large international school in

Shanghai. This large independent, not-for-profit international school consists of

approximately 1,500 students aged 3–18 years. All students hold foreign

passports and approximately 70–80 per cent are culturally and ethnically of

Asian descent. The remaining 20–30 per cent are from Western cultures. The

school is situated on a large campus with state-of-the-art facilities including a

performing arts centre, recording studios, black box studios, science labs,

multiple libraries, cafeterias, aquatic centre, baseball fields, track, basketball

courts, design studios with 3D printers and computer labs and classrooms fully

equipped with the latest technology. There are nearly 200 staff members, and

more than 50 per cent of educators have earned postgraduate degrees. The

teaching faculty consists of expatriate and host country teachers (national

Chinese). The Mandarin program is taught by the host country teachers

(national Chinese). The expatriate teachers deliver an English-medium

curriculum in all other subject areas, excluding French and Spanish. A large

majority of the expatriate teachers are from Western cultures and have taught in

several international schools across the globe (Blatti et al., 2019).

88

4.1.1 Participants

Permission to conduct this research was granted by the head of school and

respective building principals (elementary, middle and high school). The

researcher was given access to a potential group of approximately 100

expatriate teachers and allowed to administer the Phase I survey via email. Of

the 100 expatriate teachers who were sent the Qualtrics link via email, 53

responded. Upon completing the questionnaire, respondents were asked if they

would like to participate in a semi-structured interview. If a respondent elected

to take part in an interview, they were asked to provide email contact details.

The researcher sent a follow-up email to nine volunteer participants. This

represented a self-selected sample of respondents. All interviews were audio

recorded and transcribed. Pseudonyms and codes were used to ensure that

participants could not be identified. Only basic demographic information was

collected for each interview.

4.2 Research Procedure: Phase I & II

Study One utilised a mixed-methods approach. An explanatory sequential

design was implemented in two phases. Phase I examined collective teacher

efficacy, school structures and teacher demographic characteristics from survey

data. Following this, Phase II, semi-structured interviews, were designed to

help explain the initial survey data results and delve deeper into how teachers

described their experiences with reference to collective teacher efficacy and

school structures. Ultimately, Study One was intended to define the

relationships between the variables, determine the predictive value of school

structures and demographic characteristics on collective teacher efficacy, and

describe how these results may be influenced by the context.

An online cross-sectional survey was completed by 53 participants via the

Qualtrics platform. The Collective Teacher Efficacy survey developed by

Goddard (2002) and the School Structures Survey by Hoy and Sweetland (2001)

were adapted to suit this context (details of the survey development are

89

outlined in the next section). Demographic questions were developed by the

researcher to collect information about respondents’ years of service at their

school, level of expertise, gender and assignment level (Appendix A).

Information from the online surveys was used to inform the development of

a protocol to interview participants who had indicated interest (Appendix B).

This provided respondents with the opportunity to further elaborate on school

structures, teacher demographics and collective teacher efficacy. The sequential

timing of the study was important as the second phase, involving semi-

structured interviews, focused on in-depth explanations. The diagram below

shows how the survey data collection and analysis was connected to the semi-

structured interviews through development of interview protocols. Following

this, the qualitative data collection and analysis led to the integration of Phase I

and Phase II, which provided an overall interpretation of Study One results.

These results were used to inform Study Two.

Figure 20. Study One, Phase I and II procedure

90

Prior to the data collection outlined in Phase I, survey instruments were

adapted to suit the research aims and the context of an international school. The

following section outlines the development of the survey tools, data collection

and analysis procedures for Phases I and II.

4.2.1 Phase I: Survey

The questionnaire developed for the Phase I data collection collected

information regarding teacher demographics, collective efficacy and school

structures. As Leedy and Ormrod (2005) note, “Quantitative research is used to

answer questions about relationships among measured variables with the

purpose of explaining, predicting, and controlling phenomena” (p.94). The

development of survey items is described below.

4.2.1.1 Demographic information

Participants completed demographic questions at the beginning of the survey.

The respondents were asked about their gender (male, female), assignment

level (elementary, middle, high school or specialist teaching across two or three

schools), years of employment (1–2 years, 2–3 years, 3–4 years, 4–6 years, 7+

years), and level of experience (graduate, proficient, highly accomplished or

lead).

4.2.1.2 Collective teacher efficacy items

Collective teacher efficacy was measured using an adapted version of a 12-item

Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form. The original instrument was published in

2002 by Goddard and originated from a 21-item Collective Efficacy Scale. These

instruments were designed to measure the level of collective efficacy beliefs in

school and the degree staff members believed in their combined capabilities to

impact student learning outcomes (Goddard, 2002). The 12-item Collective

Efficacy Scale: Short Form reported a reliability score alpha = 0.94 with an

explained variance of 64 per cent.

91

The original 21-item Collective Efficacy Scale by Goddard et al. (2000) is an

extension of the Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) model of teacher efficacy.

Goddard et al. (2000) postulate that beliefs of group capability have a positive

effect on student learning when teachers take into account the complexity of the

task in context and evaluate it against faculty competence. These two elements

of collective teacher efficacy include analysis of teaching task (TA) and

assessment of group competence (GC). Adaptions were made to the original

survey in pursuit of a more culturally relevant survey for expatriate teachers in

Shanghai. Goddard’s 12-item (2002) CTE measurement predominately caters for

the urban Midwestern school district in Ohio, United States of America. A 6-

point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” was

adopted for all items. Using an even numbered scale forces respondents to

make a choice regarding each item. Allen (2017) states that forced choice

questions require more cognitive processing and improves the quality of

responses as participants actively consider each item.

Table 1. Development of the Collective Efficacy Survey for an international school in

Shanghai context

Goddard’s Original Items Study One Adapted Items Group Competence and

Task Analysis

CTE1. Teachers in this school

are able to get through to

difficult students.

CTE3. Teachers will persist with

adjusting instructional

strategies if a child doesn’t learn

the first time.

Group confidence in

instructional knowledge

and skills. (GC)

CTE2. Teachers are confident

they will be able to motivate

their students.


are confident they can motivate

any student.

Group confidence in

motivating students to

learn. (GC)


really believe every child can

learn.

CTE4. Teachers believe that

every child can learn.

Group confidence in effort

and persistence. (GC)

CTE4. If a child doesn’t want

to learn teachers here give

up.


do not give up, even if a child is

resistant to learning.

Group confidence in effort

and persistence. (GC)

CTE5. Teachers here don’t

have the skills needed to

CTE5. Teachers implement

effective learning strategies (e.g.

offer timely feedback, develop

Group confidence in

instructional knowledge

and skills. (GC)

92

Goddard’s Original Items Study One Adapted Items Group Competence and

Task Analysis

produce meaningful student

learning.

challenging and interesting

course work, support students

to meet high expectations and

reward success).

CTE6. These students come

to school ready to learn.

CTE7. Students arrive to school

ready to learn.

Task analysis involving

community partnership.

(TA)

CTE7. Home life provides so

many advantages the

students here are bound to

learn.

CTE9. There is a strong

expectation for persistent effort

and academic success.


collective high expectations.

(TA)

CTE8. Students here just

aren’t motivated to learn.


have what it takes to get the

child to learn.

Group confidence in

motivating students to

learn. (GC)

CTE9. The opportunities in

this community help ensure

that these students will learn.

CTE8. These students are

strongly supported by their

community and this helps to

ensure learning.


community partnership.

(TA)

CTE10. Learning is more

difficult at this school

because students are worried

about their safety.

Omitted

CTE11. Drug and alcohol

abuse in the community

make learning difficult for

students here.

Omitted

CTE12. Teachers in this

school do not have the skills

to deal with student

disciplinary problems.

CTE10. Teachers hold high

expectations that students

participate in all learning tasks.


collective high expectation.

(TA)

Note. Adapted from “A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective

efficacy: The development of a short form” by Goddard, R. (2002). Educational and Psychological

measurement, 62(1), 97-110.

Given that the concept of collective teacher efficacy involves future-orientated

beliefs in one another’s capability to teach, motivate and discipline students

within context, Goddard’s 12-item measurement was adapted to suit this

unique culture. Table 1 displays how each item was enhanced and modified for

93

the context of an international school in Shanghai. Items on Goddard’s survey

(CTE08, CTE10, CTE11) were omitted because major behavioural issues are not

known to obstruct learning among children in this setting, drug and alcohol

abuse are not a concern of the community and children are generally motivated

to learn. Families in Shanghai place high importance on education and children

are socialised to value and respect their teachers and classmates. For these

children, home life offers different pressures. Parents expect their children to

achieve academic excellence and, as a result, teachers expect students to


4.2.1.3 School Structures items

The School Structures items derived from Hoy and Sweetland’s (2001) Enabling

School Structures survey concentrated on enabling and hindering aspects of

bureaucracy: formalisation of the rules and regulations, and centralisation of

authority for decision making. Enabling rules and regulations require

participation and collaboration, regard problems as opportunities, foster trust

and facilitate problem solving (Hoy et al., 2001). Hindering rules and

regulations demand blind obedience to rules, fear the unexpected and punish

mistakes. The centralisation of authority refers to the degree to which teachers

are included in the decision-making process regarding instructional matters.

Enabling centralisation helps teachers to solve problems and feel confident to

exercise power within their professional role. Hindering centralisation

frustrates problem solving, promotes control and disciplines subordinates (Hoy

et al., 2001). Overall, enabling school structures incorporate procedures that

help rather than hinder a school’s function as a learning institute.

Slight adaptions were made to the original Enabling School Structure items

and scale to meet the diverse requirements of the context. To reduce participant

burden, the school structures scale was slightly adjusted to match the scale of

the collective teacher efficacy questionnaire. The original survey utilised a 12-

item, 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “never” to “always” and this was

adjusted to match a 6-point scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly

94

disagree” where teachers were asked to describe the extent to which each

statement occurred in their school. Table 2 displays how each item was

modified for the context of an international school in Shanghai.

Table 2. Development of the School Structures items for an international school in Shanghai

context

Hoy and Sweetland

Original Items

Study One Adapted Items Indicators of

Enabling/Hindering

Structures

1. Administrative rules in

this school enable authentic

communications between

teachers and administrators.


this school enable honest

communication between

teachers and leadership.

Enabling formalisation

2. Administrative rules help

rather than hinder.

2. Administrative rules

enable rather than obstruct

teaching and learning.


3.Administrative rules in this

school are guides to solutions

rather than rigid procedures.

3. Administrative rules are

guides to solving problems




this school are used to

punish teachers.


this school are used to

discipline teachers.

Coercive formalisation

5. In this school red tape is a

problem.

5. In this school red tape

keeps teachers from doing

their job well.

Coercive formalisation.


this school are substitutes for

professional judgment


this school are substitutes for

professional reasoning.

Coercive formalisation

7. The administrative

hierarchy of this school

enables teachers to do their

job.


hierarchy of this school helps

teachers to do their job.

Enabling centralisation



facilitates the mission of the

school.



promotes the mission of the

school.


95

Hoy and Sweetland

Original Items

Study One Adapted Items Indicators of

Enabling/Hindering

Structures

9. The administrators in this

school use their authority to

enable teachers to do their

job.

9. The administrators in this

school use their governance

to enable teachers to do their

job.



hierarchy obstructs student

achievement.


hierarchy enables student

achievement.




obstructs innovation.



impedes innovation.

Hindering centralisation

12. In this school the

authority of the principal is

used to undermine teachers.

12. In this school the

command of the principal is

used to undermine teachers.

Hindering centralisation

Note. Adapted from “Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling school

structures” by Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Educational administration quarterly, 37(3),

296-321.

Three separate factor analytic studies developed and refined a scale to

measure the degree of school structures (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). The construct

and predictive validity of the Enabling School Structures survey has been

supported by a number of studies (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001) which all provided

alpha coefficient of reliability over .90.

4.2.2 Phase II: Interviews

Recruitment of the interviewees occurred at the end of the survey. Upon

completion of the collective teacher efficacy and school structures survey,

participants were asked if they would like to take part in a semi-structured

interview. If the respondent elected to participate, they provided an email

address. The researcher sent a follow-up email to individuals who volunteered

to participate. Nine people volunteered to take part in the interview. The

interview transcripts were coded and pseudonyms were used in all reports.

96

The interview protocol used open-ended questions to obtain information

about Collective Teacher Efficacy and School Structures. The study protocol

sought to determine how and why collective teacher efficacy and school

structures operate in international schools and provide explanations of the

survey data. The questions solicited detailed viewpoints and insights from

participants that could not be obtained in a quantitative study alone.

The interviews offered an in-depth perspective of participants’ experiences

and this assisted the researcher to capture these constructs from the teachers’

own words (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). The analysis of survey responses

and interview data provided a detailed description of the case and the themes

that emerged from the data about collective teacher efficacy and school

structures. Strauss and Corbin (1990) stated that “qualitative methods can be

used to uncover and understand what lies behind any phenomenon about

which little is yet known, or to be used in gaining novel and fresh slants on

things about which quite a bit is already known” (p.19). The overall aim of the

research was to understand the complexity and uniqueness of the relationship

between collective teacher efficacy and school structures in a ‘real life’ context

and guide the development of Study Two.

The semi-structured interviews were guided by an interview protocol. The

interview protocol was developed in response to the a priori conceptual

framework from the literature review, as well as the information gathered from

survey responses. The researcher developed a list of generic questions and

probes to guide the discussion. The discussion was semi-structured and

encouraged participants to elaborate on their viewpoints. According to Crano et

al. (2014), this format is effective when the intent is to gather information that

requires deep reflective thinking and calls for more probing of details than a

standard questionnaire format can achieve. Whilst the researcher worked from

a framework of questions, the order was not scripted ahead of time and this

enabled the researcher to respond to the interviewee’s paradigm and opinions.

Merriam (2009) contends that interviews which contain questions that are less

97

structured and flexibly worded allow the interviewer to explore issues but

neither of these are in prescribed in a particular working order ahead of time.

The strength of this research strategy is that it enables the respondent to

elaborate on important ideas that will advance the understanding of the

research topic. The list of guiding semi-structured interview questions was

reviewed and discussed with professors at the University of Melbourne (see

Appendix B). Their recommendations improved the clarity and purpose of

questions.

4.2.3 Data collection and analysis

In this investigation, data were collected using an electronic survey sent to all

expatriate teachers in one large PK-12 international school. Following this

survey data collection and analysis, an interview protocol was developed, and

this guided the collection of data with nine expatriate teachers. The following

sections describe the survey and interview collection and analysis methods.

4.2.3.1 Data Collection Phase I: Surveys

Teachers had two weeks to complete the survey; those who had not completed

the survey within 5 and 10 days were sent a reminder. Data analysis began once

the survey window closed. The data were cleaned, coded and uploaded into

SPSS version 25.0 for Windows. Screening procedures were conducted to

address missing data. Descriptive statistics were explored on the demographics

and variables of interest. Frequencies and percentages were used for all

nominal and ordinal level variables. Means and standard deviations were

calculated for the continuous level variables.

Prior to analysis, the assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity and

absence of multicollinearity were tested. Normality was tested with

interpretation of a normal P-P plot. Homoscedasticity was assessed with

examination of a residuals scatterplot. Absence of multicollinearity verifies that

there is not a high association among the predictor variables, and the

assumption was tested with examination of variance inflation factors (VIFs).

98

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Cronbach alpha tests were applied. EFA

was used to uncover the underlying relationship between latent variables

which assists with determining constructs and concepts (Child, 2006). Principal

axis factoring method (PFA) with varimax rotation was applied for factor

extraction. Cronbach alpha is a calculation of the mean correlation between

each pair of survey items and the number of items comprising the overall scale

(Brace et al., 2012). The alpha values were interpreted using the guidelines

suggested by George and Mallery (2016), in which α > .90 excellent, α > .80

good, α > .70 acceptable, α > .60 questionable, α > .50 poor, and α < .50

unacceptable.

To address the research questions, correlational analysis was used to test the

bivariate relationships and then multiple regression analysis was applied to

examine the combined effect of school structures and teacher demographic

characteristics to explain the variance in collective teacher efficacy. A Pearson

correlation is an adequate statistical analysis when assessing the strength of

association between two continuous level variables (Pagano, 2009). A series of

Pearson correlation matrices was used to explore the relationships between the

constructs of collective teacher efficacy and school structures. Multiple linear

regression was utilised to establish associations between variables and test

whether collective teacher efficacy was significantly predicted by teacher

demographic variables and school structures.

4.2.3.2 Data Collection Phase II: Interviews

Upon survey completion, participants were asked to provide their contact

details if they agreed to participate in a follow-up semi-structured interview.

Semi-structured interviews took place at the school site, during the teacher’s

non-teaching period and the typical duration of the interviews was 40-60

minutes.

To understand expatriate teachers’ perspectives regarding collective efficacy

and school structures, the interview data were transcribed and coded using a

99

‘two-level scheme’ (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.61). A list of etic codes was

compiled based on the conceptual framework and Phase I survey results,

focusing on the collective teacher efficacy and school structures. Examples of

etic codes included broad categories such as “effort and persistence” and

“enabling/hindering school structures”. These themes provided buckets for

ideas. At the second level, emic codes were developed as emergent themes

transpired from analysis of interview transcripts. For example, the first level

etic coding included “confidence in teaching capability” and contained emic

codes such as “incredibly passionate teachers” and “high student ability” using

conceptually ordered matrices (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The codes that

belonged together were displayed in rows on the grid. In vivo coding was used

to emphasise the spoken words of respondents. This form of coding extracts

words from the actual language of the participants themselves and highlights

the culture and voices of participants, giving meaning to data. Pattern codes

were also considered for analysis, including (1) categories and themes, (2)

causes and explanations, (3) relationships among people, and (4) theoretical

constructs. Within-case similarities and differences were analysed and

assumptions were drawn and discussed with university professors.

4.2.4 Data triangulation

As the data were provided from two sources, Phase I (survey) and Phase II

(interviews), the researcher was able to triangulate results and build a coherent

justification for categories and themes. Yin (1994) states that “with

triangulation, the potential problems of construct validity can be addressed

because the multiple sources of evidence essentially provide multiple measures

of the same phenomenon” (p.92). Triangulation occurred by comparing the

responses among expatriate teachers with survey responses. An assessment

criterion was developed to enable the researcher to determine:

• convergent and divergent themes,

• strength of average survey scores (high 5-6, medium 4-3, low 2-1),

100

• strength of saturation between interviewee responses (high - unanimous

agreement, medium - half in agreement and/or half in disagreement,

low – teachers’ responses do not agree), and

• strength of evidence between survey and interview responses (***

convergent, ** partial corroboration, * divergent).

Triangulation of data increases a study’s trustworthiness and validity and

avoids biases that may arise from only using one data collection method. In a

broad sense, triangulation was applied to increase in-depth understanding and

provide explanations for collective teacher efficacy and school structures.

This chapter provided an overview of the Study One sequential explanatory

research design and outlined the details of the procedures that were designed

to answer the research questions for Study One. Data collection tools,

procedures and analysis were described. In the following chapter, the results

and analysis of Study One are presented. The chapter begins with an evaluation

of the underlying factors of the survey data, discusses teachers’ responses to

survey items, examines the relationship between school structures, teacher

demographic and collective efficacy, presents the findings of the follow-up

semi-structured interviews and the triangulation of results from both survey

and interviews.

101

Chapter 5 Results: Study One

This chapter presents the results and analysis of Phase I and Phase II of Study

One. Study One was conducted in response to the following research questions,

what are expatriate teachers’ perceptions regarding collective efficacy and school

structures? And what are the factors that relate to teachers’ perception of collective


These questions are addressed throughout this chapter in three sections:

Phase I, Phase II and triangulation of both Phase I and Phase II for Study One.

The first section, Phase I, begins by examining the collective teacher efficacy

and school structures survey data. It then discusses the teachers’ responses to

survey items and examines the relationship between school structures, teacher

demographic characteristics and collective teacher efficacy. The second part,

Phase II, presents the findings of the semi-structured interviews focusing on the

key themes and subthemes involving collective teacher efficacy, school

structures and team cohesion. Lastly, the results of Phases I and II are

triangulated to strengthen the validity of results and provide an in-depth

understanding of the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and school

structures in the context of an international school in Shanghai.

5.1 Phase I: Factor Structure – Collective Teacher Efficacy and

School Structures Surveys

The survey was first administered in one international school with 53 expatriate

teachers completing the questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was

utilised to reveal underlying factor structures of the survey in order to confirm

the accurate measurement of the intended dimensions. Prior to exploratory

factor analysis, data screening was conducted to ensure there was no missing

data. Expatriate teacher questionnaire responses and the strength of agreement

on survey items are also discussed in this chapter. This is followed by an

102

analysis of the relationship between school structures, teacher demographic

characteristics, and collective teacher efficacy.

The complete data set comprised 53 responses. A mean computation was

used to rectify missing data from participants who were missing one or two

data points in the survey (Jakobsen et al., 2017). Using this approach, the

missing variables were estimated through calculating the mean of the observed

values for the item of all non-missing individuals. The 53 responses were used

for the exploratory factor analysis. Details of EFA are presented in the

subsequent sections.

5.1.1 The collective teacher efficacy factors

The EFA results for the collective teacher efficacy scale indicated a two-factor

model composed of Group Competence (GC) and Task Analysis (TA) (KMO =

0.787, Bartlett’s test = 277.42, df = 45, p < .001). The two factors explained 64.91%

of the total variance, and both had eigenvalues > 1. Factor 1 accounted for

44.56% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 4.45 and Factor 2 accounted for

20.35% with an eigenvalue of 2.04. All items displayed statistically significant

loadings, ranging from .47 to .90. The first factor contained six items that were

designed to tap teachers’ perception of Group Competence (GC) and the second

factor contained four items capturing Teachers’ Analysis of the Teaching Task

(TA). Due to the nature of the sample and modifications to survey items, EFA

for this study did not yield a one-factor model for CTE as indicated in earlier

studies by Goddard (2001). The results are displayed in Table 3.

Table 3. CTE Survey, two-factor rotated solution

Factor One Factor Two

Item No. Group

Competence

Task Analysis

CTE1. Teachers in this school are confident they can motivate

any student.

0.66 0.25

CTE2. Teachers in this school do not give up, even if a child is


0.90 -0.02

103

Factor One Factor Two

Item No. Group

Competence

Task Analysis

CTE3. Teachers will persist with adjusting instructional

strategies if a child does not learn the first time.

0.72 0.02

CTE4. Teachers believe that every child can learn. 0.77 0.07

CTE5. Teachers implement effective learning strategies (e.g.

offer timely feedback, develop challenging and interesting

course work, support students to meet high expectations and

reward success).

0.69 0.46

CTE6. Teachers in this school have what it takes to get the

child to learn.

0.69 0.41

CTE7. Students arrive to school ready to learn. 0.23 0.39

CTE8. These students are strongly supported by their

community and this helps to ensure learning.

0.04 0.47

CTE9. There is a strong expectation for persistent effort and

academic success.

-0.04 0.86

CTE10. Teachers hold high expectations that students


0.23 0.85

The estimates of reliability (alpha) for Factor One (Group Competence) was

0.89 and Factor Two (Task Analysis) was 0.75. The two factors are correlated, r

(53) = .335, p =.014, showing that they are related but the r value is not high

enough to indicate they are measuring the same construct.

5.1.2 The school structures factors

Research by Hoy and Sweetland (2001) found that school structures items range

along a continuum with enabling bureaucracies at one end and hindering

bureaucracies on the other. Therefore, a one-factor solution was applied using

maximum likelihood factor analysis. A one-factor model (KMO = 0.79, Bartlett’s

test = 474.270, df = 66, p < .001) explained 50.7% of the total variance. All but one

factor loaded between 0.25 to 0.88. Item SS4 ‘Administrative rules in this school are

used to discipline teachers’ revealed a loading of 0.10 which is considered low

(Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, this item was deleted, and the survey was rerun

using 11 items. The factor loadings are displayed in Table 4.

104

Table 4. School Structures survey, factor loading

Item Factor One

SS1. Administrative rules in this school enable honest communication

between teachers and leadership.

0.66

SS2. Administrative rules enable rather than obstruct teaching and

learning.

0.75

SS3. Administrative rules are guides to solving problems rather than rigid

procedures.

0.67

SS4. In this school, red tape keeps teachers from doing their job well. 0.25

SS5. Administrative rules in this school are substitutes for professional

reasoning.

0.50

SS6. The administrative hierarchy of this school helps teachers to do their

job.

0.94

SS7. The administrative hierarchy of this school promotes the mission of

the school.

0.90

SS8. The administrators in this school use their governance to enable


0.88

SS9. The administrative hierarchy enables student achievement. 0.76

SS10. The administrative hierarchy of this school impedes innovation. 0.68

SS11. In this school, the command of the principal is used to undermine

teachers.

0.42

As displayed in Table 4, a one-factor model (KMO = .79, Bartlett’s Test =

448.059, df = 55, p < .001) explained 51% of the variance and all items loaded

between .25 and .88. Therefore, the estimates of reliability for the school

structures survey were sufficiently high to give confidence in total scores from

these items (alpha = .91).

As measured in this survey, collective teacher efficacy comprises two

dimensions — Group Competence and Task Analysis — and school structures

represents a single factor continuum. The next section will explore the

properties of expatriate teachers’ responses on questionnaires, outline the

details of participants and present the percentage of representation across year

levels.

105

5.1.3 Description of the participants

The online survey was administered to 95 expatriate teachers. Fifty-three

responses were completed, a response rate of 56%. The demographics of the

participants are reported in Table 5.

Table 5. Frequency distributions for demographic variables (N=53)

Variables Frequency Per cent

Gender

Male 23 43.4

Female 30 56.6

Assignment Level

Elementary School (PK-4) 12 22.7

Middle School (5-8) 19 35.8

High School (9-12) 8 15.1

Specialist (across 2 or 3 schools) 14 26.4

Years of Employment

1 – 2 years 8 15.1

2 – 3 years 7 13.2

3 – 4 years 9 17

4 – 5 years 12 22.6

6 + years 17 32.1

Level of Experience

Graduate teacher 3 5.7

Proficient teacher 18 34

Highly accomplished teacher 23 43.4

Lead teacher 9 17

As displayed in Table 5, 43.4% of participants were male and 56.6% female.

The lowest number of responses were from high school teachers representing

15.1% of the sample; the highest number of responses came from the middle

school teachers (35.8%). There was a range of responses from teachers who had

been employed at the school between 1–6+ years. Most teachers rated their level

of experience as either proficient (34%) or highly accomplished (43.3%).

106

5.1.4. Responses on the collective teacher efficacy questionnaire

The collective teacher efficacy survey adapted from Goddard (2002) included 10

items. The survey used a 6-point Likert response scale ranging from 6

(“strongly agree”) to 1 (“strongly disagree”). The percentage of agreement was

calculated by combing agreement scores (slightly agree, agree, strongly agree).

Table 6 presents the means, standard deviations and percentage of agreement

on items which correspond to group competence and task analysis items.

Table 6. CTE questionnaire means, standard deviations, percentage of agreement

Items Mean SD Agreement

Group

Competence

CTE1. 4.98 .73 100%

CTE2. 4.79 .89 92%

CTE3. 4.72 .94 92%

CTE4. 5.11 .90 96%

CTE5. 4.89 .84 94%

CTE6. 5.11 .70 100%

Task Analysis CTE7. 5.19 .65 98%

CTE8. 4.98 .64 100%

CTE9. 5.43 .66 98%

CTE10. 5.30 .75 96%

Table 6 data shows group competence mean scores ranged between 4.72 and

5.1. Given a 6-point scale was used, these results indicate that teachers somewhat

agree and agree their colleagues have the instructional skills to effectively engage

students in learning, persist and initiate behaviours to ensure students are

successful, and attribute success to factors that are within their control. The task

analysis-related items had mean scores ranging between 4.98 and 5.43. The

distribution of the scores relative to the mean ranged from .64 to .75. These

results suggest that teachers somewhat agree and agree they are supported by

students’ home and community and expectations are aligned to a shared vision

of persistent effort and participation to achieve academic success. To determine

the strength of agreement among participants on survey items related to group

107

competence and task analysis, a percentage of agreement was calculated by

combining agreement scores among teachers’ responses. This analysis is

discussed in the subsequent section.

5.1.4.1 Strength of agreement on collective teacher efficacy—group

competence items

The group competence items (CTE1 to CTE6) gathered teachers’ perceptions of

colleagues’ capabilities regarding teaching methods, expertise, skills and

persistence with students. Teachers perceived their colleagues as competent

because they motivated students, persevered when presented with challenges,

understood the learning process, tailored lessons according to needs and

applied effective instructional strategies for creating meaningful learning

experiences for all students.

Table 6 illustrates the percentage of agreement for the six statements related

to Group Competence, which ranged from 92% to 100%. Overall, these results

indicate a high degree of confidence among teachers related to attaining

successful student outcomes. There was unanimous agreement among teachers

regarding their confidence in one another to successfully motivate any student

in their setting to learn. The results suggest that teachers accept responsibility to

ensure all students experience positive learning outcomes. Ninety-four per cent

of respondents agreed that most teachers used a variety of instructional

methods to cultivate learning and support the participation of every student.

Additionally, there was 92% agreement among participants that teachers were

proactive and made effective plans for dealing with students who present with

problems requiring intervention. The results suggest that teachers regarded

each other as persistent, and that when a child did not learn the first time, they

adjusted their instruction and responded in ways that supported student

learning.

108

5.1.4.2 Strength of agreement on collective teacher efficacy—task

analysis items

The analysis of the Teaching Task (CTE7 to CTE10) refers to teachers’ beliefs

about the level of support and expectations provided by the students’

community (Goddard, 2002, p.100). It captures teachers’ assessment of the

teaching task in context and their perceptions of the restraints and

opportunities influencing the task. Contextual variables that shape teachers’

analysis of the teaching task include their judgment of student's abilities and

motivation, the level of support provided by the home and community and the

school community’s emphasis on academic achievement.

All participant responses on items regarding the analysis of the teaching

task were positive and ranged from 96% to 100% agreement. This means that

teachers and parents were thought to share the responsibility for children’s

learning. These results also indicate that teachers perceive students as capable,

and this influences the expectations they hold of them. High standards for

student participation further indicate that teachers persist in their efforts to

promote greater student participation and achievement on tasks.

The positive responses on survey items indicate teachers’ confidence in one

another’s capability to educate students. However, the survey did not ask

participants about the contextual factors that influence their perceptions of

collective efficacy. As previously discussed in the literature review, teachers

operate collectively within an interactive social system (Bandura, 1997), and

levels of collective efficacy are expected to reflect an organisational culture

whereby teachers engage in effective collaborative processes dedicated to

improving teaching and learning (Hoogsteen, 2020, Hoy et al., 2002).

Additionally, Bandura (1997) claims that collective efficacy reflects the way

people work together, trust each other, and contribute to their social systems.

Therefore, it is important to understand how teachers interact within their

environment. This will be investigated in Phase II.

109

5.1.5 Responses on school structures survey

The school structures survey adapted from Hoy and Sweetland (2001) included

11 items (enabling and hindering school bureaucratic structures). The survey

used a 6-point Likert response scale ranging from 6 (“strongly agree”) to 1

(“strongly disagree”). Table 7 presents the items which correspond to the

enabling and hindering ends of the continuum.

Table 7. School Structures questionnaire, mean, standard deviation

Items Mean SD Agreement

Enabling

SS1 4.17 1.21 77.36%

SS2 4.53 0.99 88.68%

SS3 4.55 0.87 92.45%

SS6 4.06 1.31 73.59%

SS7 4.57 1.17 83.01%

SS8 4.47 1.07 86.80%

SS9 4.55 0.99 84.91%

Disagreement

Hindering

SS4 2.89 1.30 73.59%

SS5 2.85 1.24 76.2%

SS10 3.13 1.25 62.26%

SS11 2.40 1.28 77.36%

The enabling bureaucratic items display a mean score ranging from 4.06 to

4.57. The distribution relative to the mean ranged from 0.87 to 1.31 standard

deviations. These results indicate teachers somewhat agree that rules, regulations,

and processors are flexible guidelines that reflect ways that assist teachers to

deal with problems. The hindering bureaucratic items display a mean score

ranging from 2.85 to 3.13. The distribution relative to the mean ranged from

1.24 to 1.30. These results suggest that teachers disagree with statements that

suggest their administrations demand consensus, punish mistakes, and are

frustrated with two-way communication.

110

To determine the strength of agreement and disagreement among

participants on items, a percentage of agreement and disagreement was

calculated by combining scores among teachers’ responses. The enabling

subsection was based on a combination of agreement (strongly agree, agree, and

somewhat agree) responses. The hindering subsection was based on a

combination of disagreement (strongly disagree, disagree, and somewhat disagree)

responses. The following sections present the aggregate results for each

subsection of the survey.

5.1.5.1 Strength of agreement on school structures—enabling items

The enabling items (SS1, SS2, SS3) obtained the opinions of staff about rules and

procedures that are flexible guidelines which reflect best practice and help to

problem-solve. The questions (SS6, SS7, SS8, SS10) gathered teachers’ opinions

of the degree to which they participate in decision making and feel confident to

exercise their power and cater to the needs of their students. The percentage of

agreement for the seven statements related to enabling school structures ranged

from 73.59% to 92.45%. These results suggest that teachers feel their

professional judgment is valued and encouraged. Procedures are in place that

invite dialogue, view setbacks as opportunities, promote trust, respect

differences in opinions, and manage the unexpected with confidence. Most of

the teachers in this school agree that enabling school structures exist.

5.1.5.2 Strength of disagreement on school structures—hindering items

The hindering bureaucratic items (SS10, SS11) refer to an administrative

hierarchy that gets in the way rather than helping teachers to solve problems

and do their work. As a result, teachers may feel forced to satisfy artificial

standards rather than cater for the needs of their students. The items (SS4, SS5)

collected teachers’ opinions on whether rules and procedures are used to

punish staff which may hinder productive work practices and force compliance.

The percentage of disagreement for the five statements related to hindering

bureaucratic structures ranged from 62.26% to 77.36%. The results suggest that

111

participants disagree that rules of the school are rigidly enforced and hinder the

effective performance of the school. The teachers who responded to this survey

generally felt supported by their principal. However, approximately one-third

of teachers indicated they felt disempowered to some extent and not confident

to deviate from the status quo and take risks in their teaching and learning.

The small variability in responses between hindering and enabling school

structures indicated that this required further investigation. Teacher

perceptions of their school structures present important information and

insights for the continuous improvement of educational environments.

Therefore, this finding was of interest to follow up in the qualitative component

of this study, to gather a more in-depth understanding of teachers’ experiences.

In the next section, the relationships between school structures, teacher

characteristics and collective teacher efficacy are explored. Pearson product-

moment correlation was used to determine the strength and direction of

associations between school structures, teacher demographic characteristics,

and collective teacher efficacy. In order to establish the degree to which school

structures and teacher demographic characteristics contribute to the

construction of collective teacher efficacy, multiple linear regression (MLR) was

utilised.

5.1.6 The relationships between school structures, teacher demographic

characteristics and collective teacher efficacy

Bivariate correlations were calculated to determine the existence of significant

relationships between collective teacher efficacy (group competence and task

analysis), school structures, level of expertise, and years of employment among

53 expatriate teachers. Two-tailed tests statistical significance levels were also

calculated. Results in Table 8 indicate that school structure is significantly

correlated with both constructs of collective teacher efficacy, group competence

(r = .603, p<.01) and task analysis (r = .281, p<.05). The teachers’ level of

expertise is negatively correlated with group competence (r = -.304, p<.05); no

112

significant correlation was found with task analysis.

Table 8. Pearson correlations among variables

Variables CTE

Group Competence Task Analysis

School Structures .608** .281*

Level of Expertise -.304* -.185

Years of Employment .248 -.082

Note. *p<.05, **p<.01

The most noteworthy finding is the relatively stronger relationship between

Group Competence and School Structures than with Task Analysis. This

suggests the relationship between enabling school structures and teacher’s

perception of their group’s competence to motivate students and persevere

when presented with the challenge of effectively teaching all students. It also

implies that excellence in school management and leadership behaviours may

have the potential to influence the perceptions that teachers hold of one

another's capability to impact student outcomes. Interestingly, the results

revealed that as teachers became more experienced and proficient in their

profession, they lose confidence in their collective ability to apply effective

teaching and learning strategies (r = -.304, p<.05).

5.1.7 Contributors to the construction of collective teacher efficacy

Multiple linear regression (MLR) was used to examine if school structures and

teacher demographic characteristics were predictive of collective teacher

efficacy, group confidence and task analysis. Prior to data analysis, the

relationships between endogenous variables and covariates were examined by a

visual inspection of scatter plots and histograms of residuals. Results of the

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality indicated that the distribution of

independent variables did not deviate significantly from a normal distribution

and skewness and kurtosis fell within the normal range of ±1.00 (-.88 and -.82

respective).

113

A significant regression equation was found (F(3,49) = 12.288, p<.001) for the

group competence dimension, with an R2 of .429. A participant's perception of

group competence increased .449 for each unit increase in school structures.

Therefore, the school structures were significantly related with collective

teacher efficacy— group competence. When controlling for school structures

and level of experience, years of employment becomes non-significant (p=.083)

and is no longer correlated to group competence. Additionally, even when

controlling for the effects of school structures and years of employment,

teacher’s level of experience remained uncorrelated with group competence

(p=.253). The regression analysis for group competence is summarised in Table

9.

Table 9. Predictors of Group Competence

Variables B SE Beta Sig

(Constant) 2.974 .552

School Structures .449 .089 .562 <.001

Years of Employment .089 .051 .193 .083

Level of Experience -.107 .095 -.131 .253

Note. ***p<.001

There was no significant regression equation found (F(3,49) = 1.944, p > .05)

for the task analysis dimension of collective teacher efficacy. The results are

displayed in Table 10.

Table 10. Predictors of Task Analysis

Variables B SE Beta Sig

(Constant) 4.976 0.550

School Structures 0.153 0.092 0.232 0.103

Years of Employment -0.045 0.050 -0.124 0.370

Level of Experience -0.094 0.090 -0.148 0.300

These results indicate that the model explained 42.9% of the variance for the

group competence dimension of collective teacher efficacy. A possible

interpretation is that as school structures increase (that is, by rules and

114

regulations that require participation, collaboration, view problems as

opportunities, foster trust, and help teachers feel confident to exercise power

within their professional role), then a teacher's perception of their (CTE) group

competence also increases.

A caveat to this interpretation is that while school structures support the

effective operation of a school, they cannot assure the quality of content, or

teachers’ effective work within group situations. This is important because it

highlights that school structures can support teachers to do their job, but they

cannot guarantee that teachers are more effective in working with their peers or

in their classrooms. School structures, however, may be important to

understanding collective teacher efficacy because the way an organisation

promotes processes for educators to engage in activities may determine

confidence in team members’ capabilities to promote success.

The results of Phase I suggested that teachers believe their faculty can have a

positive influence on student outcomes. School structures were found to

strongly relate (r = .603) with teachers’ perceived group competence, but

weakly related (r = .281) with task analysis. The stronger correlation between

school structures and group competence suggests that leaders have influence

over conditions that inevitably make group functioning and collective action

easier. Leaders may design environments that mandate collective action which

influence how teachers are encouraged to behave. The weaker relationship

between school structures and task analysis suggests that school structures

have less influence over students’ families and the society in which the

international school is situated.

Interestingly, when a teacher’s level of expertise increased, there was a

decrease in confidence relating to group competence (r = -.304). Taken together,

school structures and teachers’ demographic characteristics explained 44.9% of

the variance in the group competence dimension of collective teacher efficacy.

Phase II of this chapter moves the discussion beyond the survey description

and on to a deepening understanding of expatriate teachers’ views regarding

115

collective teacher efficacy and school structures.

5.2 Phase II: Expatriate Teachers’ Semi-structured Interview

Responses

The second phase of the Study One investigation was guided by the research

question, what are expatriate teachers’ perspectives regarding collective teacher efficacy

and school structures? The semi-structured interviews were undertaken at the

same international school in Shanghai, three weeks after volunteer participants

had completed the online survey. The nine interviewees represented specialist

teachers (n=6) working across all three sections of the school (elementary,

middle and high); high school teachers (n=2); and middle school teachers (n=1).

Their years of employment ranged from 1-3 years (n=2), 3-6 years (n=3) and 7+

years (n=4). The interview protocol was guided by the conceptual framework

based on the literature review and the quantitative results from the first phase

of the study. The goal of this second phase of Study One was to elaborate and

explain the results of the statistical analysis (Creswell et al., 2003) by probing

teachers’ perspectives regarding collective teacher efficacy and school

structures. Open-ended questions explored these themes (“collective efficacy:

group competence and task analysis”, “school structures”). The detail of the

semi-structural interview protocol is available in Appendix D.

5.2.1 Interview themes and subthemes

Throughout the semi-structured interview process and analysis of data, themes

and subthemes related to collective teacher efficacy and school structures

emerged and elaborated on survey results obtained in the first phase.

Interviews began with open-ended questions which allowed teachers to discuss

their perceptions of collective teacher efficacy and school structures. The data

analysis process involved a two-level scheme (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.61).

The first level of analysis involved a list of ‘etic’ codes based on the research

questions. These focused on understanding teachers’ perceptions of collective

teacher efficacy and school structures. The etic codes included broad categories

116

such as “collective efficacy”, “group competence”, “task analysis”, “school

structures” and “hindering school structures”. These codes allowed for

segmentation of data into ‘buckets’ of ideas. The second level of analysis

involved ‘emic’ codes from emergent themes such as “teaching”, “coordination

of group dynamics”, “interactive group dynamics” and “team cohesion”. The

N-Vivo program was used for thematic analysis.

A conceptually ordered matrix (Miles & Huberman, 1994) was constructed

from the finer-grained emic codes and displayed in columns against rows of

teachers’ responses in an Excel spreadsheet. This tool was used to present the

data in a manner that enabled an evaluation of similarities, differences,

common themes, patterns and categories among the nine interviewees. This

analytical process continued until saturation was achieved and no new

information was discovered. The results highlighted themes that explained

expatriate teachers’ perceptions of collective teacher efficacy: teaching,

coordination of group dynamics, and interactive group dynamics, and their

relationships with contextual factors such as school structures, and team

cohesion. Figure 21 provides a visual representation of the connecting themes

and subthemes of the interview data.

In the next section, participant narratives are presented in relation to the

themes and subthemes displayed in Figure 21. The themes are arranged in

Figure 21. Connecting interview themes and subthemes

117

progressive order and represent teachers’ perspectives of collective teacher

efficacy and school structures. Firstly, teachers spoke about their understanding

of teachers’ collective efficacy and how it manifests in their setting. They then

discussed the factors that influenced teachers’ collective efficacy. Table 11

outlines the main themes and their corresponding subthemes alongside the

number of participant responses for each theme.

Table 11. Study One themes and subthemes

AREA THEMES / SUBTHEMES (N=9)

A. Collective

Teacher

Efficacy

A1. Teaching

Group teaching competence

Hard-working, passionate teachers 9

Analysis of the teaching task

Student academic discipline 7

Community support 6

A2. Interactive Group Dynamics

Engagement 9

A3. Coordination of Group Dynamics

Collaboration 9

B.

Team

Cohesion

B1. Task Cohesion

Shared group norms 4

B2. Social Cohesion

Social interdependence 9

C.

School

Structures

C1. Enabling

Normative expectation for collaboration 4

Sharing authority on instructional matters 4

C2. Hindering

Leadership characteristics 5

A. Collective efficacy

Three main themes emerged as common elements of collective efficacy:

teaching, interactive group dynamics and coordination of group dynamics. The

subthemes within each theme are described below.

118

A1. Teaching

Teachers were asked to describe what contributes to educators’ shared beliefs in

their capacity to positively influence student outcomes. Teachers discussed

elements of teaching competence and details of the context in which they are

required to perform their tasks.


Respondents commented on the degree to which they believe that their

colleagues are effective educators, and as a whole, increase student learning.

There was unanimous agreement among teachers that all expatriate educators

are incredibly hardworking and passionate about their teaching profession,

“Teachers here are incredibly masterful and knowledgeable … hardworking subject

experts” (Participant 1) and “There are a lot of passionate teachers who will go that

little further to help children achieve” (Participant 3).

Teachers who are passionate about their subjects can inspire students and

generate interest and excitement about what they are teaching. A variety of

perspectives were expressed that stressed how expatriate teachers care deeply

about their work and are motivated by their mission to teach their subjects

successfully, “There are some phenomenal teachers here, they work their butts off and

they have a lot of heart, they want the best for every kid” (Participant 7).

Similarly, Participant 2 noted that “students love coming to school … teachers

invest in developing deep, trusting relationships with students.” This is an indication

that teachers are making efforts to impact student learning. Teachers are

confident in one another’s capability to teach all students because they are

extremely “passionate” (Participant 8) and compete for the students’ time, “we all

want to give students the best opportunities possible” (Participant 9).

One-third of participants indicated they were confident in their colleagues’

instructional capability because they engaged in activities that required them to

learn together. The process of continuous learning can strengthen confidence in

one another as teachers co-construct knowledge and skills together, “we

119

frequently engage in co-teaching and plan units of work together” (Participant 3). This

view was echoed by another informant who stated that student success is due

to teachers’ ability to examine the effectiveness of their programs:

They continuously review their program and seek feedback from students and

parents through surveys to learn what they can do to improve and continue to

assist students to experience success (Participant 5).

A variety of opposing perspectives were expressed regarding effective

instruction. It was suggested that students are successful because their culture

places high importance on education, and this drives them to achieve. Some felt

that the teaching style in the high school adopted a lecture approach and there

was room to improve and incorporate more differentiated experiences for

students. “(These teachers) work well with the high achieving students but struggle

with the low achieving students” (Participant 1).

While others considered that the elementary teachers were very good at

differentiation, one interviewee argued that high school teachers would love to

include creative ideas to enhance lessons, but “they are content experts and only

have time to lecture and focus on ensuring students can pass exams” (Participant 1).

There was one suggestion that teachers gain knowledge of one another’s

instructional skills through “learning walks” (Participant 2) when groups of

teachers observed others and gained insights about pedagogy and strategies

related to improved student learning.


Teachers described characteristics of their students and their community which

also influenced their collective beliefs. Two broad themes emerged from the

analysis: student academic discipline and community support.

The majority of teachers commented that students in the independent school

setting are highly driven and motivated to achieve successful results and that

this influenced their classroom teaching. In one case, the participant explained

that she is 100 per cent confident in teachers’ capabilities to educate students,

120

“The reasons why I am so confident is because these students would achieve no matter

what” (Participant 6).

Another teacher stated she is motivated to work in this environment because

the students are so willing and keen to learn: “I’m just motivated by seeing how

much these kids just want to learn, that motivates me to reflect in my practice and get

better and just look for new ways and new experiences for them “(Participant 4). This

was echoed by another teacher who stated that students are “pretty darn driven

and smart” (Participant 7), and they make her want to be a better teacher. All of

these participants agreed that children understood the importance of education

and were surrounded by an extremely supportive environment: peers, teachers,

and parents are all working together. Additionally, these children are highly

motivated to learn:

This culture is one of a very high academic standard, I hear students talking to

one another saying ‘we didn’t even learn anything in that class’, and they talk

about this on social media, the attitude among the student is: give us more

school if you can (Participant 6).

Two-thirds of participants indicated that there is a high degree of pressure

from the parent community for academic success. In all cases, the informants

reported that parents demand a high level of academic excellence from their

children and expect educators to support students’ successful learning

experiences:

It’s a culture that prioritises an exam or essay score and parents are not

interested in the narrative … a performance-based environment in which high

scores are valued more than growth in learning (Participant 1).

Parents are deeply invested in understanding their children’s academic

attainment, “you put a B in the high school, and you’ve got to defend it, parents want

to know why it isn’t an A” (Participant 2). Teachers commented they often take

work home as the parents expect staff members to work long hours (after 4

p.m.) and that they are prepared for every class. Talking about this issue an

121

interviewee said:

The tuition for this private international school is very high (USD 40K per

year), so from a parent point of view they expect a high quality of instructional

support and excellence from teachers (Participant 3).

The majority of participants agreed with the statement that there are very

strong expectations from parents for teachers to provide top-quality education,

“parents want to know how teachers are offering the best education for their child”

(Participant 7). Another teacher described the community as “tiger mums, who

over-schedule their children and hover around their kids” (Participant 4). In addition,

“there is a lot of pressure for students to achieve” (Participant 8). The pressure that

teachers experience impacts the dynamics among group members, as described

in the next section.

A2. Interactive group dynamics (engagement)

All interviewees reported that the style of interaction between teachers varied

in different departments and teams demonstrated varying degrees of

willingness to engage and levels of shared responsibility. Just over half of those

who answered questions regarding group effectiveness suggested that teachers

were willing to engage and actively participate in teamwork: “People in my team

are willing to bring ideas to the table and share responsibilities, there is no doubt in my

mind that my team members work as hard as I do” (Participant 6). Participant 7

stated that she feels everyone is “all-in” and works hard to achieve group goals.

Another teacher observed that: “We use our data to make plans for their next steps

and this ensures that teachers continue to persist with students and focus on continued

growth in learning” (Participant 4). There was a sense of commitment among

some teachers, a common view related to effort, persistence, and willingness to

engage:

In this school, teachers put in a lot of effort; there is a lot of pressure they put on

themselves because they believe that what they are doing can make an impact on

122

students and this keeps teachers motivated to persevere and persist (Participant

9).

Eight teachers expressed confidence in each other’s capability to ensure

children have successful learning experiences, however, concerns regarding

inconsistencies in commitment and engagement levels among teachers were

expressed by five respondents, “teacher willingness to contribute to group work

occurs in little pockets and differs from team to team” (Participant 4).

A common view among interviews was that they have what it takes to get

students to learn. However, concerns were expressed about the willingness of

teachers to engage in collaborative group work and take on initiatives that

would further increase successful student outcomes, “sometimes teachers are not

willing to try suggestions to improve their lesson” (Participant 2). These views

surfaced mainly in relation to teachers who have been employed in the school

for an extended period time:

Teachers who have been teaching a long time are less willing to try and engage

new proactive or student interests into learning activities, they are resistant to

try new ideas because what they have been doing works and their students score

highly on exams (Participant 4).

The teachers who have the most experience do not engage in team teaching; they

are more resistant to working with a coach and new teachers are mindful about

stepping on their toes (Participant 2).

Another reported problem was that “some teachers just completely shut down

during PLC meetings, they say things that will appease other group members and then

do their own thing in their classrooms” (Participant 8).

Five participants expressed that not all teachers were willing to participate

in group meetings or work towards achieving group goals and their focus

instead was on the students in their classrooms. Despite such findings, there

was evidence to suggest that a sense of collective responsibility was also

evident.

123

Approximately half of the participants expressed the opinion that group

work is challenging because not all group members are open to learning or

collaboration: “There are instances where the department do not get along, they have

their common agreements, and everyone walks away to implement whatever in their

classrooms” (Participant 8). Some teachers do not actively seek feedback, “the

problem is when you have a huge ego, you don’t reflect and you blame everyone else”

(Participant 5); they do not engage in conversations about student progress,

“there are some strong personalities who believe that (their way) is the only way they

can teach” (Participant 3) and are not willing to make changes to their

instruction that could improve their lessons, “some have reservations because the

way they have been teaching has worked for many years” (Participant 1).

Contrary to this view, four teachers mentioned that there are members who

adopt an open-to-learning stance, evaluate student learning, listen to others’

views, invite consideration of alternative views, give and receive negative

feedback and effectively manage conflict, “I believe we’re the most functional and

effective team in the high school because we all respect each other very much’

(Participant 6). This view was echoed by another teacher who commented that

“There are times when teachers are left feeling disgruntled, but this is quickly overcome

because of their ability to communicate in a professional manner” (Participant 5).

Another respondent stated that her group was successful this year because

they have “more patience with one another” (Participant 6) and see “eye-to-eye”

(Participant 6) on what is required to achieve success. In addition to interactive

group dynamics, teachers also described successful groups as those that have a

sense of shared responsibility.

Five teachers mentioned the importance of shared responsibility, making

everyone liable for the outcome of their efforts to achieve group goals and

ensure all students experience successful learning outcomes. There is a sense of

shared responsibility among the middle school that keeps all teachers

accountable for all students, “when we are talking about students, they’re all our

students” (Participant 2). One respondent stated that the successful groups are

124

generally “singing from the same hymn sheet" (Participant 1). Another respondent

commented that “each team member takes on initiatives and reliably pursues tasks

and responsibilities regardless of what it is” (Participant 6). A sense of

responsibility is related to groups of teachers who focus on a shared vision, and

who seek feedback from one another.

A.3 Coordination of group dynamics (collaboration)

The process of co-constructing knowledge occurred when teachers coordinated

group activities and worked interdependently by learning together and sharing

their knowledge and skills within their professional learning communities

(PLC) meetings. Two teachers reported that their team frequently engaged in

conversations which led to advances in their collective knowledge: “We bring

together the collective knowledge, move forward together and learn from one another”

(Participant 1).

Additionally, seven teachers stated that teams were most successful when

they leveraged the strengths of members’ knowledge and skills, “we effectively

collaborate through leveraging one another’s strengths” (Participant 5); they let go of

egos, “we don’t disparage or talk behind each other’s back” (Participant 1) and

aligned with what works best for the team, “we reflect on their practice, talk about

next steps, look at student work, moderate assessments and talk about evidence”

(Participant 4). Five teachers suggested that teams were more successful when

they used a clear framework or meeting protocols, “for a team to be functional, it’s

important to have a protocol in place, and adhere to it” (Participant 4). Those groups

that did not use meeting protocols were easily side tracked, “we don’t use the set

protocol … you need someone strong in the team to lead or otherwise, everything else

takes priority” (Participant 6). Unfortunately, for some members, meeting time

was generally dominated by logistics and planning:

Ordering and things like that tend to be the conversations, whoever is running

the meeting determines the agenda, like we need resources … we always say we

want to talk about stuff and we never make any decisions (Participant 7).

125

Meeting protocols allowed members to conduct meetings in an orderly

manner which ensured that all members were active participants and actions

were taken towards making progress on department goals. When asked about

meeting protocols, one interviewee stated that his team became more effective

after they implemented the protocols of PLC meetings: “In the beginning, there

were a lot of arguments because there were a lot of strong personalities” (Participant

5). Meeting protocols helped to frame meetings productively, “now we have a

shared vision of what the students need to learn, and we work together to develop the

plans related to those goals” (Participant 5). Unfortunately, not all PLC time was

used for co-constructing knowledge, “we spend most of the time getting through the

nuts and bolts of curriculum planning, performances and aligning standards”

(Participant 9), and not all groups looked at student data to improve learning,

“we are not sharing student data and talking about assessments” (Participant 3). One

interviewee attributed this pattern to a lack of accountability, “it’s just that no

one is keeping us accountable, if we don’t submit meeting minutes then no one keeps us

accountable, so then it isn’t a priority” (Participant 7). Contrary this this view,

another interviewee commented that “it takes time to work out how to work

together” (Participant 9), and once they did work it out, they could function as

an effective team.

The major themes regarding the elements of collective teacher efficacy

identified by nine expatriate teachers involved teaching, interactive group

dynamics and coordination of group dynamics. The interviewees

acknowledged that teachers’ ability to work hard, reflect on their practice and

implement effective teaching strategies and methods contributed to their group

confidence. Additionally, student academic discipline and a supportive

community influenced their analysis of the teaching task. The participants

further affirmed that teachers’ willingness to engage in collaborative working

environment elevated their instructional quality and group capability. The next

section focuses on teachers’ views of the bonds that link team members and

what creates unity among teachers.

126

B. Team cohesion

The expatriate community is an interconnected society. Teachers work and live

in close proximity to one another. Teachers were asked to describe the collective

learning process and whether the expatriate lifestyle influences how team

members interact with one another. Two main elements of team cohesion

emerged from the interviews: task cohesion and social cohesion.

Task Cohesion

A common view among expatriate teachers was that they worked long hours.

The majority of interviewees commented there was an informal expectation that

teachers participate in extracurricular activities and complete work at home.

These behaviours reflected the shared norms and values within their setting.

Two teachers commented on the frequency of taking work home to

complete to ensure they achieved group goals, “it is expected that if work isn’t

completed during work hours, then you take it home to complete” (Participant 3).

Three teachers mentioned that their “close-knit” (Participant 1) group motivated

them to sustain a high level of commitment to achieving group goals. There

were some suggestions that the culture of the school environment influences

the way people behave:

Everyone in this school is go, go, go, even if this is not in your nature you start

to become this way, you start to think that you have to work this way because

everyone else is … (Participant 7).

Teachers respond to emails after 9 p.m.: “I was never told to do this, but it

somehow became the norm” (Participant 7). The groups who were able to set

proximal department-level goals and worked within a meeting protocol or

framework were more successful in directing their efforts, combining skill sets,

reflecting on progress, prioritising tasks, accomplishing short-term successes,

and persevering through obstacles. Four teachers explained positive

experiences working with teams in which departmental goals were evident:

Teams who have a clear agenda and goals, with each member actively

127

participating, experience more successful results than those who do not follow

the guidelines, during these meetings (Participant 4).

One interviewee described a supportive work environment whereby people

care: “I have a warm and fuzzy feeling when I am at work, it’s a happy place, everyone

is in the same boat … we all come from different parts of the world, but we have the

same purpose and the same goals” (Participant 4). This understanding enables

everyone to work cohesively.

Social Cohesion

In all cases, the informants reported that they live in a “bubble ... we live and

work on top of each other” (Participant 1). Some felt positive about this

environment and thought it made working together easier, particularly as

teachers do not have their family nearby and rely on each other for personal

support. In contrast, others considered this environment to be challenging

because lines are blurred, and friendships cloud professional judgment. The

positive aspects of social interdependence and the negative influences

experienced among expatriate teachers in the workplace are described in the

next section.

A recurrent theme was an awareness among interviewees that their

colleagues become close friends and family, and this gave them a strong sense

of belonging: “We’re a family” (Participant 2), “We teachers need to take care of each

other” (Participant 4). Seven teachers commented on the strong ties teachers

have with one another because they are all far from their home countries, “We

need to keep tied together, help each other” (Participant 3). This view was echoed by

another teacher who expressed that the international community is caring and

supportive: “I’ve been in hospital and the community has rallied around me … we’ve

lost a colleague and the school have been extremely supportive” (Participant 5).

People in the expatriate community find their ‘tribe’ and the community

rallies around them. Expatriate teachers have many common experiences that

bond them; they understand each other, and this makes it easier to collaborate.

128

As participant 4 observed “It’s amazing to have close relationships with colleagues, it

makes a huge impact”. Teachers expressed a high degree of trust and respect

among staff members in their accounts of events that surround the expatriate

lifestyle:

Those who have a relationship outside of the classroom environment are the ones

who work better together because people get to know each other, rely on one

another for emotional support … it takes time to come together and build that

trust (Participant 7).

Two teachers mentioned that at times this closeness among expatriate

teachers (living and working together) can blur lines at work, “it can make it

difficult to receive feedback” (Participant 7). This was echoed by another teacher

who admitted that it isn’t “seamless” (Participant 8) and teachers are more

prone to conform to the status quo and not hold one another accountable

because of the close friendships.

C. School Structures

School structures are reflective of how school leaders operate. Processes and

procedures do not occur without leaders supporting them. Both enabling and

hindering themes emerged from interviews.

A supportive and encouraging environment created by school structures

positively influenced teachers’ confidence in one another to achieve successful

student outcomes. Two subthemes emerged from the interviews regarding

enabling school structures: normative expectation for collaboration and sharing

authority on instructional matters.

Four teachers stated that the administration facilitated group attainment

through setting normative expectations for teachers to frequently engage in

collaboration on instructional improvement:

There are more checks and balances, there is more feedback, evaluations,

observations and more encouragement to work with coaches and professional

learning communities (PLC); and the timetabling is arranged to encourage

129

interaction and collaboration in team and staff meetings (Participant 2).

It was suggested that the school made efforts to schedule interdisciplinary

meetings as often as possible: “The teachers are provided with plenty of PLC time

and teachers have opportunities to talk to one another and develop relationships across

levels and there are regular meetings whereby teachers get together with counsellors to

discuss any students of concern” (Participant 3).

Some interviewees felt that there were very clear guidelines regarding the

norms of collaboration which have been mandated by the administration team,

“during designated PLC meetings, teachers are expected to assign each group member a

role, focus on the four PLC questions, and discuss student work. Google docs is used as

the online tool to document and access meeting progress” (Participant 4). One

respondent commented that the school had many changes in leadership, and

they are trying to improve their process and rebuild trust.

Four teachers also commented that they collaborated with the leadership

team on matters regarding instructional improvement: “The school has a vision of

getting better at including teachers in sharing of power, authority, and decision

making. Resources and funding are abundant for initiatives” (Participant 4). As one

interviewee said, “the leadership are behind me 100 per cent, I feel respected and

trusted, and this keeps me motivated” (Participant 3). Talking about this issue an

interviewee said, “I appreciate the support the administrative team provides and their

capacity to give me autonomy” (Participant 6), and another commented, “I need the

administration to support me when parents are challenging. Also, there have been

several new initiatives introduced this year and I appreciate the way admin help to

create understanding and provide professional support” (Participant 9). Furthermore,

less than half of the participants said the administrative rules and procedures

hindered their capacity to do their job. This is discussed in the subsequent

section.

A hindering environment made it difficult for teachers to be effective in

their classrooms and work collaboratively to achieve the goals of the school or

team. Two teachers mentioned that the leadership team did not hold teachers

130

accountable, and this influenced their capacity to work together: “Teachers are

getting away with still working in silos … it would help if the administration attended

meetings and offered some perspective or encouragement and keep a finger on the pulse”

(Participant 5).

Making teachers accountable to resolve conflict and focus on collaborative

activities was not enforced by administration and, as a result, teachers do not

put in the extra effort to work with others if it is difficult because it is not

mandated by the leadership team. Unfortunately, “when people do not work

together in this capacity, nothing grows and changes” (Participant 8). Talking about

this issue, the interviewee acknowledged that students still make gains in their

learning but, “this isn’t as strong as it could be if people joined forces; this is especially

difficult with the more seasoned teachers” (Participant 8).

It was argued that administrators did not leverage the strengths of teachers

and build capacity from within the school and “external specialists are being called

in to work with teachers before in-house teachers are being solicited” (Participant 5).

Another teacher commented that the transiency of administration and

continuous changes in procedures from administration created confusion:

“Over the past six years there have been three principals and each one has

brought their own philosophy about education” (Participant 7).

Teachers said each time the faculty and leadership turnover occurred, it

damaged the trust and cohesiveness among the staff and became very difficult

to shift into a different culture and rebuild that trust.

5.2.2 Expatriate teachers’ perspectives on collective teacher efficacy and

school structures from semi-structured interviews.

Phase II of Study One aimed to answer the question, what are expatriate teachers’

perspectives regarding collective teacher efficacy and school structures? The findings

of each theme were presented in the previous section. In this section, collective

efficacy, team cohesion and school structures are synthesised and considered in

131

relation to the literature reviewed, and key messages connected to the research

question are highlighted and discussed.

A. Collective Efficacy

The participants’ views support the research literature that collective teacher

efficacy judgements involve the consideration of group competency and an

analysis of the task procedure (Goddard, 2002). In all cases, informants reported

that elements of teaching competency included the positive belief that teachers

work hard to ensure all children learn and that they apply appropriate

instructional strategies to facilitate learning. It was somewhat surprising that

only one-third of the interviewees reported that group members engaged in

learning together and sought feedback to improve programs. This suggests that

teachers draw from different sources of information to appraise confidence in

capabilities.

The majority of participants agreed that students’ high academic ability,

high levels of motivation and a high degree of community support enabled the

teaching process and assisted with student success. The most interesting

finding pertains to teachers’ perceptions of students and their community.

Teachers unanimously described students as academically disciplined and self-

regulated, and parents as mediators between home and the school

environment. Parents set values and norms that encourage their child’s self-

discipline and academic success. In this setting, parents use their proxy control,

which has been described as developed through cultural socialisation practices

and apply pressure to their children to persist and perform to high standards.

With a concerted emphasis on academic success among teachers, students and

parents, the responsibility is shared, and this may prompt behaviours that

relate to successful student outcomes. The interviews revealed two important

indicators of collective efficacy: coordination of group dynamics and interactive

group dynamics among group members.

This study found that teacher interactive group dynamics are associated

with a willingness to participate and persevere towards achieving group goals.

132

Teachers’ communal ability and willingness to solve problems strengthened the

belief in their capability to organise and execute the course of action required to

attain group goals. The current study found that not all teachers were willing to

participate in group learning tasks and the experienced teachers were

commonly described as the least willing to engage in teamwork.

The importance of the coordination of group dynamics and professional

group learning was discussed in reference to interdependence. How teachers

communicate, make decisions, navigate the complexities of group dynamics

and take on roles impacts on their confidence to positively influence student

outcomes. Interdependence refers to the unique contribution of each group

member in order to achieve mutual goals. Teachers described successful teams

as those that could capitalise on leveraging the skills and knowledge of

members; use PLC time to share knowledge; develop units of work together;

moderate assessments and apply meeting protocols.

There were established patterns of weak interdependence which involved

the distribution of work, superficial sharing of ideas and quality assurance

through moderating assessments. Additionally, interview responses indicated

that teachers did not use PLC time to engage in progressive inquiry

methodology, bring theory and practice together or engage in processes that

seek to solve problems in practice. In some groups, meeting protocols were not

used to frame meetings, there was low accountability and members were not

open to learning new strategies. Some interviewees commented that not all

team members got along, were not open to learning and were not comfortable

in collaborative situations. Others attributed group success to their ability to

manage personalities, navigate conflicts effectively and establish cultural norms

and common objectives.

B. Team Cohesion

Teachers indicated that an expatriate community is associated with a society

that is cohesive. Teachers commented on two elements of their ‘expat’

community: social cohesion and task cohesion. Interview findings suggested

133

that team cohesion was strongly related to collective efficacy through social

cohesion (social interdependence) and task cohesion (group norms and goals).

The social conditions of the expatriate community are characterised by

members who are highly interdependent. These relationships were partially

explained by psychological adjustment to new situations abroad and teachers

actively pursued social interactions with other expats who have similar cultural

values. Social interdependence exists because expat teachers are foreigners in

Shanghai and therefore rely on one another for general well-being.

This research found that participants reported behaviours indicating

positive relationships, trust and cooperation between expatriate teachers.

Teachers spoke positively about one another and provided support to one

another. In most instances, social embeddedness increased trust in the work

environment whereby colleagues felt personally responsible for successfully

cooperating and persisting. In some cases, it was mentioned that close personal

bonds decreased work performance. This finding may support the hypothesis

that a desire for conformity undermines the unique contribution of individual

members and inhibits the collaborative process.

This study suggests that team task cohesion encourages the perception of

collective efficacy. This is achieved through shared norms and values which

encourage common perceptions of acceptable group behaviour. Group

members behaved in ways that reflect the group culture in pursuit of goal

attainment. Teachers reported they worked long hours because it was common

group practice; this indicates that social norms are enforced through direct

observation of team members’ behaviours. Acceptable behaviour within the

group context serves as a standard of what is required for group membership

and goal attainment. Teachers reported that they conformed to norms set by the

group and felt pressure to persist in educational efforts. This provides insights

about the depth of social influence and cohesion among members.

C. School Structures

134

Teachers discussed both enabling and hindering aspects of school structures

which influence their work. The enabling elements referred to establishing

normative expectations for collaborative group work and sharing authority on

instructional matters. The results revealed that the principal’s orientation

towards leadership can both enable and hinder a school culture.

This study confirms the association between leadership characteristics and

collective teacher efficacy. Teachers described the importance of their leader’s

role in developing structures that enable groups to make the most of their

knowledge, skills and interactions. This can lead to an increase in group

confidence in one another’s ability to positively influence student learning.

Leaders influence the way teachers interact by building processes and

establishing routines which are aligned to promoting the pooling of knowledge

and skills and mobilising a process that enables teachers to find solutions. One

important finding was that teachers felt empowered and supported by their

leadership, which enabled them to abandon feelings of helplessness and focus

their energy on embracing setbacks with resilience and deepening commitment.

These findings cannot be extrapolated to all teachers as some indicated that

leaders did not effectively endorse collaborative behaviours.

5.3 Summary

This study set out to determine teachers’ perceptions of collective teacher

efficacy and school structures in an international school in Shanghai. The results

identified that school structures in which leadership develop the normative

expectation for collaboration and share authority on instructional matters

contribute to teachers’ perspectives of their collective efforts to positively

influence student outcomes. Collective teacher efficacy is influenced by the

school structures through ensuring that teachers have the conditions that make

group functioning and collective action easier.

The most obvious finding to emerge from Study One suggests that for

teachers to work together to influence the goals of the school, they need to be

135

able to overcome differences and contribute to a shared vision. The experiences

teachers encounter during professional group work influence perspectives of

collective teacher efficacy. Teachers’ perception of their students prior and

community support influences their perspectives of group capabilities. Overall,

this study strengthens the idea that teachers’ perception of collective efficacy

involves judgments of their students and communities; the capability of their

group to teach, engage, and collaborate; and the school structures which can

enhance the quality of teacher engagement for productivity, empowerment, and

persistence. When taken together, these findings suggest that collective efficacy

refers to the perception of the entire social system as participants are bound

together by an entanglement of interrelationships which shape how they

function within their school environment.

5.4 Triangulating Phase I and Phase II Data

The purpose of Study One was to examine and explain the relationships

between school structures and collective teacher efficacy. Triangulation

occurred by comparing the survey responses with the interview explanations.

In Table 12, the relationships between both the survey and semi-structured

interviews are displayed. The findings are correlated by pairing interview

statements with survey responses on the collective teacher efficacy and school

structures surveys. Assessment criteria used were the strength of average

survey scores (high 5-6, medium 3-4, low 2-1); strength of saturation between

interview responses (high – unanimous agreement, medium – half unanimous

and/or half disagreement, low – teachers’ responses do not agree); and the

strength of evidence between survey and interview responses (*** convergent,

**both convergent and divergent, *divergent). Triangulating the data allows for

an understanding of convergent and divergent perspectives. In the following

section, the integration of Phase I data from the collective teacher efficacy and

school structures survey, and the Phase II interviews provides convergent and

divergent results.

137

Table 12. Study One triangulation of Phase I & II

Themes Sub Themes

Strength of

average

survey score

(low,

medium,

high)

Emergent

Themes

Interview (9 participants) significant

statements

Saturation across

interview

responses (low,

moderate or high)

Strength of

evidence between

surveys and

interviews (*, **,

***)

Collective

Teacher

Efficacy

Teaching

Group

Competence

and Task

Analysis

High

Group competence:

• Hard-working, passionate teachers (9/9)

• Instructional skills (4/9)

Task analysis:

• Student academic discipline (7/9)

• Community support (6/9)

High ** Both convergent

and divergent

N/A

Interactive

Group

Dynamics

• Willingness to engage (5/9)

• Reluctance to engage (5/9)

• Responsibility (5/9)

• Closed-to-learning stance (5/9)

• Open-to-learning stance (7/9)

• Personalities, egos (7/9)

High Emergent theme

N/A Coordination

of Group

Dynamics

Interdependence: (7/9)

• Collective knowledge (6/9)

• Leverage strengths and weaknesses of

members (6/9)

High Emergent theme

138

Themes Sub Themes

Strength of

average

survey score

(low,

medium,

high)

Emergent

Themes

Interview (9 participants) significant

statements

Saturation across

interview

responses (low,

moderate or high)

Strength of

evidence between

surveys and

interviews (*, **,

***)

• Meeting protocols, shared goals,

reflective practice (1/9)

School

Structures

Hindering Low

Leadership characteristics: (5/9)

• Pressure to maintain status quo (1/9)

• Autocratic leadership (2/9)

• Not leveraging teachers’ capabilities

(1/9)

Moderate *** Convergent

Enabling Medium

• Normative expectation for collaboration

(4/9)

• Sharing authority on instructional

matters (4/9)

Moderate *** Convergent

Team

Cohesion

N/A Task cohesion • Shared group norms (4/9) Medium Emergent theme

N/A Social

cohesion

• Social interdependence (8/9)

• Negative influence in the workplace

(2/9)

High Emergent theme

139

Collective teacher efficacy: survey and interview responses

The collective teacher efficacy survey responses indicated an overall positive

judgment about collective capabilities to influence student learning outcomes

(mean score of 5.05). In Phase II, three key themes related to collective teacher

efficacy emerged from interview data: (1) teaching, (2) interactive group

dynamics, and (3) coordination of group dynamics. The themes of interactive

group dynamics and coordination of dynamics were not included in the survey

responses. These results offer further insights into the notion of CTE. The view

of teaching was discussed in relation to the survey items pertaining to group

competence and task analysis, with many of these perceptions corroborated by

teachers’ responses on CTE survey items as discussed in the next section.

Teaching – group competence and task analysis

The strength of evidence between collective teacher efficacy survey responses

and interview data both corroborated and diverged. Overall, teachers’

responses on survey items were positive about both group competence and task

analysis items. The interview data revealed four subthemes that related to the

group competence and task analysis items: (1) hard-working and passionate

teachers; (2) instructional skills; (3) student academic discipline; and (4)

community support.

All interviewees indicated that teachers are hardworking, passionate and

produce meaningful learning experiences for students. This was corroborated

by survey responses which indicated 100 per cent agreement among teachers

on these items: (CTE6) teachers in this school have what it takes to get students

to learn and (CTE1) teachers in this school are confident they can motivate any

student. This marks an important dimension of CTE from previous literature

whereby teachers who have a strong sense of collective teacher efficacy work

with the conviction that they can cause student learning and the power lies

within their direct control (Bandura, 1996).

Survey results indicated that 92% of teachers did not give up, even if a child

140

was resistant to learning (CTE2); they persisted to adjust instructional practices

if a child did not learn the first time (CTE3). Interview participants stated that

teachers develop lessons of what and how to teach to ensure that students are

engaged and meet high content and skill standards. These results are in line

with those of previous studies by Gibson and Dembo (1984), who found that

teachers with a high sense of instructional efficacy spent more time on academic

learning, continued to help students who struggled and praised their students’

efforts.

Survey results reflected a fundamental belief that every child can learn

(CTE4). This is central to the notion of collective teacher efficacy: when teachers

believe that every child can learn and they have the power to make that happen,

they focus their energy on the factors that are within their control and attribute

success to their efforts (Bandura, 1997). However, this notion was only

supported by a minority of the nine interviewees (one-third). Concerns were

expressed in the interviews that teachers predominately adopted a lecture-style

approach to instruction and did not adapt strategies to cater to the lower

achieving students.

Seven of nine respondents described students as ‘highly motivated’ and

‘dedicated’—this influenced teacher perceptions of students’ capabilities. These

views were corroborated by the survey responses. This finding has important

implications in understanding how expectations shape the normative

environment of a school. Setting high standards for student participation

indicates that teachers are likely to persist with their efforts to promote greater

school achievement.

Survey findings revealed over 98% of agreement on items pertaining to

community support (CTE8) and strong expectations for academic success

(CTE9). These comments were consistent with interview participants who

expressed that the parent community emphasised the importance of education

and encouraged children to be disciplined, self-regulated, respectful, and to

work with effort and persistence to achieve academic success. Teachers

141

explained that parents perceived education as a valuable means of personal

growth, financial survival and social recognition and thought success in life was

measured by high academic performance. This may be an important factor that

promotes behaviours such as persistence, constructing impactful goals,

designing purposeful lessons, accepting personal responsibility for student

achievement, and overcoming setbacks with resilience. This collective

perception among teachers and parents reflects that they have what it takes to

perform the behaviours necessary to promote a successful school climate.

Concerns were expressed by teachers that some parents tended to

overemphasise the amount of importance placed on exam scores; however, in

most cases students benefited from parental support in achieving academic

success.

Survey results and interview responses indicated that teachers, parents, and

students all play a critical role in ensuring academic attainment. With a focus on

academic pursuits and high standards, teachers’ patterns of behaviour reflect

the notion of collective efficacy—the belief in one another’s capability to achieve

set expectations.

School Structures: survey and interview responses

Overall, the school structures survey responses were positive. Given the school

structures survey items correspond to the enabling and hindering ends of a

continuum, two-thirds of the nine interview participants suggested the school

structures represented the enabling end of the continuum. The strength of

evidence between school structures survey responses and interview data

corroborated. Four teachers stated that leaders were able to set clear, specific

expectations around collaborative norms for instructional improvement and

shared power and authority on instructional matters.

There was a moderate level of agreement among teachers who indicated the

school structures contained hindering aspects that related to leadership

characteristics. Specifically, two teachers described experiences with autocratic

leadership, one teacher felt pressured to maintain the status quo, another

142

indicated that leaders did not know teachers’ strengths and did not leverage

their capabilities to develop school programs. This is consistent with survey

responses, whereby approximately one-third of teachers indicated agreement

on hindering items related to school structures.

5.4.1 Key finding: Broadening the concept of teachers’ collective efficacy in

the international school context.

Overall, the triangulated results of Study One suggest that teachers’ collective

efficacy is influenced by the social and organisational aspects of the

international education system. As displayed in Figure 22, the nested layers

within the school context at the classroom level, school level and wider

community all interact and influence teachers’ judgements of what is required

to achieve success in this context.

Figure 22. Triangulated results of Study One

Given that teachers’ collective efficacy is an emergent group-level property

(Bandura, 1997; Zaccaro et al., 1995), the way teachers interact and navigate

their group operative capabilities emerged as important dimensions to the

construct. Specifically, the coordination of group dynamics and interactive

group dynamics were repeatedly mentioned in the interview data as

characteristics of efficacious teams. Efficacious teams were considered as

143

collaborative and engaged. These collaborative groups were interdependent,

co-constructed knowledge, reflected on practice and shared goals. Additionally,

the group members who adopted an open-to-learning stance were able to

effectively coordinate their efforts, learn from one another and develop positive

affective ties.

Also, from the perspective of expatriate teachers, school leaders develop

collective teacher efficacy by creating an atmosphere that nurtures effective

group functioning. A multiple linear regression analysis indicated that together,

school structures and teacher demographic characteristics explained 42.9% of

the variance in the group competence dimension of collective teacher efficacy,

with school structures having the most significant effect above and beyond the

effects of teacher characteristics. Teachers reported the enabling strategies

employed by their administration which influenced collective efficacy included

setting normative expectations for collaboration and sharing authority on

instructional matters. A minority of teachers suggested that pressure to

maintain the status quo, autocratic leadership, and not recognising a teacher’s

capability hindered the development of collective teacher efficacy.

Another factor that influenced collective teacher efficacy mentioned by

teachers referred to positive and negative aspects of team cohesiveness.

Teachers discussed the implications of task cohesion and social cohesion on

their confidence to work together and effectively impact student learning.

The findings of Study One provide preliminary evidence that the notion of

collective efficacy in this context needs be extended beyond teaching capability

within the classroom. In-depth interview findings revealed that confidence in

group operative capabilities through collaborative behaviours and engagement

were important dimensions of collective efficacy. These results were used to

inform the development of Study Two investigation.

5.4.2 New directions for Study Two

Study One suggested that collective efficacy represents a multidimensional

144

construct including how teachers engage and work together to coordinate and

integrate resources in response to situational demands. Specifically, the key

findings from Study One propelled a broader examination of the collective

efficacy construct by including an evaluation of group operative capabilities.

The results of Study One also indicated that team cohesion serves as building

blocks to gaining confidence in one another’s capability and shapes teachers’

perception of collective efficacy.

Therefore, Study Two incorporated modified survey items to better

understand teachers’ degree of confidence in one another’s capability to teach,

coordinate and interact within their environment. Study Two incorporated

broader examination of these concepts across multiple international schools in

Shanghai.

145

Chapter 6 Method: Study Two

The purpose of Study Two’s investigation was to build on the findings from

Study One and to understand the nature of the relationships between teachers’

collective efficacy and the international school context in Shanghai. The

progression of studies is illustrated in Figure 23. Study One showed a

relationship between school structures and collective teacher efficacy in one

international school. Data were obtained from surveys with 53 expatriate

teachers and nine semi-structured interviews. Findings revealed that school

structures are a significant positive predictor of Collective Teacher Efficacy,

explaining 44.9% of the variance of the Group Competence dimension. This

means an increase in school structures results in an increase of teachers’

perception of group capability. Interview findings also revealed that group

operative capabilities are important dimensions of the collective efficacy

construct in this setting.

This chapter details the design of Study Two, Phase I and II. It also describes

the contexts of the participating international schools and subjects,

development of instruments, and the data collection and analysis procedures.

146

Figure 23. Progression of studies

147

As displayed in Figure 23, Study One was used to inform the development of

surveys in Study Two. Specifically, the items that were added to the Collective Efficacy

survey in Study Two related to interactive group dynamics and coordination of group

dynamics because the in-depth interviews from Study One revealed that group-related

factors such as group operative capabilities influence the nature of collective efficacy.

The approach to developing a multifaceted collective efficacy measure is also supported

by prior research from Bandura (1997) and Zaccaro et.al. (1995) whereby group skills

and processes reflect shared belief of group capabilities. Additionally, the notion of

team cohesion was also added as a predictive variable of collective efficacy and reflects

the integration of groups in pursuit of their goals.

Building on the findings from Study One and the review of the literature, the aim of

Study Two was to explore more broadly international teachers’ perceptions regarding

collective efficacy, school structures and the factors that relate to teachers’ perception of

collective efficacy in international schools in Shanghai.

Study Two was conducted in two phases: Phase I collected and analysed the survey

data and Phase II involved the collection and analysis of semi-structured interview data

to obtain explanations of the survey results. The analysis of Study Two, Phase I

informed the development of new semi-structured interview questions for Phase II and

these results assisted the researcher in explaining the initial Study Two survey findings.

Triangulating Phase I and II helped construct a comprehensive understanding of the

nature of relationships between teachers’ collective efficacy and school structures in the

international school context.

Study Two involved an examination of collective efficacy and contextual factors

across four international schools and identified conditions that differed or were related.

In each school, the perspective of the teacher was developed and examined

independently for within-school comparison. Once this was completed in all four

schools, the teacher perspectives were analysed across schools. The following section

provides a description of each school and the participant demographic information.

148

6.1 The Context of Four International Schools in Shanghai

The data were collected in Shanghai over a period of 11 months. The schools included

in this study were foreign-owned international schools. These schools cater for students

with foreign passports. A large majority of the teachers in these schools are expatriates.

The following section describes each international school, labelled A to D, and provides

information about the number and type of participants.

6.1.1 International School A

School A serves approximately 800 students across four programs of the International

Baccalaureate (IB): Primary Years (IBPYP), Middle Years Program (IBMYP), Diploma

Program (IBDP) and the Career-related Program (IBCP). The modern campus includes

state of the art science and technology labs, flexible learning spaces, sporting facilities

including swimming pools, indoor gymnasium, running track, performance arts

facilities including black box, film and dance studio, cafes and music facilities. The

community represents over 50 nationalities and all students hold foreign passports with

over 50% culturally and ethnically of Asian descent. The remaining 50% are from

Western cultures.

International School A - Participants

The 117 participants from School A included expatriate and Chinese national teachers.

Teachers came from China (30%), United States (18%), United Kingdom (15%), Canada

(13%), Australia (3%) and European countries (21%). All staff members held bachelor’s

degrees, 40% had earned master’s degrees and 3% had doctorate degrees. Once the

school director agreed to take part in the study, an email with the Qualtrics survey link

was sent to all expatriate and Chinese national teachers. Fifty-four teachers responded

from School A (46.15% of staff invited). Three teachers volunteered to participate in the

follow-up semi structured interview. The breakdown of teachers’ demographic

characteristics is displayed in Table 13.

149

Table 13. Participant demographic for School A


Years of Employment at International School

1-2 years 33 61.1

2-3 years 3 5.6

3-4 years 6 11.1

4-5 years 6 11.1

6 + years 6 11.1

Expatriate or Host Teacher

Expatriate 34 63

Host 20 37

Level of Expertise


Proficient teacher 24 44.4


Lead teacher 7 13

Gender

Female 41 75.9

Male 13 24.1

As displayed in Table 13, the highest number of responses were from expatriate

teachers, representing 63% of the sample. The majority of the survey respondents were

female (75.9%). More than half of the participants had been employed in the school for

1-2 years, representing 61.1% of the sample population. Most participants rated their

level of expertise as proficient (44.4%).

6.1.2 International School B

School B caters for students aged 2 to 18 and offers an International Baccalaureate (IB)

Program comprising of Primary Years Program (PYP), Middle Years Program (MYP),

and Diploma Programs (DP). The campus contains state of the art indoor air filtration

150

system, swimming pools, auditoriums, black box theatre, art gallery, basketball courts,

weight rooms, smart boards, dance halls, art studios, playgrounds, and science,

computer and audio-visual media labs. This campus caters for approximately 1,500

students who hold foreign passports; approximately 65%of the school population are

ethnically Asian, with the remaining 35% from Europe and Australasia.

International School B - Participants

Approximately 176 teachers work in School B. The majority of the teachers are from the

United States (57%), China (10%), Canada (16%), UK (7%) and Australia (3%), with the

remainder from various countries within Europe (8%). All teachers hold bachelor’s

degrees, an additional 39% have attained master’s degrees, and 3% of teachers have

earned doctorate degrees. Upon approval from the school directors, a total of 75

expatriate and host country teachers volunteered to complete the online survey, which

represents approximately 42.61% of the staff of School B. Three expatriate teachers also

volunteered to take part in the semi-structured interviews. The breakdown of teachers’

demographic characteristics is displayed in Table 14.

Table 14. Participant demographic for School B



1-2 years 27 36

2-3 years 6 8

3-4 years 22 29.3

4-5 years 9 12

6 + years 11 14.7


Expatriate 70 93.3

Host 5 6.7

Level of Expertise


Proficient teacher 33 44

151



Lead teacher 14 18.7

Gender

Female 50 66.7

Male 25 33.3

As indicated in Table 14, the highest number of responses were from expatriate

teachers, representing 93.3% of the sample population. Over half of the survey

participants were female (66.7%). Most of the responses were from teachers who have

been employed in the school for 1-2 years (36%) and 3-4 years (29.3%). Teachers

commonly rated themselves as proficient (44%) and highly accomplished (30.7%).

6.1.3 International School C

School C is a not-for-profit organisation which caters for students aged three

(preschool) through to grade 12. The school serves 1,500 students in the Shanghai

international community who seek an American-style, college preparatory education. In

accordance with the Chinese law, students must be in possession of a foreign passport

or have permission from the Shanghai Education Commission (SEC) to attend this

international school. School C serves 31 nationalities. Students with US passports (60%)

are the dominate nationality in the school, followed by Hong Kong (12%), Korea (11%),

Canada (11%), Taiwan (6.6%), Singapore (3.9%), Australia (2.6) and other. It is

important to note that the students’ passport does not reflect their first language

background and the school has a large number of students with foreign passports who

are ethnically Chinese. The school operates three divisions: Elementary School (ES) for

PS3-Grade 4, Middle School (MS) for Grades 5-8, and High School (HS) Grades 9-12.

School C contains state-of-the-art facilities including science labs, 3D art studios, STEM-

focused and drama rooms, gymnasiums, theatre, music rehearsal rooms, and 2D/3D

computer graphics and photography studies.

152

International School C - Participants

The majority of the faculty in School C hold passports from the United States (61%),

with China (19%) a close second due to the Mandarin Language faculty and Teaching

Assistance members. The remaining faculty are from the Philippines (4%), Canada (4%)

and Australia (2%). Approximately 83% of teachers hold masters or doctorate degrees

and 69% have over 10 years’ teaching experience. There are 146 faculty members

including teachers and academic support staff. After the school director granted

permission, an email was distributed to all faculty members. Seventy-nine teachers

completed the online survey, representing approximately 54% of the school sample.

Four expatriate teachers volunteered to participate in the follow-up semi-structured

interviews. In Table 15, the breakdown of teachers’ demographic characteristics is

displayed.

Table 15. Participant demographic for School C



1-2 years 21 26.6

2-3 years 8 10.1

3-4 years 14 17.7

4-5 years 9 11.4

6 + years 27 34.2


Expatriate 70 88.6

Host 9 11.4

Level of Expertise





Gender

153


Female 55 69.6

Male 24 30.4

Table 15 shows that the highest number of responses were from expatriate teachers,

representing 88.6% of the sample population. The majority of the survey participants

were female (55%). The highest number of responses were from teachers who had been

employed at the school for 6+ years (34.2%) and the second highest number of

responses were from teachers employed for 1-2 years (26.6%). Teachers commonly rated

themselves as highly accomplished (41.8%).

6.1.4 International School D

School D caters for approximately 1500 students aged 2 to 18 and is divided between

three schools that follow the National Curriculum of England and Wales. In year 10

children begin the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE),

followed by a two-year International Baccalaureate Diploma Program (IBDP). The

diverse student body represents over forty nationalities including United States (12%),

Hong Kong (14%), United Kingdom (10%), Australia (8%), Singapore (6%), China (5%),

and Canada (5%). As the nationalities on passports do not necessarily represent the

ethnic background of students, a large proportion of students are ethnically Chinese.

The campus contains a refurbished theatre with two drama black boxes, recording

studios, music rooms, music practice rooms, gymnasiums, dance studios, swimming

pools, sports fields, film studios, science laboratory, art rooms, library, indoor and

outdoor play areas.

International School D - Participants

There are approximately 175 teaching faculty members in School D. The majority of

these teachers are from Britain (59%), China (14%), America (6%), Australia (5%), and

New Zealand (4%). All teachers hold bachelor’s degrees and over 23% have earned a

154

master’s or doctorate degree. After the school director accepted the invitation to

participate in the study, all 175 teaching faculty members were emailed the survey link.

There were 115 teacher responses which represents 65.7% of the sample population.

Three expatriate teachers participated in the follow-up semi-structured interviews. The

breakdown of teachers’ demographic characteristics is displayed in Table 16.

Table 16. Participant demographic for School D



1-2 years 47 40.9

2-3 years 18 15.7

3-4 years 19 16.5

4-5 years 17 14.8

6 + years 14 12.2


Expatriate 100 87

Host 15 13

Level of Expertise




Lead teacher 31 27

Gender

Female 77 67

Male 38 33

As displayed in Table 16, the highest number of respondents were female

participants, representing 67% of the sample population. The highest number of

respondents were from teachers who had been employed at the school for 1-2 years

155

(40.9%). The majority of the participants were expatriate teachers (87%). There was a

range of responses from teachers who rated themselves as highly accomplished (38.3%),

proficient (31.3%) and lead teachers (27%).

6.2 Study Two Research Procedures

In each school, the data were collected in two phases. The first phase examined

collective efficacy; school structures; team cohesion and teachers’ characteristics from

survey data. Following this, the teachers who had indicated their interest were invited

to participate in the semi-structured interview. The interviews were scheduled during a

three-week period at a convenient non-teaching time for participants. Some interviews

were conducted via Zoom. At the completion of each interview the researcher analysed

data, developed categories and themes, and, as the study progressed, continued to

evaluate the results.

6.2.1 Study Two Instruments

Surveys

The surveys were developed to align to the aims and research questions for this

investigation. A 6-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly

agree” was adopted for all items. The next section of this chapter explains the

construction of survey items: collective efficacy, school structures and team cohesion.

Then, the validity and appropriateness of the instruments (Exploratory Factor Analysis

(EFA), Cronbach Alpha, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of sphericity

tests) are described.

Collective Efficacy Dimensions

Study One revealed that confidence in teaching capabilities was an important indicator

of collective efficacy in schools. Two additional themes emerged from the semi-

structured interviews - coordination of group dynamics and interactive group

dynamics. Therefore, the construction of the collective efficacy survey for Study Two

156

incorporated three dimensions. The items for each dimension are outlined below.

Collective Efficacy: Teaching (group competence and task analysis)

Given that the model of Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE) survey developed for Study

Two was broadened to also capture the coordination of group dynamics and the

interactive group dynamics, items on the Study One CTE survey were omitted in Study

Two to reduce respondent fatigue and burden. The items that were retained remained

alignment with Goddard’s 12-item Collective Efficacy Scale: Short Form (2002) survey sub-

scales and teachers were required to consider both Group Competence (GC) and Task

Analysis (TA) in their teaching efficacy judgments. As displayed in Table 17, items

CTE2, CTE3, CTE4, CTE5 captured elements of Group Competence and items CTE8

determined Task Analysis.

Table 17. Collective Efficacy: Teaching survey

Study One Study Two

CTE1. Teachers in this school are confident

they can motivate any student.

CTE1. Omitted

CTE2. Teachers in this school do not give up,

even if a child is resistant to learning

CTE2. Teachers in this school do

not give up, even if a child is


CTE3. Teachers will persist with adjusting

instructional strategies if a child doesn’t learn

the first time.

CTE3. Omitted

CTE4. Teachers believe that every child can

learn.

CTE4.Teachers believe that every

child can learn.

CTE5. Teachers implement effective learning

strategies (e.g. offer timely feedback, develop

challenging and interesting course work,

support students to meet high expectations

and reward success).

CTE5. Teachers implement effective

learning strategies (e.g. offer timely

feedback, develop challenging and

interesting course work, support

students to meet high expectations

and reward success).

CTE6. Teachers in this school have what it

takes to get the child to learn.

CTE6. Omitted

157

Study One Study Two

CTE7. Students arrive to school ready to

learn.

CTE7. Omitted

CTE8. These students are strongly supported

by their community and this helps to ensure

learning

CTE8.These students are strongly

supported by their community and

this helps to ensure learning

CTE9. There is a strong expectation for

persistent effort and academic success.

CTE9.Omitted

CTE10. Teachers hold high expectations that

students participate in all learning tasks.

CTE10. Omitted

Collective Efficacy: Coordination of Group Dynamics

Coordination of group dynamics refers to when a group of people work together to

share their knowledge and skills for the benefit of a shared goal. The process of group

work impacts the outcome of group goals and success hinges on members of a group

being able to work together. The items were adapted from Short et al.’s (2005) 20-item

collective efficacy in sports (CEQS) survey. For the purpose of determining coordination

of group dynamics, the items in factors ‘Unity’ and ‘Ability’ were adapted (see

Appendix C). The original items for unity included: rate your team’s confidence, in terms

of the upcoming game or competition, that your team has the ability to ‘resolve conflicts,’ ‘keep a

positive attitude,’ and ‘maintain effective communication.’ These items were modified to;

teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to… ‘resolve conflicts,’ ‘keep a

positive attitude’ and ‘maintain effective communication.’ The original items for ability

included: rate your team’s confidence, in terms of the upcoming game or competition, that your

team has the ability to ... ‘show more ability than the other team,’ ‘play more skillfully than the

opponent’ and ‘outplay the opposing team.’ These items were modified to: teachers in my

grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to…‘achieve group goals,’ ‘skillfully perform

planned tasks,’ and ‘work effectively together.’ The Cronbach Alpha for the original survey

items were Unity 0.85 and Ability 0.91.

Collective Efficacy: Interactive Group Dynamics

158

Bandura (2006) contends that unless teachers believe in their collective ability to

produce the desired effects of their actions, they will have little motivation to act and

persevere. When teachers believe in their ability to effect change, they will actively

engage in collective efforts to achieve group goals. Interactive group dynamics refers to

the degree of effort, persistence and preparation teachers exert in pursuit of group

goals. The interactive group dynamics survey items 1-9 were adapted from Short et al.’s

(2005) 20-item Collective Efficacy in Sports (CEQS) survey.

For the purpose of determining interactive group dynamics, the items in factors

‘Effort’, ‘Persistence’ and ‘Preparation’ were adapted to measure teacher’s ability to

execute the course of action required to produce given levels of attainment (see

Appendix C).

The original items for effort included: rate your team’s confidence, in terms of the

upcoming game or competition, that your team has the ability to… ‘demonstrate work ethic,’

‘show enthusiasm,’ and ‘overcome distractions.’ These items were modified to: teachers in

my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to… ‘demonstrate a strong work ethic,’

‘work to overcome distractions,’ ‘show enthusiasm.’

The original items for persistence included: rate your team’s confidence, in terms of the

upcoming game or competition, that your team has the ability to…, ‘perform under pressure,’

‘persist when obstacles are present,’ ‘stay in the game when it seems like your team isn’t getting

any breaks.’ These items were modified to: teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence

in their ability to… ‘persist when obstacles are present’, ‘work hard even when it seems like your

team isn’t getting any breaks.’

The original items for preparation included: rate your team’s confidence, in terms of the

upcoming game or competition, that your team has the ability to… ‘be ready,’ ‘devise successful

strategies,’ ‘mentally prepare for the competition.’ These items were modified to: teachers in

my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to… ‘prepared for every meeting,’ ‘devise

159

successful strategies,’ ‘mentally present for every meeting.’ The Cronbach Alpha for the

original survey items were: Effort 0.87, Persistence 0.81 and Preparation 0.87.

School Structures survey

Little adjustment to the School Structures survey was necessary as the internal

consistency (alpha) for all these survey items was at an acceptable level for Study One

(0.79). This indicates that items measure the same concept and contribute to the inter-

relatedness of questions within the survey (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Item SS9 ‘the

administrative hierarchy enables student achievement’ was adjusted to ‘the

administrative hierarchy obstructs student achievement’. Changing this item to

hindering balanced the number of hindering and enabling questions and improved the

measurement accuracy of the survey.

Team Cohesion survey

The Team Cohesion survey items were adapted from Carless and De Paola (2000). The

Team Cohesion scale was originally adapted from the Group Environment

Questionnaire (GEQ) (Carron et al., 1985). The 18-item GEQ (Widmeyer et al., 1985)

survey was modified to reflect an organisational environment instead of a sporting

context. To achieve this, the wording on six items were modified, for example, “I’m

unhappy with my team’s desire to win” changed to “I’m unhappy with my team’s level

of commitment to the task.” The revised scale was named the Team Cohesion (TC)

scale. In this investigation, items were slightly modified to suit the context as shown in

Appendix C.

The following section outlines the analyses undertaken to demonstrate that the

instrument adequately measured the intended dimensions. The reliability tests ensured

there was internal consistency of responses across the items and that the underlying

structures were consistent with the nature of concepts.

160

6.2.1.1 Underlying factor structures of surveys

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was utilised to reduce the overall number of items

into latent factors based on the data commonalities and to confirm they accurately

measured the intended dimensions. To test the validity and suitability of the

instruments, Cronbach Alpha, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of

sphericity were conducted. As per the KMO criterion, sampling adequacy was between

1 and .70.

Collective Efficacy: Teaching

Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis with Direct Oblimin revealed that the Collective

Efficacy: Teaching items loaded on one factor (KMO = 0.759, Bartlett’s test = 340.328, df =

15, p < .001). The first factor accounted for 59.6% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 2.

Table 18. Collective Efficacy: Teaching factor loadings

Items Factor One

1. Teachers in this school do not give up, even if a child is resistant to learning. 0.68

2. Teachers believe that every child can learn. 0.65

3. Teachers implement effective learning strategies (e.g. offer timely feedback,

develop challenging and interesting course work, support students to meet high

expectations and reward success).

0.70

4. These students are strongly supported by their community and this helps to

ensure learning. 0.58

As displayed in Table 18, all items loaded between 0.58 and 0.70. A one-factor model

supports prior research by Goddard (2001, 2002), Goddard et al. (2000) and Skaalvik

and Skaalvik (2007). These studies considered Collective Teacher Efficacy as a single

construct that connected the elements of task analysis with Group Competence. The

estimates of reliability for the Collective Efficacy: Teaching survey were adequate and

gave confidence in the use of total scores from these items (alpha = .77).

161


The results of Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis revealed that the Collective

Efficacy: Coordination of Group Dynamics items loaded on one factor (KMO = 0.882,

Bartlett’s test =1369.109, df = 21, p < .001). This factor accounted for 64% of the variability

with an eigenvalue of 4.

Table 19. Collective Efficacy: Coordination of Group Dynamics

Items Factor One

1. Teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability

to achieve group goals. 0.73


to skilfully perform planned tasks. 0.70


to work effectively together. 0.87


to resolve conflicts. 0.79


to keep a positive attitude. 0.73


to maintain effective communication. 0.81


to talk about how to use and share materials. 0.68

The details of factor loadings are displayed in Table 19. All items loaded between 0.68

and 0.87. The estimates of reliability (alpha) was .90, which is considered strong and

provides confidence to use total scores from these items.


Factor analysis utilising Maximum Likelihood revealed that the Collective Efficacy:

Interactive Group Dynamics items loaded on one factor (KMO = 0.917, Bartlett’s test =

1824.289, df = 36, p < .001). This factor accounted for 61% of the variability with an

eigenvalue of 5. As displayed in Table 20, all items loaded between .64 and .86. The

162

estimates of reliability for the survey were, therefore, sufficiently high and gave

confidence in the total scores from these items (alpha = .92).

Table 20. Collective Efficacy: Interactive group dynamics

Items Factor

One

1. Teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to

demonstrate a strong work ethic. 0.75

2. Teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to work

to overcome distractions. 0.73

3. Teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to show

enthusiasm. 0.78

4. Teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to

perform under pressure. 0.68

5. Teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to persist

when obstacles are present. 0.86

6. Teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to work

hard even when it seems like your team isn’t getting any breaks. 0.81

7. Teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to be

prepared for every meeting. 0.73

8. Teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to devise

successful strategies. 0.76

9. Teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to be

mentally present for every meeting. 0.64

School Structures Survey

Maximum Likelihood analysis revealed that School Structures items loaded on two

factors. The first factor accounted for 51% of the variability with an eigenvalue of 5 and

the second factor explained 14% of the variability with an eigenvalue of 1. Most factor

analysis programs include factors if the eigenvalue is 1. As suggested by Kaiser (1960)

factors may be retained if the eigen value is greater than 1. Given this, together with an

163

evaluation of the scree plot, results indicated suitability of a one-factor solution. A

Pearson correlation analysis indicated the two factors were significantly correlated (r =

.565, p<.01). Therefore, a one-factor solution was considered appropriate for this

investigation. This decision follows Hoy and Sweetland’s (2001) research findings

which suggested that a one-factor solution was better suited to the concept of school

structures, with the items arrayed along a continuum from enabling at one end to

hindering at the other. Therefore, a one-factor solution was applied using maximum

likelihood factor analysis (KMO = 0.897, Bartlett’s test = 1997.329, df = 55, p < .001). It

explained 51% of the total variance.

Table 21. School Structures factor loading

Items Factor

One

1. Administrative rules in this school enable honest communication between

teachers and leadership. 0.76

2. Administrative rules enable rather than obstruct teaching and learning. 0.81

3. Administrative rules are guides to solving problems rather than rigid

procedures. 0.74

4. In this school, red tape keeps teachers from doing their job well. 0.62

5. Administrative rules in this school are substitutes for professional reasoning. 0.54

6. The administrative hierarchy of this school helps teachers to do their job. 0.77

7. The administrative hierarchy of this school promotes the mission of the

school. 0.74

8. The administrators in this school use their governance to enable teachers to do

their job. 0.70

9. The administrative hierarchy obstructs student achievement. 0.57

10. The administrative hierarchy of this school impedes innovation. 0.61

11. In this school, the command of the principal is used to undermine teachers. 0.57

All items loaded between .54 and .81. Therefore, the estimates of reliability for the

school structures survey were sufficiently high to give confidence in total scores from

164

these items (alpha = .90). The details are displayed in Table 21.

Team Cohesion Survey

Results of the Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis with Direct Oblimin revealed the

Team Cohesion items loaded on two factors (KMO = 0.845, Bartlett’s test = 1364.899, df =

45, p < .001). The first factor accounted for 42% of the variability with an eigenvalue of 4

and the second factor explained 17% of the variability with an eigenvalue of 1.7.

Table 22. Team Cohesion factor matrix

Team Cohesion Items Factor 1

Task Cohesion

Factor 2

Social Cohesion

1. Our team is united in trying to attain goals. 0.54 0.28

2. I’m unhappy with my team’s degree of

commitment to tasks. 0.69 0.25

3. Our team members have inconsistent aspirations

for the team’s performance. 0.76 0.27

4. This team does not give me sufficient

opportunities to improve my performance. 0.58 0.27

5. Our team would like to spend time together after

work hours. 0.23 0.60

6. Members of our team do not socialise together

outside of work. 0.37 0.86

7. Our team members rarely socialise together. 0.42 0.89

8. Members of our team would rather socialise on

their own than together. 0.43 0.82

9. For me, this team is an important social group to

which I belong. 0.30 0.58

10. Some of my closest friends are in this team. 0.13 0.57

The internal consistency (alpha) for the Team Cohesion survey was 0.84. The

internal consistency for factor one (Task Cohesion) was 0.74 and factor two (Social

Cohesion) 0.87. This provides confidence to use the total scores from these factors

165

(Cronbach, 1951). Details are displayed in Table 22. The two factors are correlated, r =

.349, p =.01, showing that they are related, but the r value is not high enough to indicate

they are measuring the same construct.

Summary of Internal Reliability for all surveys

The internal reliability of the school structures, collective efficacy, social cohesion, and

task cohesion surveys was evaluated using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient reliability

measurement. Results are displayed in Table 23.

Table 23. Summary of internal reliability for all surveys

Variables Number

of Items

Cronbach’s

Alpha (α)

School Structures 12 .90

Collective Efficacy: Teaching 4 .81

Collective Efficacy: Coordination of group dynamics 7 .90

Collective Efficacy: Interactive group dynamics 9 .91

Collective Efficacy: (Teaching, Coordination of group dynamics,

Interactive group dynamics) 20 .94

Team Social Cohesion 6 .87

Team Task Cohesion 4 .74

The alpha coefficient’s internal consistency for each variable is considered

reliable (.74 to .94). Generally, a coefficient .90 or above is considered high, .80 to .89 is

very good and .70 to .79 is adequate (Salkind, 2010).

6.2.2 Phase II: Semi-structured interviews

The interviews were in-depth and semi-structured and commenced with guiding

questions to obtain viewpoints and feelings from participants regarding school factors

that may influence collective efficacy. The purpose of this data collection strategy was to

discover how teachers’ perceptions compare and capture the nature of the environment

166

and relationships inherent in their schools. The guiding interview questions can be

found in Appendix D.

6.2.3 Data analysis strategy

Phase I: Surveys

The collective efficacy indicator for teaching was analysed to determine existing beliefs

related to teachers’ confidence in one another’s capability to teach students. The

collective efficacy dimension for coordination of group dynamics was analysed to

determine beliefs in collaborative capabilities and the collective efficacy dimension for

interactive group dynamics was designed to establish teachers’ confidence in one

another’s ability to interact and commit to group goals. Data on school structures were

collected to ascertain the organisational climate of the school. The task cohesion items

aimed to capture agreement on group goal attainment and the social cohesion items

detected the degree of importance placed on personal interrelationships.

Teacher survey responses were aggregated and uploaded to software packages,

such as SPSS, to compute the mean and standard deviations from Likert-scale

measurement responses. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)

examined statistical differences between teacher’s responses. Pearson correlation

statistical analysis was applied to determine the strength of relationships between

school structures, team cohesion, teacher characteristics and collective efficacy. Multiple

linear regression (MLR) was utilised because it enabled several explanatory variables to

predict the outcome of the response variable. These statistical methods are appropriate

for understanding the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its relationship with

school structures in the context of international schools in Shanghai.

Phase II: Semi-structured interviews

The data from interviews were transcribed and uploaded into Nvivo for coding and

thematic analysis. As interviews progressed, themes, recurring words and topics

167

emerged, leading to changes, merging and splitting themes into new categories. This

process enabled the researcher to gather an in-depth understanding regarding teacher’s

perspectives of collective efficacy and school structures and the factors that relate to

collective efficacy. The data gathered from participant interviews were presented in

thematic categories with descriptive narratives and direct quotes from participants to

reinforce conclusions.

Data Triangulation

In order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the cognitive, behavioural and

environmental factors that influence teacher’s shared beliefs in their collective capacity,

data from Study Two Phase I and Phase II were triangulated. Data triangulation

enabled the identification of divergent and convergent themes across and between

survey and interview responses.

This chapter provided an overview of the research progression and design of Study

Two Phase I and II. The demographic characteristics of participants highlighted the

representative sample within the context of four international schools. The development

and evaluation of survey instruments indicated that they were suitable for further

analysis in order to answer the research questions. Chapter 7 presents the results of

Study Two, Phase I, Phase II and the triangulation data analysis.

169

Chapter 7 Results: Study Two

Chapter Seven presents the results and analysis of Study Two. Study Two was carried

out in response to the research questions, what are the broader international teachers’

perceptions regarding collective efficacy and school structures? And, what are the factors that

relate to teachers’ perspectives of collective efficacy in international schools in Shanghai?

This chapter addresses these questions in three sections: Phase I, Phase II and the

triangulation of Phase I and Phase II. The first section, Phase I, begins by determining

whether there are any significant differences between the survey responses collected

from teachers at four international schools. It then discusses the analysis of

relationships between school structures, teacher characteristics, team cohesion and

collective efficacy. The second part, Phase II, builds on Phase I by gathering information

about how teachers think, feel and act. This section of the investigation addresses the

research questions through data gathered by conducting semi-structured interviews

with 13 expatriate teachers. The information collected was analysed thematically. The

last section concerns the triangulation of the survey and interview results. This

consolidates findings and provides a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the

relationships between teachers’ collective efficacy and the international school context

in Shanghai.

7.1 Phase I Results

This section establishes the interschool variance in order to reveal any differences

between survey responses across international schools. A description of the

international school participants is outlined, followed by descriptive statistics of the

survey results, and analysis of the relationships between school structures, team

cohesion, teacher characteristics and collective efficacy.

170

7.1.1 Comparing international schools survey responses

In this section, results of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) are discussed

to determine whether teachers’ survey responses differed significantly across schools A,

B, C and D. This is followed by a description of data screening procedures, a combined

description of participants and survey descriptive statistics, data assumptions for

multiple linear regression analysis and results.

It was important to establish whether there were any significant differences between

participant responses across the four international schools (A, B, C, D) prior to data

analysis. A one-way multivariate MANOVA was conducted to test for differences

across international schools and teachers’ responses on the school structures, collective

efficacy and team cohesion surveys.

Table 24. MANOVA Results, Wilk's Lambda

Variable Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.

School A, B, C, D .92 1.33 18 888.61 .158

Table 24 results indicates that the model was not a significant predictor of the

dependent variables, F (18, 888) = 1.33, p = .158; Wilk’s = 0.92. Considering there were no

significant differences between schools on any of the survey scores, it was reasonable to

combine and analyse the data as one representation of teachers’ perceptions within

international schools in this setting.

Retaining and eliminating data was determined prior to analysis. After screening the

data, eight cases were found to be missing from one to three different individual item

responses. As the data appeared to be missing at random, a simple mean imputation

method was used for handling the missing data (Jakobsen et al., 2017). Using this

approach, the missing variables were estimated by calculating the mean of the observed

values for the item based on available data. The SPSS program indicated that 2.31

standard deviations from the mean was the cut-off for eliminating outliers. Four cases

171

of outliers were identified and deleted. The complete dataset for Study Two comprised

data from 323 participants.

7.1.2 Description of participants in the international schools combined

The volunteer participants in this study were expatriate and host country (local

Chinese) educators from four large PK-12 international schools in Shanghai. The

demographics relating to these participants are presented in Table 25.

Table 25. Frequency of distributions of demographic variables (N=323)


Years of Employment at

International School

1-2 years 128 39.6

2-3 years 35 10.8

3-4 years 61 18.9

5-6 years 41 12.7

7 + years 58 18


Expatriate 274 84.8

Host 49 15.2

Level of Expertise

Graduate teacher 26 8


Highly accomplished

teacher 115 35.6


Gender Female 223 69

Male 100 31

The highest number of responses were from teachers employed between 1-2 years,

representing 39.6% of the sample population. There was a larger representation of

172

female teachers (69%) compared with male teachers (31%). The highest number of

responses were from teachers who rated their level of expertise as proficient (35.5%)

and highly accomplished (35.6%). The majority of participants were expatriate teachers,

representing 84% of the responses. In the following sections, data related to teachers’

perspectives of collective efficacy (teaching, coordination and interactive group

dynamics), team cohesion (task and social), and school structures (enabling and

hindering) are presented.

7.1.3 Teachers’ responses on collective efficacy, team cohesion and school structures

survey items

Collective Efficacy survey results

Given collective efficacy is a group-level phenomenon that represents multidimensional

constructs, this study addresses three indicators of collective efficacy: teaching,

coordination of group dynamics and interactive group dynamics. The previous chapter

outlined the development of the collective efficacy survey items and the use of

exploratory factor analysis to ensure the survey accurately measured the intended

indicators. The following section describes teachers’ responses on survey items.

Collective Efficacy: Teaching

The Collective Efficacy: Teaching survey included four items pertaining to group

competence and task analysis. Teachers responded to a 6-point Likert scale ranging

from 6 (“strongly agree”) to 1 (“strongly disagree”). The data displayed a mean score

range between 4.90 and 5.24. The distribution of the scores relative to the mean ranged

from .74 to .86 standard deviations. This indicated that teachers appraise each other as

highly capable of successfully educating children in their setting. The percentage of

agreement was calculated by combining agreement scores (slightly agree, agree, strongly

agree). The means, standard deviations and percentage of agreement scores are

displayed in Table 26.

173

Table 26. Descriptive statistics for Collective Efficacy: Teaching

Items Mean SD % Agreement

1. Teachers in this school do not give up, even if a

child is resistant to learning.

5.02 0.80 94.74

2.Teachers believe that every child can learn. 5.24 0.74 97.21

3. Teachers implement effective learning strategies

(e.g. offer timely feedback, develop challenging and

interesting course work, support students to meet

high expectations and reward success).

5.03 0.81 94.43

4. These students are strongly supported by their

community and this helps to ensure learning.

4.90 0.81 94.42

The items pertaining to group competence (1 - 3) indicated that teachers agreed that they

possessed the collective capacity to implement a range of effective teaching and

learning strategies and persist when faced with resistant learners. Given that collective

efficacy is context specific, these results suggest that teachers, in this setting, judge one

another as highly capable to deliver instruction, motivate students, find ways to engage

those students less willing to participate, and foster and maintain high educational

standards for all students. The item referring to task analysis (4) suggests that teachers

agree that student learning is strongly supported by the community, which indicates

that responsibility for student learning is shared between the school and the

community. Overall, teachers perceive each other as capable of positively influencing

student learning. Additional investigation was required to understand more about

teachers’ perspectives of group competence and task analysis. These survey results

were explored further in Phase II.


The collective efficacy items related to coordination of group dynamics included seven

items. The survey used a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 6 (“strongly agree”) to 1

(“strongly disagree”). The data displayed a mean score ranging between 4.77 and 5.04

with a distribution range from .74 to .99 standard deviations. This suggests confidence

174

in collaborative capability is present among teachers. The percentage of agreement was

calculated by combining agreement scores (slightly agree, agree, strongly agree). Table 27

presents the means, standard deviations and percentage of agreement scores.

Table 27. Descriptive statistics for Collective Efficacy: Coordination of Group Dynamics


1. Teachers in my grade/subject level have

confidence in their ability to achieve group goals.

5.00 0.74 96.57


confidence in their ability to skilfully perform

planned tasks.

5.04 0.86 97.53


confidence in their ability to work effectively

together.

4.49 0.86 94.19


confidence in their ability to resolve conflicts.

4.77 0.99 89.54


confidence in their ability to keep a positive

attitude.

4.87 0.87 92.53


confidence in their ability to maintain effective

communication.

4.84 0.93 90.97


confidence in their ability to talk about how to use

and share materials.

4.95 0.92 92.86

There was a high percentage of agreement on all items related to judgments of

collaborative capabilities. On average, the lower mean scores indicated that teachers

slightly agreed to items (3 – 7) pertaining to their confidence in one another’s skills to

navigate the complexities of group dynamics. Given that shared interaction among

teachers builds confidence in one another’s ability to achieve collective outcomes, these

results suggest that improvements can be made to enable effective group functioning

and collective competence regarding the interaction and coordination of group action.

175

Interestingly, teachers agreed to items (1 & 2) referring to confidence in one another’s

capability to achieve goals and perform set tasks. Considering that shared interactions

among teachers are building blocks for collective efficacy, it is important to identify and

understand what teachers actually do when they are together, and whether this

strengthens their conviction and judgment of each other’s capability to achieve student

learning outcomes. This was explored in Phase II.


The Collective Efficacy: Interactive Group Dynamics survey included nine items. The

data displayed a mean score ranging between 4.90 and 5.24. The distribution of the

scores relative to the mean ranged from .74 to .86 standard deviations. This suggests

that teachers perceive their colleagues as motivated to engage with one another and

adequately persist and persevere on tasks when faced with challenging circumstances.

The percentage of agreement was calculated by combining agreement scores (slightly

agree, agree, strongly agree). The means, standard deviations and percentage of

agreement scores are displayed in Table 28.

Table 28. Descriptive statistics for Collective Efficacy: Interactive Group Dynamics


1. Teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence

in their ability to demonstrate a strong work ethic.

5.16 0.72 97.53


in their ability to work to overcome distractions.

4.49 0.74 96.59


in their ability to show enthusiasm.

5.05 0.81 96.28


in their ability to perform under pressure.

5.10 0.85 95.98


in their ability to persist when obstacles are present.

5.13 0.71 97.52


in their ability to work hard even when it seems like

the team isn’t getting any breaks.

5.11 0.82 96.28

176



in their ability to be prepared for every meeting.

4.68 0.94 89.48


in their ability to devise successful strategies.

4.85 0.83 93.49


in their ability to be mentally present for every

meeting.

4.57 0.97 87.30

The results displayed in Table 28 indicate that the majority of teachers agreed that

team members are active participants in group tasks and make discretionary efforts

towards attainment of group goals. Responses on items four and five suggest there is a

high degree of effort and engagement present among teachers when presented with

challenging situations. Survey results indicated that teachers have confidence in one

another’s effort, persistence and preparation to work together in pursuit of solutions to

problems, which strengthens their confidence in each other’s ability to handle difficult

situations.

International teachers’ perspectives of Team Cohesion

In the previous chapter, the development of the Team Cohesion survey items was

outlined, and exploratory factor analysis was utilised to determine the underlying

factor structures. The results indicated that Team Cohesion represented two

dimensions: Task Cohesion and Social Cohesion. The next section describes teachers’

responses on these factors.

Task Cohesion

The Task Cohesion factor of the Team Cohesion survey contained four items. The

survey used a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 6 (“strongly agree”) to 1 (“strongly

disagree”). Items 2, 3 and 4 were reversed. The mean score ranged between 4.18 to 4.61.

The distribution of the scores relative to the mean ranged from 0.95 to 1.40 standard

deviations. This suggests that teachers agree that they have consistent aspirations for

177

achieving tasks. The percentage of agreement was calculated by combining agreement

scores (slightly agree, agree, strongly agree). Table 29 presents the means, standard

deviations and percentage of agreement and scores.

Table 29. Descriptive statistics for Task Cohesion


1. Our team is united in trying to attain goals. 4.86 0.95 91.90

2. I’m unhappy with my team’s degree of

commitment to tasks. (R)

4.54 1.35 77.0

3. Our team members have inconsistent aspirations

for the team’s performance. (R)

4.18 1.40 64.60

4. This team does not give me sufficient

opportunities to improve my personal

performance. (R)

4.61 1.28 77.90

Note: R = reversed scoring

The results indicate that respondents agree teachers are aligned towards achieving

organisational goals and objectives. The responses also suggest that teachers agree

group members are committed to group tasks and are provided with opportunities to

develop their individual teaching effectiveness. The least positive of the positive

responses, those with the widest SD, reflects teachers’ inconsistent aspirations for team

performance. This may suggest that teachers have varying degrees of ambition for the

team’s performance. Further clarification was required to understand the depth of the

interdependence and interrelationships between group members and how this

strengthens confidence in one another’s ability to attain group goals.

Social Cohesion

The Social Cohesion factor of the Team Cohesion survey contained six items. The scores

for items 6, 7 and 8 were reversed. The mean score ranged between 3.68 to 3.93. The

distribution of the scores relative to the mean ranged from 1.35 to 1.56 standard

deviations. This suggests that teachers enjoy spending time with their team members

outside of work. The percentage of agreement was calculated by combining agreement

178

scores (slightly agree, agree, strongly agree). Table 30 presents the means, standard

deviations and percentage of agreement scores.

Table 30. Descriptive statistics for Social Cohesion


5. Our team would like to spend time together after work

hours.

3.78 1.37 61

6. Members of our team do not socialise together outside

of work. (R)

3.93 1.43 61.6

7. Our team members rarely socialise together. (R) 3.93 1.43 60.4

8. Members of our team would rather socialise on their

own than together as a team. (R)

3.67 1.35 56.6

9. For me, this team is an important social group to which

I belong.

3.90 1.39 65.6

10. Some of my closest friends are in this team. 3.68 1.56 56.4


Results were mixed for the Social Cohesion survey. Teachers reported both negative

and positive responses. The standard deviation scores suggest that responses varied;

almost half the sample population expressed that social cohesion was not strong while

the other half expressed that team members were important friends. Interestingly,

65.6% of teachers responded that their team was the most important social group to

which they belonged, and 56.4% regarded their team members as their closest friends.

More than half of the respondents preferred to socialise with their team members than

on their own and over 60% agreed that they socialised with their team members outside

of work.

School Structures

The School Structures survey contained 11 items. Teachers responded to items on a 6-

point Likert scale ranging from 6 (“strongly agree”) to 1 (“strongly disagree”). The

scores for items 4, 5, 9, 10 and 11 were reversed. The mean score ranged between 3.96 to

4.53. The distribution of the scores relative to the mean ranged from 1.09 to 1.40

standard deviations. The results indicate that teachers generally perceive their school

179

structures as enabling them to do their job with flexible and helpful rules. The

percentage of agreement was calculated by combining agreement scores (slightly agree,

agree, strongly agree). Table 31 presents the means, standard deviations and percentage

of agreement scores.

Table 31. Descriptive statistics for School Structures


1. Administrative rules in this school enable honest

communication between teachers and leadership.

4.14 1.20 74.92

2. Administrative rules enable rather than obstruct

teaching and learning.

4.28 1.08 77.09

3. Administrative rules are guides to solving problems


4.22 1.09 77.09

4. In this school red tape keeps teachers from doing their

job well. (R)

3.98 1.35 63.15

5. Administrative rules in this school are substitutes for

professional reasoning. (R)

3.96 1.26 63.78

6. The administrative hierarchy of this school helps


4.07 1.23 73.37

7. The administrative hierarchy of this school promotes the

mission of the school.

4.53 1.15 80.50

8. The administrators in this school use their governance to

enable teachers to do their job.

4.21 1.08 77.09

9. The administrative hierarchy obstructs student learning.

(R)

4.43 1.23 77.10

10. The administrative hierarchy of this school impedes

innovation. (R)

4.16 1.40 67.81

11. In this school the command of the principal is used to

undermine teachers. (R)

4.18 1.27 83.89


The results suggest the school structures enable a system of rules and regulations

that facilitates problem solving and nurtures honest, professional communication with

teachers. Given that the school structures are conceptually arranged along a continuum

180

from hindering to enabling, these results indicate that there are more enabling

structures present that support cooperation.

The lowest scores referred to rules as substitutes for professional knowledge and red

tape that keeps teachers from doing their job. A possible explanation for this perception

may be that the school system is centralised and controlled by administrators who do

not invite the views of teachers on decisions that influence classroom practice. The

highest scores pertained to rules that promote the mission of the school, with agreement

accounting for 80.50% of responses. Also, positive responses related to the enable rather

than obstruct teaching and learning, accounting for 77.10% of the agreement responses.

These results suggest that 77.10% of the sample population felt they have the

professional autonomy to instruct and solve problems. These results also indicate that

22.9% of the sample population are of the opinion that they are bound by rules that

hinder their autonomy.

Summary of descriptive statistics for Collective Efficacy, School Structures and Team

Cohesion.

Table 32 exhibits the overall responses to study variables displaying the mean, standard

deviations and score range. Collective efficacy: teaching yielded the highest mean score

(5.07), implying that respondents strongly perceive one another as having the necessary

skills to create successful outcomes for students. Team social cohesion displayed the

lowest mean score (3.82), which suggests that teachers enjoy socialising together but

this is not necessarily the most important social group to which they belong. The table

below summarises each variable for this study.

181

Table 32. Summary of descriptive statistics for study variables

Variables M SD Minimum Maximum

Collective Efficacy: Teaching 5.07 0.57 3.17 6.00

Collective Efficacy: Coordination of group

dynamics 4.95 0.63 2.44 6.00

Collective Efficacy: Interactive group

dynamics 4.91 0.68 2.71 6.00

School Structures 4.21 0.82 1.00 6.00

Team Task Cohesion 4.55 0.93 1.50 6.00

Team Social Cohesion 3.82 1.11 1.00 6.00

Overall, the Collective Efficacy scores across all sub-scales of teaching, coordination

of group dynamics and interactive group dynamics were positive with little variance.

These results indicate a high sense of collective efficacy for teaching, a positive

perception of collaborative groupwork, and motivation to persist in efforts to achieve

goals. The School Structures survey results demonstrated positive responses. This

implies that the organisational structure facilitates problem-solving, promotes dialogue

and teachers feel generally supported by their administration. The Task Cohesion

survey results were positive and showed that teachers remain united to achieve goals.

The Social Cohesion survey results displayed the lowest mean score of 3.82 which

suggests that not all teachers socialise together outside of their work.

In the next section, the relationships between School Structures, Teacher

Characteristics, Team Cohesion and Collective Efficacy are explored.

7.1.4 Relationships between school structures, team cohesion, teacher characteristics

and collective efficacy

Bivariate correlations of coefficient were calculated to measure the relationships

between school structures, task cohesion, social cohesion, collective school efficacy

(coordination of group dynamics, interactive group dynamics and teaching), the

number of years employed and level of experience. The linear associations are

182

presented in Table 33.

Table 33. Pearson correlations among variable coefficients (n=323)

Collective Efficacy

Variables Teaching Coordination of

Group

Dynamics

Interactive

Group

Dynamics

School Structures .344** .396** .293**

Team Task Cohesion .350 ** .577** .503**

Team Social Cohesion .223** .340** .252**

Number of years employed at

current school site

.136* .069 .063

Level of Expertise .004 -.016 -.025

Note. *p<.05, **p<.01

The school structures significantly influenced the degree to which teachers perceived

one another’s capability to coordinate group dynamics (r = .396, p <.01), interactive

group dynamics (r = .293, p <.01), and teach (r = .344, p <.01). This is important because

it indicates that the professional actions of school leaders connect and strengthen

teachers’ perception of collective efficacy and judgment of one another’s ability to

increase learning outcomes for students.

The number of years employed at the school was positively correlated with

collective efficacy: teaching (r = .136, p <.05). This suggests the longer teachers are

employed in the school, the greater confidence they develop in group capabilities and

task analysis to achieve successful learning outcomes for students. It may also indicate

that when teachers see their collective efforts impact student learning, group members

gain a greater sense of job satisfaction and this may strengthen teacher retention.

Team cohesion (task and social) is positively and significantly associated with

collective efficacy dimensions. Task cohesion enhances the development of cooperation

and this can potentially increase group productivity through the transfer of resources

183

such as knowledge and experiences.

The significant positive relationships between collective efficacy dimensions were

anticipated because they are part of the same construct. As displayed in Table 33, there

is a positive correlation between all three subcategories of collective efficacy. This is

because they all work together, and theoretically, they should be related to each other,

thus demonstrating convergence between the similar constructs. The bivariate

correlations between subcategories make sense from the perspective of social cognitive

theory. For example, the manner in which teachers communicate with each other, make

decisions, navigate the complexities of group dynamics and take on roles impacts their

ability to work together and execute the course of action required to influence student

learning. The level of interaction and engagement influences what teachers choose to do

as a team, their staying power when obstacles are present and the way they deal with

setbacks to perform and accomplish tasks. Therefore, these survey results suggest that

teachers’ judgments of teaching ability and perception of how well they interact with

one another and coordinate group dynamics to achieve collective outcomes represents

the degree of collective efficacy.

Considering that teachers’ appraisals of the ability of group members to execute the

course of action required to produce a given level of attainment are established through

collaborative experiences and engagement on teaching tasks within a particular context,

the three dimensions combined (coordination of group dynamics, interactive group

dynamics and teaching) provide an authentic understanding of collective efficacy.

When the three dimensions are combined, a Cronbach Alpha score of .94 indicates that

the items have a relatively high internal consistency (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013) and are

closely related. Since the ‘whole’ is greater than the sum of its parts, it was appropriate

to aggregate the three sub-scales and compute a mean score to reflect collective efficacy

within international schools. The next section utilises multiple linear regression (MLR)

to determine whether contextual factors such as school structures, team cohesion and

teacher demographic characteristics contribute to collective efficacy.

184

7.1.5 Contributors to collective efficacy

Prior to the analysis, assumptions for MLR were tested. To address linearity among the

multivariate relationships between variables, a P-plot of regression standardised

residuals was analysed and revealed normality. A value of 1.74 on the Durbin-Watson

statistic test indicated there was no autocorrelation in the residuals. A visual inspection

of the histogram of residuals indicated a normal distribution, supporting the skewness

and kurtosis test which also showed no issues with distribution. Results of this study

indicate VIF values between 1.04 and 2.49 and tolerance values between .96 and .40

which meet the assumptions of collinearity. An examination of the histogram and

standardised residuals scatterplot displayed a pattern of homoscedasticity. Considering

there were no violations within the data, a multiple linear regression was conducted to

see if School Structures, Task Cohesion, Social Cohesion, teachers’ level of expertise and

the number of years employed predicted Collective Efficacy. Table 34 shows the results

of the regression analysis.

Table 34. Predictors of Collective Efficacy

B SE Beta Partial Sig

(Constant) 2.845 .177 <.001

School Structures .129*** .032 .191 .219 <.001

Task Cohesion .270*** .030 .455 .449 <.001

Social Cohesion .069** .024 .137 .163 .004

Level of Expertise .007 .027 .010 .013 .813

Number of years

employed

.024 .016 .065 .083 .140

Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

185

As displayed in Figure 24, the significant predictors of collective efficacy in

international schools in Shanghai were Task Cohesion (.270), School Structures (.129)

and Social Cohesion (.069). A multiple regression analysis was conducted using School

Structures, Task Cohesion, Social Cohesion, Level of Expertise and Years of

Employment as potential predictors of Collective Efficacy. The final regression model

accounted for 39.1% of the variance in Collective Efficacy, (F(5, 317) = 40.763, p <.001)

and included Task Cohesion, School Structures and Social Cohesion as significant

predictors. The regression coefficients revealed that Task Cohesion (β = .46) was a better

predictor of collective efficacy than School Structures (β = .19) and Social Cohesion (β =

.14). The Levels of Expertise (β = .01) and Years of Employment (β = .06) did not

significantly add to the prediction of collective efficacy.

.129***

.270***

.069 **

.007

.024

Collective

Efficacy

School

Structures

Task

Cohesion

Social

Cohesion

Level of

Expertise

Years of

Employment

Figure 24. Significant predictors of collective efficacy

186

Teachers who perceived higher levels of Task Cohesion also reported higher levels

of efficacy judgments. These results suggest that the quality of a group contributes to

collective efficacy and matters a great deal to a team’s overall sense of efficacy.

Evidently, a group’s cohesion reflects the degree to which teachers work together to

achieve common goals, and this has direct relevance for perceptions of collective

efficacy. The more teachers perceive their group as working together to accomplish

shared objectives, the more confident they feel that they have the capability to

successfully achieve the tasks.

Additionally, positive perceptions of School Structures aided the strength of

conviction in one another’s capability to successfully perform tasks. Obviously when

the organisation of schools is considered to promote problem-solving, cooperation and

collaboration and teachers are more participative in decision-making, teachers perceive

their school to be more effective and this also strengthens conviction in team capability

and ability to achieve goals.

The contribution of task cohesion and social cohesion to collective efficacy

A significant partial variance was explained by task cohesion which accounts for 44.9%

(R2= .449, p<.001), with social cohesion adding 16.3% of the partial variance (R2= .163,

p<.001). When groups work together towards a shared vision, they increase their

positive perception of collective efficacy.

These findings highlight the importance of the interactive nature of the social setting

and its connection with collective efficacy. Behaviour affects, and is affected by, the

organisational context. The cohesion of the group is important because it reflects the

willingness of members to ‘stick together’. If groups are cohesive then members have a

sense of belonging and this strengthens their motivation to maintain group

membership. Evidently, being united by a common goal or objective predicts collective

efficacy. The more united team members are, the higher the degree of confidence in one

another’s capability to achieve group goals. Thus, these results indicate that as unity

187

increases, so do teachers’ perceptions of group capability. Considering that cohesion

involves working towards a shared vision, these results suggest that collective efficacy

is strengthened when teachers see a need to join efforts and work towards common

goals.

The predictive contribution of school structures to collective efficacy

School Structures is a significant predictor of collective efficacy (R2= .219, p<.001) after

controlling for the effect of task cohesion, social cohesion, level of expertise and the

number of years employed on collective efficacy. School structures explains 21.9% of the

partial variance in collective efficacy. This supports the notion that leaders have

influence over the conditions that make group functioning and collective action easier.

Leaders can create school structures that influence the way teachers interact. On the

surface, this means leaders use their authority to provide time for teachers to meet with

each other, promote group autonomy to problem-solve and innovate, endorse effective

cooperation and encourage the exertion of effort and persistence to achieve group goals.

The School Structures may serve as the catalyst to the development of positive learning

environments. When teachers perceive their school as a system that helps rather than

hinders, this promotes effective school functioning, and the pooling of knowledge

increases confidence in the team’s capability to successfully perform tasks.

7.1.6 Summary of results

The results of Study Two, Phase I, demonstrated that there is a significant positive

correlation between the three dimensions of collective efficacy and Task Cohesion,

School Structures and Social Cohesion. These bidirectional relationships reflect the

reciprocal influences of cognitive, behavioural and environmental factors. This means

that a strong sense of CTE increases engagement in school structures, task cohesion and

social cohesion. Additionally, the quality of leadership and cohesion among teachers

contribute to the development of effective organisational climates whereby teachers

succeed by working together, thus strengthening collective efficacy.

188

This predictive relationship was further supported by a multiple linear regression

analysis which demonstrated that when School Structures, Team Cohesion and Teacher

Characteristics are analysed together, they significantly predict Collective Efficacy. A

moderate regression relationship was found (F(5, 317) = 40.763, p <.001, R2 = .391). Task

Cohesion, Social Structures and Social Cohesion were significant partial predictors of

Collective Efficacy. These results indicate that collective efficacy is influenced by the

complex interaction between environmental factors at an organisational level and

interpersonal team level. These areas are explored in more detail in Phase II.

7.2 Phase II Results

The second phase of Study Two focused on exploring expatriate teachers’ perspectives

regarding collective efficacy, school structures and team cohesion. Following the

completion of the survey, expatriate teachers who had indicated their interest were

invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. Interviews were conducted via the

online Zoom platform in the three weeks following the completion of the online survey.

The 13 participants were employed across four international schools. In School A, there

were three participants: one teacher from elementary (n=1), middle (n=1), and high

(n=1) school. Three participants were employed in School B: one teacher from

kindergarten (n=1), elementary (n=1) and middle (n=1) school. In School C, there were

four participants: two teachers from elementary (n=2), one from middle (n=1) and high

(n=1) school. Lastly, in School D, three teachers were from high school (n=3). The

interview questions aimed to allow for in-depth accounts of expatriate teachers’

experiences and perceptions of collective efficacy, school structures and team cohesion.

Information was obtained via open-ended questions. Some of these were

predetermined by the researcher based on the Phase I results and others emerged as the

one-to-one semi-structured interviews progressed. The interviews were audio recorded

and transcribed for thematic analysis.

189

As in Study One, the data analysis process involved a constant interactive process of

moving back and forward between the data, prior research and theory. Thematic codes

were extracted, categorised and analysed. Through this process the data transformed

from individual segments to a map of coherent, meaningful and distinct themes. The

data analysis revealed narratives that highlighted teachers’ experiences with collective

efficacy, school structures and team cohesion within their international school contexts.

Cohen's Kappa was used to determine if there was an agreement between three raters

on the coding of two interviewee transcripts. Results indicated that there was an

almost perfect agreement between rater 1 and rater 2 judgments, K= .887 (95% CI .838 to

.946); rater 1 and 3 judgments, K = .905 (95% CI .852 to .957); and rater 2 and 3, K = .879

(95% CI .818 to .940). Figure 25 provides a visual representation of the connecting

themes and sub-themes of the interview data.

Figure 25. Connective interview themes and sub-themes

In the following section, the themes and sub-themes are arranged to tell participants’

stories based on their perceptions. Table 35 outlines the three main areas of interest and

their relevant themes and sub-themes. The number of participants within each school is

also included in this table.

190

Table 35. Themes/sub-themes including number of participant discussions

AREA THEMES / SUB-THEMES

SCHOOLS &

PARTICIPANTS

(N=13)

Collective

Efficacy

A B C D

Teaching

Group Teaching Competence

Competent staff 3 2 2 2


Student motivation 2 2 4 2

Community 3 3 4 2

School resources 2 1 4 3

Coordination of Group Dynamics

Collaboration

Collegiality 3 2 3 2

Interdependence 3 3 4 3

Evaluation of collective impact

Interactive Group Dynamics

Engagement

Willingness to engage 3 2 3 1

Reluctance to engage 2 1 2 1

Mix of personalities

Team

Cohesion

Task Cohesion

Goals 3 3 4 2

Social Cohesion

Interdependence 2 2 3 2

School

Structures

Enabling

Supportive leadership 2 2 4 1

Hindering

Low collaboration 1 2 3

191

Through a process of deductive and inductive data coding, themes and sub-themes

emerged from the semi-structured interview data. Table 35 displays the themes, sub-

themes and frequencies of each response. Similar ideas were expressed by participants

across all schools regarding collective efficacy. The least frequent responses were in

reference to a sense of powerlessness, which was mentioned by one participant in

School A and one participant in School D. A small number of those interviewed

discussed the ineffectiveness of social cohesion in the workplace across schools A, B and

C. Participants in School A did not express concerns that school structures hindered

their ability to work collectively. There were more comments from School D regarding

their desire for a more collaborative culture. The next section focuses on unpacking and

defining the evidence collected on each theme and how these data relate to the overall

research questions.

7.2.1 Collective efficacy

At the beginning of each interview, teachers were asked how they conceptualised and

explained the notion of collective efficacy. One-third of respondents referred to

collective efficacy as “working together”, one-third described “engaging in

collaborative activities” and one-third could not define the concept. The researcher

shared Bandura’s (1997) definition of collective efficacy with each participant:

“Collective efficacy is a group’s shared beliefs in the conjoint capability to organise and

execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment” (p. 477).

Subsequently, teachers were asked to explain whether they experienced this in their

current school. Half of the respondents said “yes” and half said “no - it’s inconsistent".

The teachers who experienced collective efficacy in their schools said it was

operationalised through collaborative activities between teachers: “We collaborate …

share best practice to reach our common goal” (Participant B4). Four teachers expressed the

belief that they were required to engage with one another and work towards common

goals: “willingness to share” (Participant 12D); and “each person brings that piece that they

192

are really good at” (Participant 8C). Three teachers mentioned the importance of sharing

teaching expertise with the group: “common goals … working together … working hard,

share resources and knowledge” (Participant 1A). One teacher spoke about analysing

student data together: “we analyse data, we see the next steps … we remediate and

differentiate for small groups of children” (Participant 6B). Participant 9C suggested that

teachers also work in partnership with parents to help children reach successful

outcomes: “The teacher along with the families do what’s best for the students”.

The other half of teachers interviewed stated that collective efficacy was not

consistent across the school: “it depends on the grade level and mix of teachers” (Participant

7C). Participant 2A explained that the transiency of staff affected collective efficacy: “the

transiency of staff is most difficult … you lose half your team (yearly)”. Participant 11D

commented that the more experienced teachers were less willing to engage in

collaborative group activities: “there is a bit of disagreement… people know what has worked

for them in the past, especially the experienced teachers”. There was also the belief that

instructional coaches tightly controlled meetings and this had a negative impact on the

group’s ability to collaborate: “meetings are dictated by the instructional coach …

collaboration doesn’t grow organically” (Participant 10C).

The overall semi-structured interview results indicated a view among teachers that

collective efficacy involves three main elements: the ability to successfully teach

students, coordinate group dynamics and work collaboratively with colleagues, and

engage effectively with one another. In the next section, teachers’ responses to questions

are presented thematically in light of the three themes previously mentioned to provide

a comprehensive understanding of teachers’ perceptions of collective efficacy.

7.2.1.1 Teaching

Teaching emerged as a dimension of collective efficacy that comprised two sub-themes:

teaching competence and task analysis. Teaching competence refers to the degree of

confidence teachers have in one another’s capability to successfully educate students. It

193

also includes the degree to which teachers believe they can influence student learning.

Task analysis pertains to teachers’ judgment of the context, which includes students’

capabilities, community support and the resources available that enable them to

successfully improve student outcomes.


Teachers were asked to describe how they knew their colleagues were competent and

effective educators and whether teachers had an impact on student achievement. The

participants in schools A, B and C identified specific behaviours and observations,

interpreted as evidence that teachers were competent and effective. Two participants in

School D were unable to describe evidence that instilled confidence of teaching

competence.

Forty-six per cent of the interviewees stated they knew their colleagues were

competent and effective because they worked long hours: “You often see teachers staying

late, coming in early” (Participant 1A). Also, that they actively participated during group

meetings: “interacting during meetings and building curriculum together, talking about

student achievement, what worked well and why” (Participant 7C). Student performance

outcomes were also highlighted:

Through student data, we’re effective when we see change, when students go from not

being able to do something then being successful. That’s powerful (Participant 9C).

“We see progress from year to year” (Participant 1A).

Other responses to this question included: “Students are successful, and parents and

kids positively regard the school” (Participant 8C); and Participant 3A “pops in and out” of

teachers’ classrooms often and knows what’s going on from day-to-day, which gives an

insight into the competencies of teachers. Two participants in School D differed in their

opinions from teachers in the other schools. They stated they didn’t know how

competent and effective teachers were in the classroom because the students are highly

motivated and supported at home:

194

I don’t know … my kids always achieve higher than they are predicted to achieve, I wonder

how much use we (teachers) really are” (Participant 11D).

Another participant in School D commented that the sharing of their teaching

practice and observing one another in the classroom was not common among teachers:

“I don’t know. I used to get my best teaching ideas from other teachers, but that’s not the culture

here … I miss being able to go into classes, you need a bit of courage to impede on someone else’s

class”.

Responses indicated that teachers work long hours, use data as evidence of progress,

and receive positive reinforcement from families. Two teachers said they did not know

whether teachers were effective because they didn’t have opportunities to observe

classroom interaction.


Teachers were asked to explain the factors that influenced collective efficacy including

characteristics of the school, teachers, parents and students. Teachers described highly

motivated students; a supportive and competitive community; and a well-resourced

school.

Student Motivation

Respondents were asked to indicate how the characteristics of the students influenced

collective teacher efficacy, and how education is valued or perceived in their school

context. Seventy-seven per cent of those who were interviewed reported both positive

and negative aspects of students’ characteristics influencing collective teacher efficacy.

In international schools in Shanghai, education is seen as the number one way to

secure yourself a successful life and children are expected to go through school, get

good grades and go to university: “students take education seriously, they are studious, they

have high goals for themselves, they are hardworking, their schedules are hectic, they are the

smartest kids in the world, and put too much stress on themselves” (Participant 9C). As a

result, teachers do not spend time discussing how to engage children in learning with

195

their colleagues: “motivating students isn’t something that you would invest a lot of your

time” (Participant 1A). Students come to school highly motivated to learn:

“It is quite easy to engage and motivate … they are highly competitive with themselves;

they don’t like failure … however, this can impede risk taking” (Participant 12D).

Talking about this issue, Participant 7C said, “there is a deep respect for teachers in this

setting” because “parents place a high importance on education” and, as a result, children

arrive to school with the mindset that learning and attaining high scores on tests is

important. Participant 3A felt that students are highly motivated by grades because

their families value performance on tests.

Concerns were expressed by all 77% of teachers who discussed the importance

placed on grades and assessment performance. There were some negative comments

from teachers in schools C and D. Two teachers felt that the obsession with grades

created a high-pressure, competitive environment: “the kids talk about the pressure they are

under” (Participant 7C); and “children lose sight of the learning that happens outside of grades

because their aim is to get into Ivy League or Harvard colleges” (Participant 10C). There was

some suggestion that students were driven by fear and resorted to extreme measures to

achieve high academic attainment:

“Education is everything to these students and they take part in additional classes and

tutoring after school hours” (Participant 8C).

“All children have tutors and home learning is strongly supported by parents who ask

about SAT prep and these children in grade 5” (Participant 10C).

“These students are motivated by fear of getting into trouble and not meeting the

expectations of their parents, they want to achieve to please their parents” (Participant

10C).

Two teachers in School D expressed that a highly competitive environment which

overemphasised the importance of grades encouraged “children to believe that success is

196

defined by a number” (Participant 11D) and that children who learn to be competitive at a

young age feel they are “better than others if they achieve X or Y and this is drilled into them

by their parents which effects their socialisation skills” (Participant 12D).

Participant 11D added that highly motivated and driven students made it easy to

lecture, which can inhibit teacher professional development: “Students are passive and

compliant and happy to sit and be told the answers … this runs the risk of deskilling you as a

teacher because they are so easy to teach and it’s not terribly fulfilling. It is easy to fall in the

comfort, talk for an hour, they write it down and take it in, as a teacher you plateau and have to

be quite internally driven to improve.”

These results indicate a teacher-centred approach to learning where educators are

experts with mastery of knowledge who present lessons in a systematic manner.

Teachers describe differences between two learning paradigms—student-centred and

teacher-centred approaches. In a teacher-centred approach, students withhold from

asking questions and value academic performance; in a student-centred approach,

teachers want students to engage in two-way dialogue in order to deepen learning. The

results also suggest a culture that has great influence over student learning and shares

the responsibility of academic performance.

Community

Teachers were asked to describe the characteristics of the parent community and how it

impacts teaching and learning. In all 13 interviews, teachers reported both enabling and

hindering aspects of the parent community that influenced student learning and

classroom teaching. The enabling themes that emerged included home learning support

and shared responsibility in their child’s learning. The hindering aspects involved

placing a high degree of pressure on students.

Most teachers (90%) described families in their setting as “super involved and

wonderful with offering assistance” (Participant 8C). The local Chinese parents value

academic excellence and provide home learning support: “they have tutors for their

197

children” (Participant 6B). Participant 1A described the families as “very important” to

children’s successful learning experience because they “value education highly” and this

“influences how children perceive their teachers and their class time”. Parents are very

supportive, and this gives teachers the confidence to do their jobs. There are some

parents who are more demanding about results, but in general “parents help their child’s

learning” (Participant 3A). In this setting teachers are viewed as “credible and treated with

respect and gratitude” (Participant 1A). Participant 12D added that “parents are usually a

force for good and very invested in their child’s education”. This view was followed with the

perception that the parent community influences student attitudes toward education by

demonstrating the behaviour and mindset: “the kids here see the worth of working hard

because most of the parents are extremely successful, there is immediate inspiration and model of

what success looks like”. Participant 5B believes that the majority of the parents emphasise

the importance of education and “support their children with home learning”. These

responses indicated that parents share the responsibility for teaching and learning;

relationships between parents and teachers are important; parents expect students to

persevere and respect teachers; and these attitudes contribute to a harmonious

classroom environment.

In addition to this view, concerns were expressed that parental pressure for

academic achievement among the Asian community is high, and parents take a “healthy

to borderline unhealthy interest” (Participant 11D) in their child’s education. Participant

12D said the pressure these children experience causes them to have strong emotional

reactions if they feel they are letting themselves or their parents down: “these kids are

fearful of not succeeding”. The children are driven by fear of disappointing their family

because of the overemphasis on performance grades and parents are “highly competitive

and push their children to achieve academic excellence” (Participant 7C). Participant 4B said

that “all parents value English language learning” and parents believe it is a necessary

competency for their children’s future endeavours. Participant 5B stated that when

parents focus on results and scores, there is less value on the enjoyment of learning, and

198

as a result, children lack the intrinsic motivation because they are driven by assessment

scores: “if the content is not going to be on the assessment, then they won’t waste their time on

the learning.” It was suggested by participant 11D that the parent community is close-

knit and it can feel as though they “run the show”; the parents are referred to as “clients”

who “hire us to educate their kids”. The parent community also ensures that teachers

maintain consistency of teaching programs between classrooms: “there is an expectation

that there’s not really a great difference from one classroom to another in terms of grade level”

(Participant 10C). These interview responses indicated that a focus on academic

performance is highly valued and viewed as bringing pride to one’s family.

The participants on a whole expressed the view that parents share the responsibility

for educating their children. While parents support and respect teachers, there is a

strong emphasis on academic performance, and this creates a competitive environment

and pressures children to make high academic gains.

School Resources

Teachers were asked whether their school had sufficient resources to support teaching

and learning. Seventy-seven per cent of interviewees stated that their school was well

resourced: “The budget seems endless” (Participant 7C). “The school is incredibly well

resourced with a pool, 3D printers, there is a pot of money to use for innovative ideas”

(Participant 12D). “The school has enough funds to create 21st century classrooms and support

teachers’ innovative instructional ideas” (Participant 13D).

Teachers were also asked to describe the role played by the school, parents, teachers

and students in influencing academic achievement. Sixty-two per cent of participants

attributed student academic attainment to the efforts of teachers, students and parents.

Participants stated that academic success is due to a well-resourced school—“I get

whatever I need for the classroom” (Participant 8C); highly qualified, capable teachers—

“teachers are the most valuable resource of the school” (Participant 1A); teachers who

provide support and set high expectations for students—“teachers hold high expectations

199

and walk with children until they get to where they need to be” (Participant 10C); and smart

students—“we get good results, partly because we have bright children and very good teachers”

(Participant 11D).

A supportive home learning environment provides students with extra support to

continue learning: “all children have tutors at home to support learning” (Participant 7C).

Students are highly motivated by society and heavy influenced by their parents for

learning: “it is built in … not to bring dishonour to the family … every moment of their lives

are spent in classes trying to achieve high academic levels” (Participant 7C). In this setting

there is a shared vision among teachers, students and parents: “we all work very closely

together and do what’s best for the children” (Participant 9C).

Two interviewees attributed successful student attainment to home learning. They

believe the work of teachers is important but expressed that the home learning

environment and the level of maturity and dedication of the students greatly influenced

their results. Participant 9C stated: “If you cannot teach in this school, then you cannot teach

at any school”.

It was also suggested that parents invest greatly in their children’s education and the

mentality is focused on attaining high academic scores in order to get into top

universities: “there is a lot of pressure placed on students from family members … students

have tutors and work on weekends” (Participant 9C).

These results provide important insights into teachers’ perception of their ability to

successfully educate students in this setting. The results reveal that teachers partly

attribute student achievement to highly qualified teachers and highly motivated

students. There was unanimous agreement that the schools were well resourced, and

the home environment was focused on academic pursuits. All key stakeholders—

teachers, parents and students—share the responsibility for student learning and work

in partnership towards a shared vision of academic attainment.

200

In summary, these results provide a deeper view of collective efficacy and how it

manifests in the complex task of classroom teaching. The teachers who gained

confidence in one another’s competence to successfully educate children recalled events

where they observed instruction in action, reviewed student data with colleagues and

received positive feedback from the community. The informants in this study describe a

school and community culture which has a strong emphasis on academic performance.

Most teachers are described as qualified to teach subject areas. Students are

characterised as highly respectful, treat teachers as experts, focus on structural learning

and expect teachers to detail the content required to learn. Students persevere and

avoid confrontation and prefer a teacher-centred approach to learning. Teachers

expressed their concern that it was difficult to achieve two-way communication and

that students were too dependent on the teacher. Parents were described as mostly

supportive, but some applied an unhealthy degree of pressure on their students and the

teachers. In Shanghai, the culture influences student learning, and an emphasis on

success motivates children and families to persist and share the responsibility of

learning.

7.2.1.2 Coordination of group dynamics

Teachers were asked to respond to questions regarding their coordination of group

activities. These questions included: How does your team collaborate? What is required

to work effectively as a team? Do you analyse student data together? Does the

transiency of staff affect your work? How much do you rely on your team members?

How does your team evaluate their collective impact? Three broad themes emerged

from the analysis of interview responses: collegiality, interdependence and evaluation

of collective impact.

Collegiality

Overall, 80% of participants described a collaborative culture that required teachers to

interact and work to implement curricula set by their administration. Participant 5B

201

stated that meetings are dominated by an agenda “that comes from up above” and reflect a

list of items that need to be accomplished, such as unit mapping and moderating

assessment. The team does not analyse student data together and do not use

standardised data to inform teaching and learning: “Standardised assessment is a box we

have to tick, a mandate from the accreditation team as evidence of external assessment”.

In School C, it was suggested that collaboration is viewed negatively because

teachers are mandated to follow regimented protocols and meetings are dominated by a

subject coordinator: “The literacy coordinator moves us strategically, supports what we are

doing, developing units and sharing exemplars of student work, norming is also a focus … there

is no getting around it, you have to collaborate, that’s the expectation that there isn’t any

difference from one classroom to another within grade levels” (Participant 10C). The teachers

in the school explained that the push to collaborate originates from the pressure parents

place on administration to ensure there is uniform delivery of instruction in all

classrooms.

Two teachers described their experiences with vicarious group learning. In School B,

classroom visits were described as led by the principal: “our principal guides classroom

observations and outlines what to look for which is then discussed at the end of the classroom

visits” (Participant 6B). Another participant in School A mentioned that teachers

engaged in one job session per year: “everyone in our department went to another school, we

all talk about how we implement the curriculum and the same courses that we teach, and we

share resources and knowledge on how to make it even better” (Participant 1A).

Three teachers stated their greatest challenges are carving out time to have

purposeful conversations about how to best reach the needs of students—“finding the

time to collaborate is the biggest struggle’ (Participant 9C); observing one another and

students in lessons—“we never observe one another teach because it’s a timetabling problem”

(Participant 7C); and involving more staff in frequent collaborative discussions—“on a

daily basis I spend most of my time in my room doing my own thing” (Participant 11D).

202

Participant 11D acknowledges that spending time talking and engaging in teaching

inquiry is the “most valuable thing you can do as a teacher,” but there is not time built into

the day to do this. Overall, 40% of teachers viewed collaboration as breaking down

teacher isolation. Teachers explained that meetings are dominated by developing

curricula and assuring quality of assessments as a means of responding to managerial

priorities. In School C, the use of coaches aimed to improve teachers’ skills; however,

teachers did not have control over determining which skills were to be coached, as

meeting agendas were developed by coaches. Teachers did not describe collaboration as

an empowering process, instead, interactions among teachers were focused on tasks

that were mandated by others.

Positive Interdependence

The participants overall spoke about developing curriculum and aligning assessments

as a means of quality control, which dominated professional learning meetings. There

was variability among teachers regarding the degree to which these tasks required each

other’s contributions and whether teachers were tightly or loosely united to achieve

success on tasks.

The transdisciplinary nature of the International Baccalaureate curriculum in schools

A and B set the conditions for teachers to collaborate and share ideas regularly: “We’re

an IB school and working together is what we do”. Participant 1B is an experienced

International Baccalaureate teacher and believes that success cannot be achieved

without the contribution of team members. Teachers in the lower levels of School A and

B explained that team members are required to write units and lessons together and

contribute their unique skills and knowledge because “this makes the work load a lot less”.

Participant 1A explained that the workload was distributed among members: “We’re

better at some things than others” and “we get a handle on who’s good at what”. The grade

level leader plays a key role to help teachers complete the “comprehensive inquiry unit

planning documents” (Participant 1A) that integrate math and literacy knowledge and

understanding. Participant 1A relies on her colleagues in times of need and feels that

203

they are all “very professional”. It was mentioned that a lack of time hinders the ability to

collaborate more often and, as a result, teachers do not use standardised student data to

inform teaching and learning: “teachers don’t know what to do with the student data they

collect from standardised assessments” (Participant 1A).

The opinion that teachers did not know what to do with student data was not the

perspective of all teachers in School A. Participant 3A expressed that teachers share

resources, moderate standardised assessment and analyse student data together.

Teachers in Participant 3A’s team spend time talking about their pre-assessments, post-

assessment data and what did and did not work well. This view was echoed by another

interviewee in School B, where team members compared assessments and determined

the percentage of students achieving the learning objective:

We compare scores … we bring assessment to the table and look at each other’s … for

example, 70% of the students understood how to divide fractions based on a rubric that we

created” (Participant 4B).

Participant 6B relies on team members to help with planning, sharing materials,

discussing standards and meeting students’ needs: “at the end of each unit, my team

analyse what worked well and what we could improve on for the following year”. This was

echoed by Participant 7C who collaborates with colleagues on building curriculum,

talking about student achievement and determining what worked well. Participant 8C

commented that grade level meetings are the “nuts and bolts” of upcoming events and

the subject meetings provide opportunities for teachers to discuss lessons and

assessments. All subject teams in School C focused on norming assessments and used

subject meeting time on this task. Participant 8C expressed the view that teaching is

better when collaborating with team members: “there are always things to gain from them”.

Participant 5B expressed the position that the degree the team members contributed

was dependent on their skills and knowledge as individuals. Teachers’ beliefs

regarding effective teaching standards did not align and this hindered Participant 5B’s

204

work on planning units, producing resources and sharing ideas. Participant 5B took the

lead in developing curriculum and did not solicit input from other teachers: “I am not

sure whether collaborative planning time impacts my teaching because I am less inclined to seek

advice from those who have low teaching standards”.

In School D, professional learning community (PLC) meetings are conducted once a

month and participation is voluntary: “it is challenging to get departments to work together

because of timetabling and different personalities” (Participant 12D). Participant 12D taught

lessons independently and actively contributed to team meetings by sharing units of

work and moderating assessments. However, moderating work was not viewed

positively: “it’s a drain on my time rather than an informative and productive learning

session”. According to Participant 12D, half of meeting time is just a ’rubber stamp’ on

things that have to get done and teachers do not prioritise discussions about effective

teaching and learning methodology. This was echoed by Participant 11D who stated

that it is difficult to evaluate collective impact because the end of year exam results are

released during the school holidays.

Overall, teachers described situations where tasks required varying degrees of

interactions between members. In all cases, curriculum and assessment requirements

dominated meeting discussions. Some participants indicated low levels of interaction

and described team processes and social interactions as loosely linked. They believed

teachers did not need direct interaction with other team members to achieve success.

On the other hand, some participants indicated that the contribution of all team

members was vital to achieving individual success.

Evaluating collective impact

Teachers were asked to describe how they evaluated their collective impact. More than

80% of interviewees did not know how they evaluated their collective impact. Three

teachers from schools C and D stated that there was more focus on the individual

impact of teachers on individual students than group effects. Participant 9C claimed

205

that the team did not have department goals which they worked towards but focused

on achieving curriculum standards instead. Participant 10C stated that there isn’t any

formal system for evaluating collective impact. Each year a specialised trainer comes to

the school and asks them to reflect on the year, look at previous student data, and

determine steps forward but “most teachers are not engaged in the process”. Participant 11D

commented that teachers did not evaluate their collective impact because the end of

year exam scores get released during school holidays at the end of the school year, and

teachers do not spend time reflecting on those scores: “It is very rare that we will engage in

an initiative and then review the impact of that”. The teachers in Participant 12D’s

department focus on individual student test results in order to understand their

teaching effectiveness: “We are forward focused, looking at the things we can do next, rather

than looking at the impact we’ve had”. This view was echoed by Participant 13D who

expressed uncertainty regarding how the team evaluated their collective impact and

stated that they rely heavily on examination results to determine effectiveness.

Together these results provide important insights into collective efficacy and how it

manifests in practice. Navigating the coordination of group dynamics involves

collegiality, interdependence and evaluating collective impact. Collegiality was

described as contrived when teachers are forced into groups to address an agenda that

is predetermined by leadership. Teachers described meetings and interactions among

teachers as dominated by regulations and procedures that mandate attendance and

responsibilities. The majority of interviewees reported that the more experienced

teachers were less motivated to participate in problem-solving and teamwork tasks.

There were varied responses regarding interdependence on tasks and the degree to

which teachers needed each other’s input to accomplish shared goals.

7.2.1.3 Interactive group dynamics

There were three sub-themes that emerged in relation to teachers’ level of interactive

group dynamics: willingness to engage, reluctance to engage, and mix of personalities.

206

Willingness to engage

Approximately 70% of participants indicated that teachers were willing to engage with

one another. They described their colleagues as “very committed, flexible and willing to go

with the flow” (Participant 1A) and expressed enthusiasm to engage in a group activity:

“teachers are willing to collaborate” (Participant 3A). They described colleagues who

exerted effort and persistence: “teachers are supportive and worked exceptionally hard”

(Participant 8C). One participant from School A commented that the leadership team

was making efforts to “breakdown” (Participant 3A) those working in silos and strongly

encouraged teachers to engage with one another. As a new staff member, Participant 1A

noticed that teachers in her team were all committed to “doing well, (teachers) often stay

late or come in to work early”. However, opinions differed among teachers in schools C

and D who reported that the level of willingness to engage varied across their school:

“There is variability among teachers with regards to their willingness to listen to others, to

improve, and will only engage if they can see that there are benefits for them to invest their time”

(Participant 11D).

Engagement pertains to teachers making discretionary efforts towards team goals

and tasks; however, not all team members were willing to engage and this influenced

the group’s effectiveness: “When teachers were not willing to put up with messy for a while, if

it’s too hard to be on the same page then they’re just going to pretend and walk out the door and

do their own thing … nothing grows if you haven’t contributed anything“(Participant 10C).

Reluctance to engage

Approximately half of the interviewees described characteristics of teachers who were

reluctant to engage in group work. There were three common reasons why participants

were reluctant to engage with one another: high turnover of staff, enforcement of rules

from leaders, and personality clashes between group members. Over the past two years

Participant 2A experienced a high turnover of staff within the team and this made it

207

difficult to progress and sustain effort and energy to move teaching and learning

forward: “the transiency of teachers is very challenging … feels like we are starting again”

(Participant 2A). Participant 5B expressed the view that teachers were less engaged

when they were required to document the curriculum and the quality of work

produced was a result of the value they placed on the task: “those who put in effort

provided higher quality of work than those who were disengaged”.

A common view among respondents across all schools indicated that teachers who

were long-term employees were the least willing to engage: “The more experienced

teachers are the least willing to collaborate, share ideas, try new teaching strategies and engage

with other staff members”. This was echoed by Participant 11D: “It is easy to fall into the

trap … we’ve done this for 10 years and it has always worked … so why change”.

There was a sense among all teachers that there can be disagreement among the

group members, especially in relation to what had worked well for them in the past.

Unwillingness to collaborate caused complications. In School D, unwillingness to

participate among experienced employees resulted in a sub-culture of teachers who

were not willing to collaborate.

Three teachers spoke about a sense of powerlessness within their school. One

teacher in School A expressed a sense of powerlessness due to direct and indirect

centralised decision-making forcing teachers to maintain the status quo and conform to

rules and procedures. Participant 2A stated that having little control over many

curriculum changes left her feeling powerless and insecure:

There have been lot of curriculum changes in a short period of time without a lot of

support and it makes me feel as though previously I hadn’t been doing a good job.

Another interviewee in School D indicated a lack of discretionary power to utilise the

professional expertise to teach lessons. Interviewee 11D spoke about a complicated web

of interactions in which she felt forced to alter their instructional practice to meet the

specific demands of the school culture, and in particular, adopt a teacher-centred

208

approach to teaching and learning. The comment below illustrated this clash between

teacher and student-centred learning and the entanglement of interactions:

There is an unspoken battle (between teacher and student) about who will crack first; the

teacher to fill the silence with the answer; or the student taking a risk with an answer that

might humiliate them if wrong. Then there is a myth, if you look like you are busy then you

must be doing something worthwhile. If someone walks past the room and there is an

awkward silence and you weren’t actively teaching, the fear is, ‘am I perceived as doing my

job?’ ‘Am I perceived as supporting the needs of students?’ ‘What will the children go home

and tell their parents?’ ‘I didn’t learn anything today ‘and then it’d be our fault. So, the

students take the easy option, partly because of the world they’ve been raised in and the

teachers do not push them out of their comfort zone hard enough because that will make them

feel uncomfortable” (Participant 11D).

This view was echoed by Participant 8C, who described the international school

market as a “competitive business” where parents “drop a lot of money”. This therefore

placed pressure on teachers to ensure that students make academic gains in their

learning: “if teachers are not competent then everybody’s going to hear about it … parents

gossip … there is a strong expectation for success.”


Sixty-two per cent of interviewees described both negative and positive forces within

groups of teachers and how this influenced the way teachers interacted and functioned.

The international schools in this investigation are considered large (over 1000 students

across PK-12); therefore, there are multiple classes at each level. Teachers at the lower

levels work in teams assigned by grades, teams in the upper levels work closely with

members within subject levels.

All teachers commented that the effectiveness of collaborative group work depends

on the mix of teachers within the team. Participant 7C expressed that groups who were

able to work effectively achieved “synergy … a positive change that flows through the

209

system.” However, this depends on how people navigate their dynamics and relate to

one another across the school and it “depends on the mix of teachers in a particular team … I

have seen negative and positive examples”. The teams that worked well together were able

to understand one another’s strength and weaknesses: “we all put our heads together …

and each person brings that piece that they’re really good at” (Participant 8C). As group

members interacted, they began to take on specific roles which defined their unique

contribution to the group: “when conflicts arise within the group, I often take on the role as a

peacekeeper” (Participant 8C).

Participant 10C indicated that it was valuable to work with teachers and leverage

one another’s strengths and weaknesses, but it is not easy and she found it challenging

to be able to listen to ideas instead of immediately disregarding them: “during my first

year in this school I was mostly observing, the second year was really painful (to work

together), then it got better and better and the team started to get productive by the third and

fourth year”. In School C, collaborative group work was hard because teachers were

forced into it without having the appropriate skills:

Everyone had to give up something and they could not figure out what they could get from

one another. It took four years for the team to abandon egos, listen to each other, negotiate

collaborative rules and learn from one another, as soon as they were able to navigate the

interactive group dynamics they emerged as a strong productive unit (Participant 10C).

Group meetings were reported as challenging when teachers were not willing to

abandon their egos and have frank discussions about teaching and learning. Participant

13D expressed that departmental meetings could be dominated by arguments, resulting

in no clear direction: “Everyone’s opinion should be listened to but once that’s happened a

clear direction needs to be set, and no more time is wasted on arguing”. Over half of the

respondents said more experienced teachers were the least willing to participate in

collaborative group sessions and observed that this negatively influenced the group

dynamics: “The teachers who are less willing to collaborate depending on age, educational

background and teaching experience” (Participant 11D). “There is a sense of complacency and

210

doing the status quo. It is very difficult to get these teachers (experienced) to change when their

results are consistently good and they do not see the need” (Participant 9C).

Participant 4B did not have a lot of confidence in the team because the team leader

was very regimented and group members felt undervalued. “Teachers are less willing to

work together because it is safer to be more insular … it is risky to rely on other people”

(Participant 12D). This isolated teachers and caused them to work in isolation in their

classrooms: “our team did not get along; we were unproductive and as a result we did not

achieve our group level goals”.

Overall, these results show that successful teams were able to navigate distinct roles

and behaviours that enabled teachers to work effectively as a group. The way that

people interact with one another has a positive or negative effect on group effectiveness.

However, some teachers expressed concern that the more experienced teachers did not

believe that group work amounted to effective teaching and learning, and they tended

to withdraw from group tasks. Together, these results provide important insights into

teachers’ perception of collective efficacy through teachers’ level of engagement with

one another.

7.2.2 Team cohesion

Two main themes were discussed in relation to team cohesion: task cohesion and social

cohesion. Teachers were asked to describe their yearly team and department goals, how

they were established, how they worked towards achieving them and any areas of

practice they were working on with their team to improve. Teachers were also asked to

describe their experiences as expatriates and the relationship between their social

expatriate community and their work relationships.

Task Cohesion

Thirty per cent of respondents indicated their goals were in response to distal school-

wide mandates that were determined by management. In School A, Participant 1A

211

referred to overarching school-wide goals chosen by management—“goals usually reflect

areas for further improvement”—where administration would like to see an increase in

performance, and “each grade level is required to set a goal that fits into the overarching

school-wide goal”. In School B, Participant 5B explained that groups formulate goals at

the beginning of the year and these goals are usually in response to accreditation

requirements aligned to curriculum tasks such as vertical and horizontal curriculum

mapping:

We need to achieve vertical alignment to tick a box for paperwork, there is no investigation

whether it impacts teaching, many teachers do not see the value of this goal and do not

produce quality unit maps.

In School C, Participant 10C stated that the team focused on developing units of

work that were interdisciplinary and included normed student assessments. This was

echoed by Participant 13D who declared that in School D teachers were working

towards an overarching school-wide goal that was filtered down from the senior

leadership team into each department. This included developing interdisciplinary units:

Our goals are rigid. They are chosen by management and based on what they perceive as an

area of weakness and what they would like us to improve on, then as a grade level we are

given a parameter of where they want our goal (Participant 2A).

Teachers from each school discussed how their proximal group-level goals were

established and connected to overarching school-wide distal goals. Therefore, because

school-wide goals were related to aligning and documenting curriculum and

assessments, all group level and department goals were also related to aligning and

documenting curriculum and assessments. For example, Participant 6B discussed the

team goals as related to curriculum objectives, such as unpacking subject level

standards and devising learning centres, assessments and lessons: “our goal is to get a

better grasp on math standards and what those look like”. This was echoed by Participant 4B

who stated that goals are established based on the performance of students:

212

We compare scores … we bring assessment to the table and look at each other’s … for

example, 70% of the students understood how to divide fractions based on a rubric that we

created.

Additionally, Participant 8C’s team was working on articulating the curriculum to

ensure that their documents represented the ideas and concepts taught, so that the

school had a record when teachers left: “there is a big push for us to document curriculum,

ideas and concepts so that they there is a record of it when people leave”.

Two participants declared that they did not have department goals; however, they

used action plans to focus on individual student assessment to ensure that students

were making progress: “I wouldn’t say there’s group goals … in terms of pedagogical goals

for the department, probably not, it’s just focusing on student achievement and those grade

levels. If a student is in the bottom 25% then we want to see an action plan” (Participant 3A).

These results suggest that goals driven by accreditation mandates and performance-

orientated demands largely dominated group tasks. Documenting curriculum to

achieve vertical alignment, ensuring there was archived evidence of programs taught,

and moderating and norming assessments were activities focused on the quality

assurance of performance and standards.

Social Cohesion

Teachers were asked to describe their unique expatriate lifestyle and how it influenced

relationships among teachers at work and in their social settings. Two themes emerged:

positive social interdependence and negative influence in the workplace. The majority

of the expatriate teachers (69%) described the importance of a supportive expatriate

community and how this strengthens bonds between teachers which transfer into the

work environment. A minority of teachers (23%) expressed that sometimes it was

difficult to strike the right balance between friendships and professional relationships.

The transiency of staff in School D made it difficult for teachers to continually build

friendships with new teachers.

213

Eight teachers discussed the positive aspects of the expatiate community and

commented on the constructive implications that progressed into the work

environment. Common words used to describe the expatriate community by five

teachers were: “bubble” and “close-knit”. Teachers commented on the close social

bonds which developed trust and how this strengthened working relationships:

It’s easier to work together in a professional capacity because you have more trust and you’re

more open and willing to take criticism (Participant 1A).

It definitely helps to have friendships because we can be more honest on a professional level

(Participant 2A).

There are advantages of working and socialising with your colleagues because it builds trust

and people feel more comfortable with one another and it makes for a much stronger, closer

community (Participant 5B).

Participant 8C expressed a sense of belonging within the expatriate community and

described a lifestyle of having a large group of friends, neighbours and work

colleagues. The environment was also described as supportive and safe for raising

children. This was echoed by Participant 10C who explained that there is a large

number of people who would be willing to jump in if there was an emergency.

Participant 8C also socialised with teachers across other year levels. All teachers made

positive comments about the social support within the expatriate community: “At any

given weekend there are groups of people going to events and travelling around Shanghai”

(Participant 10C).

Three participants commented that teachers usually build stronger bonds with the

cohort of teachers who start their assignment together because they share experiences

within the new environment: “the groups who start together are the ones who are most closely

bonded … the stronger your social bond, the better your professional bond” (Participant 11D).

Three teachers mentioned two elements of the expatriate lifestyle that were difficult

to manage in the workplace—navigating friendships in the professional sphere and the

214

transiency of staff, which required more effort to develop new friendships. Participant

2A admitted there were times when discussions went off-track at work and they did not

enforce accountability: “sometimes I’ll let my colleagues drop the ball because we’re mates,

and I don’t hold them to as much accountability”.

In addition to the challenges associated with navigating friendships, there appeared

to be a strong culture driving the normative behaviour of teachers: “I would hesitate to

make social bonds with new teachers until I was sure they were good teachers and worthy of their

place within the school” (Participant 11D). This pressure to adhere to the norms of the

school caused some teachers to feel isolated if they could not break into groups which

were described by Participant 12D as cliquey: “A girl left last year because of isolation and

struggled to make friends and didn’t fit in”.

These results show that the expatriate community is positively interdependent, and

most teachers believe that this creates a better work environment because it strengthens

trust among teachers. Four out of thirteen expressed that it was difficult to strike a

balance between workplace relationships and social friendships, and that interactions

have the potential to derail the group’s ability to accomplish goals.

7.2.3 School structures

Teachers were asked to describe whether they felt supported and what they needed

from the school (leadership and administration) to do their jobs well. Two themes

emerged which reflected both enabling and hindering elements of the school structure.

The enabling themes related to supportive and trustworthy leadership. The hindering

themes referred to feedback, accountability and expectations. These are elaborated upon

in the section below.

Enabling

Approximately 70% of interviewees reported that members of the leadership team were

very supportive and capable of managing the school effectively. All teachers reported

215

that their leaders were effective communicators, visible within the school, and efficient

at keeping schedules on track. Principals were described as generous with their time to

check in with teachers and competent at managing schedules:

If I need to know what’s going on with my student’s situation or with scheduling or I need a

little extra coaching or training, they will always support me 100 per cent. The leadership are

always around and check in to see if we are okay (Participant 8C).

Overall, the principals were characterised as supportive if issues arose: “If there is a

problem then the leadership team are there to help and ready to come and support at any moment

(Participant 5B). Talking about this issue, Participant 7C stated that leaders are effective

when they: “have purposefully put people together that they know will work well and they trust

… not micromanagement … leaders are picked purposefully and trained to manage a

collaborative environment within a team setting.

Hindering

Six teachers revealed that they wanted leaders to facilitate the development of a

collaborative culture. Participant 9C explained that leaders hired teachers who are

experts in subject matter but were not always willing to collaborate, and once teachers

were hired, they were left to do what they like in the classroom: “once you’re hired, unless

you’ve assaulted someone you have a job for life, there’s an implicit tenure”. Participant 9C

wanted leaders to create a culture of collaboration and develop structures that required

everyone to collaborate and work as part of the team. There was trust between the

administration and teachers: “there’s a secret culture of we hired you, we trust you, just get

on with it” (Participant 12D) and this hands-off approach can be liberating for some

teachers. However, Participant 12D expressed that teachers missed receiving feedback

and observing colleagues:

Unfortunately, this isn’t part of the culture … I miss being able to go in other classrooms,

teachers say ‘yeah pop in there’s no problem’ … but you need courage to do it, to impede on

someone else’s classroom”.

216

This was echoed by Participant 11D who revealed that teachers were at liberty to

teach how they wanted—“it is very non-invasive”—but this leadership approach did not

help professional growth:

It’s a double-edged sword because I also feel that I have become deskilled in a number of

ways by the school … pressure makes you better … I not sure I have been observed during

my years (4) at this school … I miss receiving feedback that I could work towards.

Another interviewee described lesson observations as mandated quality assurance

for accreditation: “building principals need to make sure that they have a number of lesson

observations as a tick box process for accreditation” (Participant 3A). Participant 11D wanted

the leadership to develop capabilities among teachers and learn how to work together

and engage in purposeful conversations about instructional improvement. It was

suggested that this would help create a culture where teachers felt safe to observe one

another and provide feedback. This was a view supported by Participant 10C: “leaders

could help teachers understand what should be happening during collaborating time and guide

the work that is really important”.

Two teachers reported that their leadership tended to be “reactive” and few

proactive procedures or initiatives were in place to build a sense of team cohesion: “in

the past there have been strong leadership who were big on PLCs and they built this into the

program, but then the next principal comes in and that no longer happens” (Participant 5B).

Two interviewees wanted more consistency to ensure there was quality teaching

instruction and teachers were being held accountable: “there are teachers who do what they

want, and they go unnoticed unless there is a complaint from a parent”. Participant 5B

attributed this to lack of accountability and leadership follow-through: “teachers get hired

based on their qualifications and once hired, leadership do not check to ensure quality of

instruction”. This was echoed by Participant 11D who expressed that teachers needed to

be held accountable for not meeting deadlines and everyone should be given the same

treatment: “the leadership could do with being a little firmer”.

217

Participant 2A expressed that the administration implemented too many changes

too quickly and these left teachers feeling overwhelmed and unable to keep up the pace

“we needed time and they (leadership) were implementing things too quickly”.

These results suggest that overall school structures were in place that enabled

teachers to feel supported and leaders were perceived as trustworthy and dependable.

Participants also expressed their desire for school systems to nurture an ecosystem for

growth that encourages a climate of exploration and experimentation, risk-taking, co-

constructing, collaboration and professional knowledge sharing.

7.3 Summary of Phase I & II Results

This study sought to understand expatriate teachers’ perspectives regarding collective

efficacy, school structures and team cohesion. The analysis in the previous section

provided further insight into each of the themes and sub-themes. This section draws on

each theme and synthesises the key findings of the interview data.

Teachers’ perception of collective efficacy

The overall semi-structured interview results indicated that collective efficacy involves

three main dimensions: the capability to teach students, work collaboratively with

colleagues to coordinate group dynamics, and engage in group work activities. These

dimensions are summarised in the proceeding section.

Teaching

The concept of collective efficacy involves teachers’ judgements of complex operations

concerning classroom instruction. This includes the interaction between an analysis of

the teaching task and its context, and an assessment of group teaching competence.

Assessments of group teaching competence is referred to as teachers’ judgements about

teachers’ capabilities in classroom instruction. This is conceptualised through

determining whether teachers possess the capacity and capability to adequately

instruct, discipline and engage students to accomplish the learning objective. The most

218

prominent sources of expertise within the environment stems from glimpses of

classroom teaching, observing colleagues’ long working hours, student written

assessments and positive feedback from the school community. Two teachers in School

C reported they did not engage in exploring the practice of teaching and its impact on

learning with colleagues. Both formal and informal learning activities did not enable

teachers to gain knowledge of collective expertise. Overall, teachers attributed student

learning to a teacher’s knowledge and skills, a student’s drive for academic excellence

and parental pressure for high performance. Interestingly, results indicated that

teachers perceive successful learning to be a result of the joint efforts between teachers,

students and parents.

The analysis of the teaching task occurs as teachers anticipate what is required

during instructional practice. This pertains to the constraints and opportunities inherent

in the teaching task. In this context, teachers named factors endorsing the teaching task

as: a student’s drive for high academic attainment, the abundance of teaching resources

and high level of parental investment and support. Concerns were expressed about a

competitive and performance-obsessed culture, thus overwhelming students and

contributing to their fear and anxiety. Teachers in School D expressed frustrations with

the expectation to teach in a traditional teacher-centred approach and students

passively receiving content.

Coordination of group dynamics

A key dimension of collective efficacy incorporates the manner in which teachers

coordinate their group dynamics to collaborate and coordinate their group activities.

The results of data analysis revealed three themes related to coordination of group

dynamics: collegiality, interdependence and evaluation of collective impact. Forty per

cent of teachers described collaboration as administratively controlled, indicating a

sense of contrived collegiality. One teacher revealed that collaboration was mandatory

to ensure consistency within each grade or department level. Teachers reported that

when they come together to share information, resources, ideas and expertise, it is for

219

the purpose of developing and documenting curriculum, managing schedules and

activities, and monitoring assessment to ensure quality and consistency.

Teachers describe the tasks within groups as orientated towards developing

curricular, moderating assessments, distributing labour and organising daily

requirements. Teachers in International Baccalaureate schools A and B relied on one

another to develop units of work. Contact with colleagues appear opportunistic—they

seek information from one another through exchange of stories, distribute workload

and leverage strengths of group members—but continue to linger along the perimeter

of the classroom, the epicentre of the professional enterprise. Teachers are independent

in their classrooms and collaborate during designated times and share ideas in an

obligatory fashion. Teachers did not refer to one another as vital sources of expertise

and did not significantly influence each other’s day-to-day practice. Some teachers are

motivated to participate with colleagues and achieve success from each other’s

contributions; others expressed that success can be achieved alone. The extent to which

groups benefited from joint involvement was difficult to ascertain. Teachers commented

that they did not collectively evaluate how the work they do together actually affects

students learning. Teaching effectiveness is determined solely on individual student

achievement scores, and this is the responsibility of individual class teachers. These

results suggest that the occupation of teaching is the personal concern of individual

teachers and not a collegial responsibility.

Interactive group dynamics

Another dimension of collective efficacy involves the style of interaction between

teachers. The results of data analysis revealed three themes related to interactive group

dynamics willingness to engage, reluctance to engage and mix of personalities. There

are varying degree of teachers willing to engage in collaborative pursuits; some are

willing, others are more resistant. Teachers reported that the more experienced teachers

were the least motivated to engage during group work. On numerous occasions, it was

220

suggested that a teacher’s success can be achieved independently. As a consequence,

motivation to participate in group work with colleagues weakened.

Teachers highlighted the complex nature of interactions that occurred during group

work. One teacher spoke about the roles members take on to create equilibrium when

disagreements arise. Another teacher mentioned that it took the team four years to learn

how to navigate personality conflicts and proactively work together. Some groups

lacked motivation and group leaders could not assist the group to create ways to handle

unproductive members. It is surprising that over half of the participants stated that the

more experienced teachers were the least to reveal their thoughts regarding practice.

This provides insights into the culture of teaching; the most experienced and

accomplished teachers refrain from offering recommendations. This highlights the

importance of teachers’ relations with colleagues and their beliefs regarding joint

contribution and classroom success.

School Structures

The interviewee participants’ views reflected both enabling and hindering aspects of the

school structures. A strong enabling element pertained to supportive and trustworthy

leadership. Teachers described school and team leaders as extremely helpful and

dependable. A hindering aspect of the school structures related to teachers’ desire for

school leaders to develop a culture of collaboration with a focus on instructional

methodology. Teachers suggested that leaders intentionally hired staff who were not

only subject experts but willing to engage in professional collaboration. Teachers also

described their desire for instructional leaders to provide professional development and

feedback on effective instructional practices. Frustrations were expressed in reference to

equitable accountability and expectations for quality instruction across classes. Teachers

also wanted leaders to hold people accountable and ensure tasks are completed by

following up.

Team Cohesion

221

Task and social cohesion were aspects of cohesion explored and discussed with

interviewees. Task cohesion referred to the degree to which teams remain united

towards common goals. Teachers indicated that group goals were targeted towards

achieving the overarching school-wide goal and aligned to curriculum mapping and

student achievement. Given the transient nature of the international community,

documenting and archiving curriculum was reported as an important goal for all

schools. Teachers did not set instructional learning goals or discuss what they were

working on improving in teaching practice.

Social cohesion both positively and negatively influences the workplace. The

expatriate community was reported as a close-knit community and many teachers

stated that this has a positive influence in the workplace—they offered each other

camaraderie and moral support on personal matters, and this increased trust.

Relationships and friendship bonds were noted as largely intertwined with social and

interpersonal interests. Some teachers indicated that it was difficult to strike a balance

between workplace relations and friendships.

Phase II of Study Two found that expatriate teachers perceive collective efficacy as a

combination of three key dimensions: teaching, coordination of group dynamics, and

interactive group dynamics. Teaching involved judgements of group instructional

competence and an analysis of the teaching task. Knowledge of group teaching

competency was gained from student and parent feedback and assessment scores.

Teachers’ analysis of the teaching task was influenced by highly motivated students, a

supportive community and an abundance of resources.

Coordination of group dynamics involved judgements regarding how well teachers

coordinated their group activities and involved collegiality, interdependence and

evaluation of collective impact on student learning. In most cases, collaboration was

regarded as contrived; the degree of interdependence between group members also

varied; some reported they required the contribution of each member while others

stated they could achieve success independently. Teachers did not evaluate their

222

collective impact, however student scores on assessments were used as teacher

effectiveness indicators.

Interactive group dynamics involved judgements regarding interactions and

engagement between teachers. The more experienced teachers were reported as the

least willing to engage during groupwork. Successful contributions during group

meetings involved effectively navigating interactive group dynamics and this depended

on the skills of group leaders to manage the different personalities and group

requirements.

Supportive leadership was reported as an enabling school structures which

supported teachers work. There were suggestions that leadership could be more

proactive and strategic with developing a culture of collaboration, increase

accountability and more supportive of those requiring assistance to meet expectations.

Team cohesion on tasks was effective when teachers worked together towards

achieving goals aimed at documenting curriculum, and social cohesion was reported as

close-knit because people rely on one another for personal-related support.

The overall semi-structured interview results indicated that collective efficacy

involves three main dimensions: the capability to teach students, work collaboratively

with colleagues to coordinate group dynamics, and interact in group work activities.

The results show that collective efficacy is developed through a system of reciprocal

influences of cognitive, behavioural and environmental factors. At a macro level the

school structures create opportunities and sets the scene for effective teacher interaction.

At the group level, team task cohesion emphasises the necessity of each other’s

contribution to achieve success. Both school structures and team cohesion influence

teachers’ beliefs in one another’s capability to engage in collaborative work in order to

achieve common goals.

223

7.4 Triangulating Study Two: Phase I and II

This study was undertaken to explain the nature of the relationships between teachers’

collective efficacy and the international school context in Shanghai. The previous two

sections of this chapter outlined the results of the Study Two Phase I and Phase II

results. Phase I utilised surveys to gather information on teachers’ perceptions of

collective efficacy, team cohesion and school structures. The second phase involved

semi-structured interviews to establish an in-depth understanding of the relationship

between collective efficacy, school structures and team cohesion.

In this section, both data sources from Study Two are triangulated. The process of

triangulation is significant because it facilitates the validation of information through

bringing together sources of data. The triangulation analysis technique also creates a

more in-depth understanding of the research aims. Table 36 displays divergent and

convergent perspectives between both phases using the following assessment criteria:

the strength of average survey scores (high 5-6, medium 3-4, low 2-1); strength of

saturation between interview responses (high-unanimous agreement, moderate-half

unanimous and/or half disagreement, low-teachers’ responses do not agree); and the

strength of evidence between survey and interview responses (*** convergent, **both

convergent and divergent, *divergent). The results of data triangulation are described in

the next section.

224

Table 36. Triangulated themes

Themes Sub-themes

Sub-themes &

Emergent Themes

from Interview

Responses

Interview sub-themes

Saturation

Across

Interview

Responses

(low,

moderate,

high)

Strength of

Average

Survey Score

(low,

medium,

high)

Strength of

Evidence

Between Surveys

and Interviews

(*, **, ***)

Collective

School

Efficacy

Teaching

Competent Staff Competent Staff (9)

Limited knowledge of competency among staff (2) High High

** Both

convergent and

divergent

Community Both positive and negative elements of parental

involvement and academic pressure (12) High High ** convergent

Motivated Students Positive and negative aspects of motivated and

dedicated students (10) High

Emergent

theme Emergent theme

School Resources School resources enable teaching and learning (11) High Emergent


Coordination of

Group

Dynamics

Collegiality Contrived collegiality (10) High Emergent


Interdependence Variability in degree of interdependence among

members (13) High Medium

** Both

convergent and

divergent

225

Themes Sub-themes

Sub-themes &

Emergent Themes

from Interview

Responses

Interview sub-themes

Saturation

Across

Interview

Responses

(low,

moderate,

high)

Strength of

Average

Survey Score

(low,

medium,

high)

Strength of

Evidence

Between Surveys

and Interviews

(*, **, ***)

Evaluation of

Collective Impact Variability of knowledge of collective impact (11) High

Emergent


Interactive

Group

Dynamics

Willingness to

Engage Willing and committed (9) High

High

*** Convergent

Reluctance to

Engage Reluctance to engage (6) Moderate

Emergent


Mix of personalities Negative and positive interactive group dynamics

(11) High Medium

** Both

convergent and

divergent

School

Structures

Hindering Low collaboration (7) Moderate Medium *** Convergent

Enabling Supportive leadership (9) High Medium *** Convergent

Team

Cohesion

Task cohesion Goals (12) High Medium *** Convergent

Social cohesion Interdependence (9)

High Medium

** Both

convergent and

divergent

226

7.4.1 Triangulated Results of Study Two

The results of triangulation suggest that teachers gained confidence in one

another’s teaching ability by observing those who worked long hours, noting

results on students’ assessments and receiving positive feedback from the

community. The survey results show that teachers have high collective efficacy

scores, however, the interview comments raise questions about the practices of

working together in international schools in Shanghai. A minority of teachers

stated that the school culture was not open to sharing instructional practice and

could not say with certainty that teaching was effective. Survey items indicated

that teachers attributed successful learning outcomes to teaching ability, student

efforts and community support. Over half of the interviewees corroborated this

view; however, there was a disproportionately large emphasis on the degree of

influence on CTE of highly disciplined students and dedicated parents. It was this

shared sense of responsibility with parents that teachers reported as strengthening

their confidence in achieving success with students. A small number of teachers

also expressed opinions that parents placed too much pressure on their children,

and this impeded children’s confidence to take risks and deepen learning

experiences.

Teachers described a school environment that engaged in social competitive

practices. This was evident through an emphasis on performance scores,

competitive grading measures and ability grouping, all of which contribute to a

culture of achievement comparison between peers. Teachers reported that the

school instructional resources enabled teaching, and successfully contributed to the

achievement of learning objectives.

Both survey and interview responses aligned when discussing the topic of

engagement during group activities. However, teachers also added further insights

about the characteristics of teachers who were reluctant to engage. The more

227

experienced teachers were reported as the least willing to engage during group

work. This contradicts the collective efficacy survey scores because theoretically

Bandura maintains that it is difficult for teachers to develop confidence in one

another’s capability when they are not engaged with the group and not willing to

contribute effectively.

On average, teachers agreed that they had the skills to collaborate successfully;

however, interview responses highlighted the difficulties experienced in achieving

successful collaborative practices. In some cases, teachers could not successfully

navigate the group dynamic and achieve a unified vision. In other cases, teachers

expressed they felt they did not need the contribution of one other to achieve

success in their own classrooms. These comments are associated with low

interdependency among group members. The concept of collective impact was not

commonly understood, and teachers referred to individual student assessment

results as the main evidence of teaching effectiveness.

Both survey scores and interview responses converged in reference to teachers’

cohesiveness on achieving task success. However, the goals that teams worked

towards were all in reference to documenting curriculum work, moderating

assessments to ensure quality and consistency across classes and raising

performance scores. Comments about social cohesion both converged with and

diverged from survey responses. Teachers described a cohesive expatriate

environment and also the difficulties experienced with balancing close friendships

and professional relationships. The administrative rules and hierarchy enabled

teachers to do their job. This aligns with interview responses where teachers

expressed the belief that leaders were supportive and trustworthy and did not

hinder their ability to achieve successful student outcomes. Teachers also

explained that they would like leaders to proactively develop a culture of

collaboration and hold teachers more accountable to higher instructional

standards.

228

Collective efficacy reflects a group level construct that becomes more salient in

highly interdependent teams where effective group operative capabilities are

crucial for organisational effectiveness. This creates a shared belief in the power to

produce results through collective action and is a key ingredient to collective

agency (Bandura, 1997). Collective agency affects the way group members behave,

how much effort they put into achieving group goals, and their persistence when

group efforts fail to produce results (Bandura, 1997). As groups function through

the behaviours of their members, their levels of engagement and collaboration

reflect the degree of interdependent effort expended to achieve the desired goals.

The results of the triangulation of Study Two data suggest that group outcomes

and goals are achieved with low levels of contribution from team members.

Though teachers scored high on surveys, they explained that overall, team

members worked under conditions of low interdependence. Teachers explained

that they gained knowledge regarding one another’s competence mostly through

student performance scores, observations of colleagues working long hours and

achieving positive rapport with the community. They indicated that working

interdependently on improving teaching and learning practice did not appear a

condition to achieving success in this context.

Teachers explained that group interactions and activities involved some

collaborative structures, but their conversations tended to be superficial and not

‘deep’ discussions of approaches to teaching and learning. Group performance is

affected not only by individuals’ capabilities and efforts but also by the shared

belief that all members’ contributions are required to achieve success. Teachers

clarified there were some efficacious teams in their schools and that these were

successful because tasks were highly interdependent and team members were

required to collaborate and engage with each other to achieve goals associated

with these tasks.

229

In international settings, teachers commented that there was less need for one

another’s contribution to achieve goals. In fact, teachers explained that there were

often some constraints that influenced the extent to which they needed to interact.

These constraints involved difficulties navigating group operative capabilities,

occurrences of contrived collegiality, and a culture that focused on individual

performance scores.

Collective efficacy becomes a shared belief when members share the same

mental models, based on mutual experiences and conjoint involvement through a

social learning process. It is the composition of elements within the environment,

involving cognition and behaviour, that contributes to the reality of how the group

as a whole interacts to achieve goals. The triangulated results suggest that

collective efficacy exists and teachers are confident in one another’s capability to

teach students; however, low levels of interaction among teachers place constraints

on their ability to strengthen collective efficacy as a group level construct. This

suggests that collective efficacy exists in a diminished form because it appears that

group operative capabilities are not firmly established in practice. Teachers also

indicated that school leaders needed to focus on collaborative processes in order to

transform a group of teachers into a team that transcends the sum of individual

members.

231

Chapter 8 Discussion

This chapter discusses the findings of this study, placing them in the broader

context of social cognitive theory to better understand teacher collective efficacy

and its relationship with school structures in the context of foreign-owned

international schools in Shanghai, China. Given that foreign-owned

international schools are predominately staffed by Western expatriate teachers,

Study One focused on understanding the perspectives from expatriate teachers

and then Study Two broadened the investigation and incorporated the

perspectives of all international teachers (both expatriate and host country).

After a summary of the findings, the relevance of social cognitive theory to

international schools in Shanghai is considered. Then, the first research

question is discussed within the context of relevant literature - what are

expatriate teachers’ perspectives of collective efficacy and school structures in one

international school? This is followed by discussion of the second research

question - what are international teachers’ perspectives of collective efficacy and school

structures in four international schools? And then third research question - what

are the factors that relate to teachers’ perspectives of collective efficacy in international

schools in Shanghai? The last section of this chapter presents the conclusions,

limitations and implications for future research.

8.1 Key Findings

This study demonstrated that the interplay of factors – environment, behaviour

and personal – needs to be comprehended in order to understand the reality in

which teachers interact to achieve goals. The results indicate that collective

efficacy within the international school context is a multidimensional construct

involving group operative capabilities. These results align with Bandura’s

intention for the CTE construct and take into account social and psychological

factors. The interdependencies between group members strengthen common

commitment, collaboration and engagement, which influences collective effort

232

and perseverance in demanding situations. How well teachers work together

and function as a group creates an emergent level property that accomplishes

more than individual efforts.

In order to determine the strength of collective efficacy in schools, it is

important to understand teachers’ shared beliefs about how well they interact

with one another, coordinate group dynamics, manage their resources, judge

the efforts put forth in group endeavours and their staying power when

encountering difficulties within their social system. Collective teacher efficacy,

as conceptualised in prior studies, appears to exist in a diminished form in

Shanghai international schools because some of its key components (such as

group operative capabilities) are uncertain in the practice of teachers working

together.

In the following section, triadic reciprocal causation is used to describe the

international school environment. The relationships between personal,

environmental, and behavioural factors are used to understand collective

efficacy by combining social and psychological factors.

8.2 The relationship between personal, environmental and

behavioural factors

As described in Chapter 2, social cognitive theory is used is explain collective

efficacy from an integrated perspective of social and psychological factors

(Bandura, 1997). The theory of triadic reciprocal causation treats social,

structural and personal factors as cofactors within a unified structure which

interact and influence collective agency. This notion of collective agency is

central to collective efficacy and represents “people’s shared belief in their

capabilities to produce effects collectively” (Bandura, 1997, p.7). The diagram in

Figure 26 displays the integrated relationships between personal,

environmental and behavioural factors.

233

Figure 26. Triadic reciprocal causation

(Bandura, 1997).

An understanding of collective efficacy can be derived through an analysis of

the relationships between personal, behavioural and environmental factors.

This means that group behaviour is guided by the perception of one another’s

capability to perform together and achieve goals through collective action. The

group’s function creates an emergent effect that is greater than the sum of its

parts.

The three major determinants of triadic reciprocal causation—personal,

environmental and behavioural factors—all interact and influence one another

bidirectionally. However, they may not be of equal strength. Bandura (1997)

points out “reciprocity does not mean that the three sets of interacting

determinates are of equal strength. Their relative influence will vary for

different activities and under different circumstances” (p. 6). Bandura (1997)

also comments that the reciprocal effects of each determinate do not emerge at

the same time and that it is possible to gain an understanding of all

relationships by focusing on just two segments. Therefore, the

interrelationships between the environment and the behaviour were the focus

of this investigation.

When triadic reciprocal causation is applied to an international school

organisation, the relationship between these factors reflects the nested layers

234

(classroom, school, community) within the environment, the behaviours

(teaching, collaboration and engagement) and personal factors (motivational,

cognitive, affective states). The model in Chapter 2 (Figure 13), presented a

conceptual framework from a review of the literature on collective efficacy in

schools.

Initially the study addressed the first research question, what are expatriate

teachers’ perspectives of collective efficacy and school structures in one international

school? Teachers who participated in Study One had high levels of perceived

collective efficacy. Scores were based on teachers’ judgements regarding one

another’s capability to motivate students, persevere when presented with

challenges, understand the learning process, utilise effective instructional

strategies and enlist community support. Figure 27 displays the connection

between behavioural and environmental factors investigated.

Figure 27. Study One. Investigating school structures and collective efficacy

Overall, the results of Phase I of Study One for the collective efficacy and

school structures surveys were positive. Study One demonstrated

interrelationships between the environmental and behavioural factors. The

environmental factors included school structures and team cohesion. The

behavioural factors referred to collective efficacy as teaching, coordination of

group dynamics (collaborations) and interactive of group dynamics

(engagement). The triangulated results of Study One and emergent interview

235

themes are presented in Figure 28. These elements are discussed in the

following section.

Figure 28. Study One. Triangulated results school structures and collective efficacy

Environmental Factors

Leaders can shape the culture of a school so that it supports the interactions

necessary to produce collective efficacy (Hallinger et al., 1996; Nordic, 2017).

Overall, the triangulated results regarding School Structures indicated that

teachers felt supported when authority on instructional matters was shared and

leaders helped to establish normative expectations regarding school policies

and procedures. Some teachers indicated that autocratic leadership styles had

hindered their ability to do their job well. These results suggest that the quality

of leadership affects the environment in which the teachers work. This

corroborates findings of previous work regarding the influence that school

leaders have in creating the conditions necessary for collective efficacy (Mitchell

& Tarter, 2016; Tschannen-Moran et al., 2014). These results suggest that leaders

in a school can configure their organisation to develop collective efficacy. This

supports the claim from Adams and Forsyth (2006) that school structures can be

236

considered to be a controllable variable that can establish a school culture which

nurtures collective efficacy.

Team cohesion emerged as an important environmental factor in terms of

participants’ own personal involvement in shared group norms and social

interdependence. Previous research by Zaccaro et al. (1995), Cartwright (1968)

and Forsyth (1990) found that cohesion is an antecedent of collective efficacy as

it fosters greater acceptance of accountability measures and deeper resistance to

setbacks. Team cohesion is an important contributor to collective efficacy

because it reflects teachers’ commitment to group tasks and their interpersonal

feelings towards group members. Mullen and Cooper (1994) note that task

cohesion is related to group performance. Task cohesion also taps into

important sources of efficacy building such as verbal persuasion. As the

strength of adherence between group members increases, so does their

influence over group norms and one another’s capability to achieve success.

When cohesive groups experience success from combined efforts, perceptions

of group competence, persistence and perseverance also increase. Zaccaro et al.

(1995) argue that cohesion can be an attribute that develops from prior group

performance and a predictor of collective efficacy that indicates organisational

commitment.

Behavioural Factors

The behavioural factors regarding the practice of teacher’s capabilities to work

together in practice appear to be uncertain. The triangulated results for

Collective Efficacy: Teaching indicated that teachers were confident in one

another’s teaching capabilities because they were hardworking and applied

effective teaching strategies. Teachers also explained that they worked with

students who were highly motivated to achieve academic success, and this was

supported by their community. The characteristics of students and teachers

seem to influence the way teachers collaborated.

Surprisingly, there were inconsistent responses among expatriate teachers

regarding their conjoint capabilities to organise and execute the courses of

237

action required to produce given levels of attainment. In fact, there was

variability among teachers regarding their description of group members’

overall ability to function effectively together. Teachers stated that their

coordination of group dynamics involved varying degrees of collaborative

efforts – involving interdependence, collective knowledge and leveraging

collective strengths. They also explained that their interactive group dynamics

concerning engagement with one another varied as some teachers were not

willing to participate in group work, did not share the responsibility of teaching

for all students and had too many dissimilar values and could not perform

effectively together. However, previous findings by Zaccaro et al. (1995) claim

that collective efficacy involves both judgements of one another’s abilities and

how well teachers work together in achieving outcomes. This means that

collective efficacy not only refers to how well teachers can organise their own

knowledge and skills to achieve tasks but also how well they can work with

others to function effectively and achieve successful collective action.

The results of Study One were unexpected because highly efficacious schools

are typically the result of effective team level functioning. The characteristics of

team level functioning have been commonly measured in sport-specific

collective efficacy surveys and are consistent with Bandura’s (2001) guidelines

for constructing efficacy scales. According to Bandura (1997) collective efficacy

is centred on the group’s operative capabilities and “group functioning is the

product of the interactive and coordinative dynamics of its group members”

(p.477). Bandura (1997) also claims that it is this interactive effect that gives rise

to a force that is more than the sum of teacher’s individual attributes.

In a study relevant to sport, Short et al. (2005) found that aspects of team

functioning were salient dimensions of collective efficacy. This means that

levels of collective efficacy within schools are expected to reflect an

organisational culture whereby teachers engage in effective collaborative

processes dedicated to improving teaching and learning (Hoogsteen, 2020; Hoy

et al., 2002). Additionally, Bandura claims that collective efficacy reflects the

238

way people work together, trust each other, and contribute to their social

system.

The triangulated results of Study One raised questions regarding the beliefs

about collective efficacy of some teachers in this context. It was also unclear

whether results reflected the beliefs about the collective as a whole and whether

these beliefs were shared, thus representing a group-level rather than an

individual-level phenomenon. Additionally, results revealed variability

regarding how well teachers worked together and relied upon each other in

positive interdependent ways.

The triangulated components suggested that cultural norms of the school

and the manner in which teachers engage during collaborative activities have

an important relationship with collective efficacy. This finding was also

reported by Voelkel (2011) in his dissertation investigating the relationship

between collective efficacy and professional learning communities. He found

that more effective professional learning community teams had higher levels of

perceived collective efficacy. These results also correspond with those obtained

by Adams and Forsyth (2006) who suggested that to gain a broad

understanding of teachers’ collective efficacy beliefs, factors within the school

that influence a teacher’s interpretation of tasks must be taken into

consideration. As a consequence of the Study One results, we could suggest a

relationship between the coordination of group dynamics (collaboration) and

interactive group dynamics (engagement) with the concept of collective teacher

efficacy and that an investigation of these dimensions in international schools

needed to be broadened to incorporate a deeper understanding of group

factors.

8.3 Broadening the Conceptualisation of CTE in International

Schools

According to Bandura (1997) four sources of efficacy are critical in the

formation of collective efficacy, and it is the interpretation and encoding of

239

these experiences through cognitive processing that informs teachers’

judgements about whether collective capability may drive future actions.

Goddard et al.’s (2000) simplified model of collective teacher efficacy (Figure

29) was useful because it highlighted the importance of understanding two key

elements in the development of collective efficacy. These elements relate to the

analysis of the teaching task and an assessment of group teaching competence.

Understanding these elements in Study One highlighted the importance of

broadening the model to gain deeper insights of collective efficacy. Specifically,

it led to the suggestion that two additional elements also interact to shape

teachers’ collective efficacy: coordination of group dynamics (collaboration) and

interactive group dynamics (engagement) (Figure 30).

Figure 29. Simplified model of teachers’ collective efficacy

Adapted from “Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student

achievement,” by R. D. Goddard, W. K Hoy and A. W. Hoy, 2000, American Educational

Research Journal, 37(2), p.486.

Figure 30. Broadening conceptualisation of teachers’ collective efficacy

The key findings from Study One propelled a broader examination of collective

efficacy. Zaccaro et al. (1995) note that the concept of collective efficacy must

acknowledge collective interaction, coordination and integration of individual

240

contributions to collective efforts. Individual beliefs regarding expected

capability to achieve goals are critical elements of motivation and subsequent

behaviour. Depending on the goal and task, behaviours occur within social

environmental factors and may require low or high interaction with others. At

complex levels of interdependence, members produce aggregated results and

act in concert with others by integrating, coordinating and synchronising

behaviours (Zaccaro et al., 1995). This means members depend on each other in

positive interdependent ways to produce a collective outcome. As the collective

result emerges, it becomes difficult to separate one another’s actions because

they are closely tied. After extensive research, Zaccaro et al. (1995) provided a

conceptual definition of collective efficacy as the “collective competence shared

among individuals when allocating, coordinating, and integrating their

resources in a successful concerted response to specific situational demands”

(p.322). This means that judgements of group teaching competence and how

well group members work together to collaborate and engage need to be

considered to gain an understanding of collective efficacy. These group

operative capabilities of collaboration and engagement were explored in Study

Two.

The aim of Study Two was to investigate more broadly the group of factors

that Study One identified as important to the construct of collective efficacy and

to further explain its relationships with school structures. Specifically, Study

Two sought to address the second research question, what are international

teachers’ perspectives of collective efficacy and school structures in four international

schools? The triangulated results of Study Two are displayed in Figure 31.

241

Figure 31.Triangulated results of Study Two

Figure 31 displays the interplay between environmental, behavioural and

personal factors for Study Two. The variables of school structures, team

cohesion and collective teacher efficacy were investigated and additional

information regarding these elements was gathered. This is elaborated in the

next section.

Behavioural Factors

According to the concept of triadic reciprocal causation, the behavioural factors

refer to any actions that may contribute to teachers’ beliefs in one another’s

capability that combined efforts will achieve successful results. Teachers’

collective efficacy incorporated the dimensions of teaching, coordination of

group dynamics, and interactive group dynamics. Responses were positive

suggesting that all four international schools had high levels of perceived

collective efficacy. Surprisingly, there were no significant differences between

answers. The fact that teachers across all four schools reported relatively equal

levels of perceived collective efficacy suggests that there are similarities within

contexts that may influence perceptions of collective efficacy. Also, there were

242

no significant differences between expat and local teachers on surveys. The

teachers’ collective efficacy is further discussed in the following section.

Teaching

The elements significant to the teaching dimension of collective efficacy

included competent staff, motivated students, community support and school

resources. These findings were similar to Study One, with an additional

emphasis on school resources.

Competent staff

Expatriate teachers described one another as competent and highly self-

efficacious. The results indicated that teachers possessed the instructional skills

required to enable students to reach successful results. This strong sense of

confidence regarding teaching competence may stem from the fact that

international schools only hire teachers with two or more years of teaching

experience. While years of teaching experience relate to self-efficacy, research

has demonstrated that teacher self-efficacy is an important variable in

developing collective efficacy. According to studies by Bobbett (2001) and

Tschannan-Moran and Hoy (1998), teacher self-efficacy may also be an

important facilitating element that influences a school’s climate and collective

professional culture. This is supported by Bandura (1997) who claims that a

sense of self-efficaciousness is an important base for building collective efficacy.

Motivated students

Students in international schools were described as highly motivated and as a

result teachers set high expectations. Teachers regarded their students as

capable and driven to learn, and they structured learning activities by setting

challenging goals that lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy known as the Pygmalion

Effect. A key component of the Pygmalion effect refers to teaching expectations.

As teachers hold high expectations of their students’ abilities to perform, they

engage in more productive teaching behaviours. This influences the students’

beliefs about their own capabilities and propels actions leading to achievement

243

of expectations that reinforces the teachers’ initial beliefs. This broadly supports

the work of other studies in this area linking expectations and student learning

(Brophy, 1983; Weinstein, 2002). According to Sweetland and Hoy (2000), when

children contribute to a positive academic climate, teachers feel empowered in

their collective capability and believe they can foster positive school outcomes.

Interviewees also stated that high levels of student academic discipline and

achievement strengthened their own confidence in teaching capabilities.

Community support

Bandura (1997) claimed that a distinguishing feature of an efficacious school is

the level of involvement of parents in their children’s education. The family

plays a key role in children’s success in school. The international school

community was described as consumed with results and performance. Parents

perceived education as a valuable means of personal growth, financial survival

and social recognition, with success in life measured by high academic

performance. Therefore, children were encouraged to be disciplined, self-

regulated, and persistent in striving to achieve academic excellence. Teachers

expressed concern during interviews that there was an emphasis on test scores

which contributed to a highly competitive performance-based environment.

These behaviours can be explained by cultural values of the community,

whereby knowledge and academic attainment are regarded with the highest

esteem. As a result, parents provide support and sacrifice for their children to

achieve success. These results further support the research of Kim and Park

(2006) who found that the Asian cultures value and believe that the ability to be

successful can be acquired through persistent effort and belief that self-

regulation is vital for success. It is possible that a strong focus on academic

attainment from parents generates a school environment which influences

teacher and student behaviour.

This drive for academic excellence from the community and a strong

expectation for academic performance may constitute behavioural norms that

support achieving academic excellence. Hoy et al. (2002) term these conditions

244

as ‘academic press’. They found that academic press stimulates an environment

that promotes behaviours such as persistence, constructing impactful goals,

designing purposeful lessons, accepting personal responsibility for student

achievement, and overcoming setbacks with resilience.

Another important finding was that teachers also described parents as

supportive and invested in their children’s education and this contributed to

high student achievement results. Additional research by Epstein (1990) also

suggests that when parents place value on education, instil regular homework

habits, help with homework, set standards, praise efforts and contribute to

school academic activities, children experience greater academic progress.

The school community is a high socio-economic environment and parents

were described as educated self-efficacious professionals. A study by Hoover-

Dempsey et al. (1992) found that the higher parents’ self-efficacy regarding their

ability to instruct their children, the more they regarded education as a shared

responsibility. Hoover-Dempsey et al. (1992) also established that the stronger

the teachers’ perceived instructional efficacy, the more parents seek contact

with them and support children with learning. This process is mutually

beneficial, with the efficaciousness of teacher and parent both increasing, and

playing an important role in supporting children’s success in school.

Evidently, there was a collective perception among teachers and parents that

they had what it takes to promote a successful school climate, and this

strengthens collective efficacy beliefs. Hoy et al. (2006) use the term ‘academic

optimism’ to describe a school culture in which teachers, students and parents

all work together to achieve academic excellence.

Overall, expatriate teachers credited student learning to one another’s

knowledge and skills but placed more emphasis for student attainment on

factors such as student traits and academic support provided at home. A

possible explanation for this can be found in causal attribution theory. Weiner’s

(1972, 1992) causal attribution theory provides retrospective insights explaining

the cause of an outcome and refers to the inferences made about the causes of

245

the behaviour as internal or external. If teachers believe that the cause of

student success is mostly external (student characteristics and parental support)

rather than internal (teacher’s instructional skills), then there is danger that

collective efficacy beliefs will be undermined and that teachers will not see that

their collective efforts cause learning. Weiner (1979, 1992) explains that this

important cognitive motivational process involves determining whether the

outcome was caused by the teachers themselves or factors outside of the

teachers’ immediate control. If teachers judge one another as capable of

bringing about preferred outcomes, then they will be motivated to direct and

combine their efforts to achieve their aspirations. When teachers work with the

conviction that together they can influence student learning and that the power

lies within their direct control, they initiate the relevant behaviours to perform

successfully in given situations (Donohoo, 2018).

School resources

Expatriate teachers in Study Two unanimously agreed that their schools were

well resourced, and this strengthened their perceptions of collective efficacy to

produce student attainment. In other words, schools characterised as well

resourced strengthen a faculty’s belief that they can utilise and share materials

that will facilitate student learning. The influence of school resources was not

discussed in Study One.

All the findings discussed regarding the teaching dimension of collective

efficacy support the research of Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) and Goddard

(2001), who postulated that teachers weigh up their perceptions of teaching

competency in relation to the requirements of the teaching task. Teachers had

indicated that the teaching task included perceptions of student characteristics,

community support and school resources. Surprisingly, teachers attributed the

causes of student learning to external factors. Given this investigation did not

interview students and community members, further explanations are beyond

the scope of this study.

Coordination of group dynamics

246

Study Two results indicated that the coordination of group dynamics involves

elements related to collaboration. A sense of unity, the ability to collaborate,

interdependency, collegiality and collective impact were important elements of

this dimension. Interdependence was also found in Study One, where collective

knowledge and leveraging strengths and weaknesses were described under the

sub-theme of interdependence. Collective impact was not discussed in Study

One. The elements of coordination of group dynamics are examined in the

following sections.

Interdependence

Interdependence refers to the unique contribution of each group member

towards achieving mutual goals. According to Little (1990), joint work refers to

collaborative groupwork among teachers that involves positive

interdependency. Teachers are motivated to participate in group work when

they require each other’s contribution to succeed in their own work. This

interdependence propels collective action (Donohoo, 2018).

Study Two participants said some teams could capitalise on leveraging the

skills and knowledge of members, use professional learning community time to

share knowledge, develop units of work together, moderate assessments, and

apply meeting protocols. These teams were characterised as advancing

collective knowledge. There were also teams described as having low patterns

of interdependence, where meetings focused on the distribution of work,

superficial sharing of ideas, and quality assurance through moderating

assessments.

It was somewhat surprising that knowledge of one another’s teaching

philosophy, and subject pedagogy was not easily accessible and explicit.

Teachers described hints of a culture which sustained norms of privacy and

non-interference for the work of teaching. Group work was described as

focused on developing curricula, moderating assessments, distribution of

labour and organising daily requirements. Interactions between teachers

seemed opportunistic— they pursued information from one another through

247

sharing stories, allocating workload and leveraging the competencies of group

members —but they mostly stayed on the periphery, focused on ‘getting along’

and were conservative in their feedback to one another. This finding was

contrary to that of Gully et al. (2002), who found that the relationship between

collective efficacy and performance tends to be stronger when interdependence

among team members is high.

Contrived collegiality

Teachers explained that parents complained to administration if their children’s

classes were not receiving the same instruction or content. Hence, the

administration placed pressure on teachers to collaborate so that there was

uniform delivery of content and instruction across classrooms. This suggests

that in some instances teachers may have perceived their collegiality as

contrived. Hargreaves (1994) defines contrived collegiality as compliance with

administrative requests. He contends that when collaboration is so

administratively controlled, it can stifle professional judgement and creativity.

Wang (2015) found that genuine collegiality enhances collaboration, collective

inquiry and shared responsibility, while contrived collegiality hinders

collaborative endeavours.

The current study found that some teachers may have felt pressed into

collaborative endeavours, but had scant reasons for doing so, which weakened

motivation. It appeared to be difficult for teachers to see reasons for engaging in

authentic collegiality in an environment that placed emphasis on compliance

and results. There is a considerable amount of literature indicating that

collegiality increases teachers’ motivation to work together on share values and

vision, discuss activities and experiences, take an inquiry stance, engage in

reflective dialogue and collaborate (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009;

Lomos et al., 2011). Collegial teachers are participants in the kinds of

professional learning communities which significantly influence student

learning (Vescio et al., 2008). According to Little (1990), interactions among

teachers both contribute to the knowledge and skills of collective competence

248

and enhance capacity for improved teaching and learning. Furthermore,

collegiality that goes beyond a sense of getting along and working well

together, with the intensity of teachers’ interactions determining the prospect of

influence on each other’s teaching practice or commitment, and willingness to

share responsibility for the learning of all students.

Collective impact

Teacher collaboration focusing on instructional improvement is a vital practice

and taps into the most powerful source, mastery experiences, to produce

collective efficacy in schools (Goddard et al., 2015). However, teachers in this

study said they seldom engaged in professional learning that would enable

them to make the link between their collective actions and increased student

achievement. Interviewees suggested that teaching and learning matters were

controlled by norms of non-interference. A possible explanation for this is the

competitive international school environment, which focuses more on student

results than on the causes of these results.

For teams to understand they make an impact, they need to question what

they already know and determine what they need to do to increase student

learning. Teams are most powerful when they reflect on evidence and

determine whether it demonstrates that their teaching caused student learning.

This process enables teams to attribute success to causes within their direct

control (Donohoo, 2017). Studies by Gallimore et al. (2009) found that

progressive cycles of inquiry enable educators to shift their beliefs from external

attributes: “I planned and taught the lesson, but they didn’t get it” to internal

attributes, “You haven’t taught it until they have learned it” (p. 8).

Reeves (2010) identified that in environments where results are most

important, there is little focus on the teaching which caused the results.

Teachers described their context as a performance environment whereby the

causes of student results are of less importance than the outcomes themselves

and where pressure from the community influences their attitude and actions.

High school teachers stated that they didn’t have time to reflect on collective

249

impact because the end of year exam scores were released during the school

holidays.

Making the cause-and-effect relationship explicit enables teachers to

acknowledge that teaching causes learning, and their collective efforts amount

to student outcomes. Reeves (2010) argued that the reasons for student success

become irrelevant in schools where there is an extreme emphasis on results.

Additional studies by Lindsley et al. (1995) noted that increasing collective

efficacy without learning together and positive interdependence “can lead to

overconfidence” (p.651).

Teachers described the international school setting as a performance-based

environment where most of the attention is on results rather than on deeply

inquiring about the reasons behind those results. Searching for understanding

of what produced the learning outcome and examining student learning did not

appear to be a widespread practice among teams.

Previous research has established that when teachers reflect on instructional

practices and work together to improve student learning through collaborative

inquiry, they strengthen group functioning (Louis & Kruse, 1995). Many recent

studies (Bloomberg & Pitchford, 2016; Donohoo, 2017; Donohoo & Katz, 2019)

have shown that efficacious teams welcome new instructional practice. They

also engage in progressive inquiry by setting and monitoring common goals,

use feedback to adjust next steps, tolerate discomfort, take control to shape

experiences and set high standards, and work interdependently. The link

between collective efficacy and achievement is not automatic. End of year

assessment results on exams or standardised tests alone do not enable teachers

to discern whether their actions influenced learning. Teams must go through

the process of progressive inquiry in order to attribute success to specific

teacher-implemented instructional actions.

Interactive group dynamics

250

The results of this study showed that interactive group dynamics depend on

teachers’ efforts and persistence to engage with one another. Important

elements to this dimension refer to teacher’s willingness/reluctance to engage

and their mix of personalities. These elements were also uncovered in Study

One.

Willingness/reluctance to engage

Teachers stated that not all team members were open to participating in group

learning tasks. Interestingly, the experienced teachers were commonly

described as the least willing to engage in teamwork. This was a consistent

finding across interview data collected from Study One and Study Two. The

reason for this is not clear but it may have something to do with prior successes.

As indicated by Sitkin (1992), consistent prior successes may lead to an

‘upward’ overconfident efficacy spiral, which can actually reduce the need to

actively search for the cause-and-effect relationship and inquiry into learning.

Ashford (1989) also found that when teachers experience continuously

successful outcomes, it becomes harder to see a reason to adjust teaching

strategies. This may explain teachers’ comments about whether they require the

contribution of others to achieve successful results.

It is possible that if teachers believe their group work efforts would not

contribute to results, then their motivation to participate in group work with

colleagues may be weakened. This may explain why the more experienced

teachers were less willing to engage in group work. Another possible

explanation for this might be that the more experienced teachers felt more

accountable for the performance scores of their particular class. In relation to

this, Bloomberg and Pitchford (2016) claim that when there is a significant

emphasis on performance and test scores, the causes of learning often become

compromised as teachers and students fall victim to accountability of

performance accomplishments.

Teachers’ styles of interaction and communication skills were also

considered an important part of the processes that build collective efficacy in

251

international schools. If teachers do not have the willingness or communication

skills to work and learn together, then they may not engage in mastery

experiences that highlight the cause-and-effect of teaching and learning and

which, in turn, can lead to maximising collective impact. Research by Ross and

Bruce (2007) confirms that when collective efficacy is high, teachers are more

open to accepting new ideas and attempting new teaching strategies. Further,

investigations by Mackenzie (2000) indicated a positive relationship between

collaboration and collective efficacy among teachers. The process of

collaboration endorses behavioural and attitudinal norms within the group’s

emerging culture. Well-functioning groups strengthen bonds between teachers,

which generate positive feelings and enable members to be more receptive to

feedback and open to suggestions that enhance performance (Donohoo, 2017).

Therefore, confidence in one another’s capability may be strengthened through

interactions which include exchanging professional ideas, searching for

solutions to problems together, and handling difficult situations cooperatively.


The degree to which teachers actively participated in discussions, exchanged

opinions, searched for information with peers and focused on learning was

explained in this study by their ability to work effectively together. To do so,

they often needed to abandon egos, establish group norms for collaboration,

adopt new approaches, and navigate personality conflicts proactively. In

general, teams described by the interviewees approached professional learning

in a coordinated and disciplined manner. One interviewee stated, however, that

group work could sometimes be difficult because teachers were forced into it

without having the appropriate skills. This is an example of contrived

collegiality which may be due to a performance-focused environment.

252

8.4 Culture of International Schools and Collective Efficacy

Perceptions

This study demonstrated that patterns of interactions among teachers—

teaching, collaboration and engagement —may enhance our understanding of

the ways in which teachers’ collective efficacy takes place and contributes to

organisational effectiveness. These interrelationships are instrumental to the

analysis of teachers’ collective efficacy because they constitute key forms of

mastery experiences for teachers. Social cognitive theory describes such

experiences as vital to the construction of the professional capabilities which

give rise to efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1982). The next section will further discuss

elements within context and culture of international schools in Shanghai which

influence teacher’s perspectives of collective efficacy.

8.3.1 Contextual factors influencing collective efficacy

The contextual factors explored in Study Two referred to school structures and

team cohesion. The triangulated results indicated teachers felt supported by

their leadership yet required their support to create an environment more

conducive to collaboration. The team cohesion results indicated that teachers

were united on group goals and generally liked each other.

School Structures

Overall, the triangulated results of Study Two regarding school structures

suggested that school structures supported teachers to do their jobs, but

additional support was required to develop stronger collaborative structures

among teachers. This differed from Study One which demonstrated that

teachers shared authority on instructional matters and leaders helped to

develop normative expectations. Some teachers in Study One indicated that

leadership styles impacted their ability to work effectively together. Given that

the school structures are managed by people with varying leadership styles,

this may be the reason there were differences between interview respondents in

Study One and Two. As indicated by Barth (2002), the tone of leaders and how

253

they orchestrate the school determines whether the culture is toxic and

negative, or focused on growth and positive.

The triangulated results indicated that teachers experienced difficulty

achieving successful collaborative practices and needed guidance from leaders

to create structures and procedures that would enable an effective process. This

suggests that the quality of leadership influences the environment in which

teachers are required to collaborate. This is supported by Bandura’s (1997)

claim that the quality of leadership is important to the production of the

organisational milieu and strong leadership which enables teachers to believe in

their combined efforts will increase collective efficacy.

Team Cohesion

Team Cohesion results were positive, showing that teachers worked together

on achieving group goals and also enjoyed spending time together outside of

work hours. Teachers indicated that an important element of cohesion was a

shared commitment to achieving group goals and interdependence among

colleagues for social support. The triangulated results of Study One reflected

similar results, but with more emphasis on shared group norms as an important

element of task cohesion. A shared vision around goals contributed to teachers’

sense of cohesion. This suggests that when teachers share a common vision they

are connected and united by a common objective. This is an essential

component for propelling actions towards achieving desired goals. Social

interdependency was a common theme among expatriate teachers in Study One

and Two. Social cohesion is an important part of the expatriate life because of

the absence of family members. Therefore, teachers relied on their colleagues

for social support as well as for professional relationships. The next section will

further investigate the relationships between environmental and behavioural

factors.

As previously identified, there are factors in the environment that potentially

influence the strength of collective efficacy. The third research question sought

254

to explore this further and answer, what are the factors that relate to teachers’

perspectives of collective efficacy in international schools in Shanghai?

School structures and team cohesion (task cohesion and social cohesion)

were significant contributors to teachers’ perception of collective efficacy. The

cohesiveness of a team on tasks had the largest significant impact on collective

efficacy. School structures also played a crucial role in helping teachers develop

positive interdependence and manage group dynamics in the context of

international schools in Shanghai. This means that collective efficacy beliefs are

influenced by the leader’s ability to create an environment conducive for

teacher learning. This may be achieved through fostering a set of norms and

values that facilitate teacher learning, through professional learning

communities, increasing teacher collaboration, and providing instructional

leadership.

The organisation of school structures encourages educators to engage in

activities that will enable them to achieve group goals. This requires collective

effort. The application of collective action is more complex than individual self-

direction because it is influenced by others in the environment. Teachers and

leaders are required to work together and perform activities that complement

one another. This involves working interdependently. To be successful, teachers

must be skilled in the coordination of what they do individually and with

others. This means they need to be able to manage their individual classrooms

and function effectively with colleagues, which entails interpersonal and group

operational skills. This is not an easy quest, as demonstrated in this

investigation. In interviews, teachers indicated that they are affected by the

values and beliefs of others within their school environment, which, in turn,

influence how they work together.

The relationship between school structures and collective efficacy may also

suggest that when leaders hold high expectations for teaching and learning and

determine the processes that enable teachers to engage in experiences that

require frequent collaboration around instructional improvement, this

255

strengthens confidence in team members’ capabilities to promote academic

success. Additionally, school leaders can promote collective efficacy by

establishing an environment of openness and support, developing a shared

vision, setting mastery goals, enabling teacher voice, creating conditions and

opportunities for teachers to collaborate and engaging in continuous

professional learning with a focus on instructional improvement (Donohoo &

Katz, 2019). Through these actions, leaders demonstrate their belief in the

power of their staff members’ collegial contributions to change student

outcomes. As a result, this allows teachers to abandon feelings of helplessness

and focus their energy on embracing setbacks with resilience and a deepening

commitment. When norms are intentionally developed to foster positive

interactions between teachers, it establishes a culture that empowers a faculty to

cultivate collaborative efforts to overcome problems.

Task cohesion was the greatest predictor of teachers’ collective efficacy. This

result suggests that cohesion on tasks has the potential to influence the

perceptions that teachers hold of group competence and how to work together

to impact student outcomes. The finding that high levels of collective efficacy

were related to higher levels of task cohesion is consistent with previous

research by Bandura (1997) and Zaccaro et al. (1995) who found that cohesion is

an antecedent of collective efficacy. When groups accept group norms, appoint

roles and responsibilities, apply performance standards and accountability

measures, and demonstrate strong resistance to obstacles, this leads to

increased performance capabilities and the promotion of enhanced levels of

collective efficacy. Similarly, Atasoy and Cakiroglu (2018) identified group

cohesion as a key characteristic that plays a critical role in developing teachers’

collective efficacy.

Highly cohesive groups share rules and group norms for quality work

which generally results in higher productivity. This is because as influence over

group members increases, members increase conformity to the group. Task

cohesion is especially important because it indicates how people work together,

256

rely on one another and contribute to the social system. These results suggest

that when team members are required to interact closely and coordinate their

efforts in a unified manner, their perception of one another’s capabilities to

achieve group tasks strengthens. Therefore, as cohesion increases, the group

acquires more control over its members and there is greater approval of group

norms, functions and performance standards. This enhances collective efficacy

through its effects on group processes (Ross et al., 2004). However, there is a

danger that highly cohesive groups may become too inward-looking because

their alignment can restrict the flow of new ideas. A high level of conformity to

decision-making may cause ‘group-think’, with members reluctant to disrupt

the status quo (Janis, 1982).

In the next section, the analysis of this investigation is synthesised and

combined. This furthers our understanding and knowledge of collective

efficacy and its relationships with school structures in the context of

international schools in Shanghai.

8.5 Collective Efficacy in International Schools in Shanghai

If international schools in Shanghai are to maintain relevance in a rapidly

growing, competitive industry, they require a thorough understanding of the

ways teachers can work together to enable successful learning outcomes for

students. Prior research demonstrates that the collective beliefs of teachers

mobilise collective actions that advance positive organisational effectiveness.

According to Bandura (1997) collective efficacy is powerful when it is a product

of the interactive dynamics of group members; thus, a strong perception of

collective efficacy reflects effective group functioning and contributes to

organisational learning: it is an emergent group-level property. Understanding

teachers’ perceptions of their collective efficacy is important because teachers

play a significant role in influencing student attainment.

This investigation demonstrates the idea that teachers’ collective efficacy is a

multidimensional construct that incorporates teachers’ judgements of the

257

operative capabilities of their group. Results revealed that school structures and

team cohesion are significant contributors to teachers’ collective efficacy in the

context of international schools in Shanghai. The cohesiveness of a team on

tasks had the largest significant impact on collective efficacy, and school

structures also played a crucial role in helping teachers develop positive

interdependence and manage group dynamics in this context.

Teachers demonstrated high perceived collective efficacy scores, but the

interview comments from expatriate teachers raised questions about the

practices of working together in international schools in Shanghai. It is possible

that many of the teachers did not understand the concept of collective efficacy

and/or they thought they did have collective efficacy but in fact their teaching

outcomes could be explained by contextual variables (bright students,

supportive parents, well-resourced schools) plus an ethos of high expectations

and hard work. Given that teachers’ perceptions of collective efficacy were

influenced by culture and context, the construct of collective efficacy uncovered

differed to that documented in studies conducted in Western contexts. This

study demonstrates that collective teacher efficacy, as a construct defined by

previous research, may not be firmly established in the practices of working

together among teachers in international schools in Shanghai.

Teachers indicated that they did not engage in collaboration that was focused

on improving instruction. Therefore, this study has been unable to replicate the

findings of Goddard et al. (2015) who suggested that schools with a strong

sense of collective efficacy are categorised by high levels of teacher

collaboration for instructional improvement. This may be partially explained by

the context and the culture’s emphasis on high performance scores, which affect

the behaviour of students, teachers and the administration, influencing them to

adjust their behaviour according to the strong expectation for academic

attainment. In contrast, this study suggests that teachers must also be able to

successfully navigate their group operative capabilities —how they coordinate

group dynamics and interact with one another—and become members of

258

efficacious teacher teams. It is through teachers’ group operative capabilities that

teachers’ collective efficacy could be firmly established in practice in

international schools.

This study demonstrated that collective efficacy beliefs are a product of

interrelationships with the environment, personal and behavioural factors. As

displayed in Figure 32, collective efficacy is based on the combined analysis of

teaching, collaboration and engagement. Teacher beliefs stem from interactions

with the environment at a team level and school structure level. The role of the

school leadership is to equip teachers with the firm belief that together they can

successfully navigate their group operative capabilities and create valued

outcomes through their collective actions. The culture and context of the

community and international school environment influence the social norms of

the school structures, which in turn, influence teacher actions and behaviours.

Figure 32. Collective teacher efficacy in international schools in Shanghai

In international schools, the context and cultural conditions emerge as the

overriding determinates that influences leaders’ and teachers’ behaviour. This

includes the tradition of how things are done and shared beliefs about the

overall capabilities necessary to perform productively. The results of this study

259

suggest that collective efficacy is a team-level attribute. It is more than the sum

of its parts and, therefore, constitutes an emergent group-level property.

Conceptualising collective efficacy as a multidimensional construct is grounded

in efficacy theory (Bandura, 2001) because “efficacy beliefs involve different

types of capabilities, such as management of thought, affect, action and

motivation” (Bandura, 1997, p.45). Furthermore, multidimensional constructs

hold insights into the dynamics of behaviours.

Additionally, a high performance-orientated environment can lead to

adoption of a closed-to-learning stance, with teachers less willing to adopt

different teaching strategies (Donohoo, 2018). This also creates a culture where

teachers may become more resistant and less open to change initiatives. In the

case of international schools in Shanghai, it may be harder for teachers to see a

need for change when children are achieving high academic outcomes.

The bidirectional relationships between personal, behavioural and

environmental factors can change strength and direction of effects —but this

takes time. The powerful message is that teachers and school systems can adjust

behaviours without jeopardising achievement outcomes. In fact, research

indicates that a focus on increasing the quality of teaching and learning and

creating mastery environments can result in achievement that outperforms

performance-orientated outcomes (Pink, 2009). However, firstly the current

state of the environment must be acknowledged and then decisions made about

whether to continue to function the same way or embrace long-term rewards by

finding the courage to change.

Collective efficacy is a group’s shared belief about their capability to

influence student learning (Bandura, 1997). Therefore, levels of collective

efficacy within schools should reflect a culture that is focused on collaborative

inquiry into best practice that will improve teaching and learning for all

students. In other words, while schools where teachers reflect, inquire, and

collaborate may be contexts where collective efficacy is firmly established in

260

practice (Donohoo, 2018), this investigation raised questions whether collective

efficacy is firmly established in Shanghai international schools.

Structures for developing reflective practitioners and enhancing professional

learning through inquiry must be intentionally organised in schools.

Professional cultures designed to positively interact in a manner that is focused

on student learning hold the potential for powerful impact in schools for

students and teachers (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan & Quinn 2016; Hord, 1997;

Senge, 1990).

8.6 Strengths, Limitations and Future Research

It is recognised that limitations exist in this investigation. Primarily these are in

relation to the generalisability of the findings which are limited to international

teachers in private fee-paying, foreign-owned international schools in Shanghai

that primarily serve expatriate children.

Strengths

The major strength and contribution of this research, however, is the

development of a multidimensional collective efficacy construct that specifies

an understanding of group operative capabilities. Given that teachers’

judgements in one another’s capabilities to promote academic success are

influenced by the interactions between environmental factors at an

organisational level and interpersonal group level, evaluating international

schools in this light has provided deeper insights regarding how the construct

of collective efficacy is operationalised in the context of Shanghai international

schools.

This investigation identified a deficiency in the area of how teacher teams

function and the absence of teacher engagement around a process of

progressive inquiry methodology in the context of international schools in

Shanghai. This process would contribute to the deepening of philosophical

understanding about teaching and learning, which would then impact

261

classroom practice. It could also highlight ways to help teachers become more

accepting of new practices and make these new methods part of their repertoire

of teaching. As a result of a team’s desire to better understand teaching and

learning and implement evidence-informed strategies, transformational shifts

in belief should occur that would generate confidence in teachers’ collective

efficacy. Interactive and coordinated group dynamics are crucial group level

elements for teachers to be engaged in this work. The insights gained from this

study will assist international school leaders in foreign-owned international

schools to design better ways for teacher teams to engage in meaningful

collaboration.

Limitations

Several limitations in this investigation should be pointed out. The sample of

teachers was drawn from foreign-owned international schools in Shanghai.

Although five schools participated in the investigation, the results cannot be

representative of all international schools in Shanghai. These schools are similar

with respect to the students they serve, who are mostly the children of highly

educated and affluent professionals. Future research could study a variety of

international schools within the context of Shanghai and in other international

contexts to test the validity of the teachers’ collective efficacy construct and its

relationship with school structures.

The study could have been advanced by utilising a larger sample size in

both quantitative and qualitative phases. While a mixed methods approach

highlighted teachers’ attitudes about collective efficacy and school structures,

semi-structured interviews were only conducted with expatriate teachers, and it

is probable that the Chinese teachers would have revealed differences that

could play a role in shaping teachers’ sense of collective efficacy. Further

investigation from the perspective of the Chinese teachers would be extremely

valuable as well as conducting a comparative study between Chinese and

expatriate teacher perspectives.

262

Future research could observe group functioning or speak to all members of

a grade level teacher team in order to gain a clearer picture of how interactive

and coordination of group dynamics operate. Additionally, further research

may benefit from incorporating the views of parents, students or school

business leaders. A broader, more thorough investigation through observations

of specific teacher teams and interviewing stakeholders within school contexts

may also provide meaningful data. Furthermore, future efficacy scales could

incorporate items specifically related to determining effective group level

functioning, collaborative efforts and organisational learning.

Similar studies could be conducted using longitudinal data with grade level-

specific teams. The researcher could measure levels of teachers’ collective

efficacy, school structures and team cohesion before and after implementation

of a school-wide initiative to determine whether a causal relationship exists

between the constructs. This would allow analysis and discussion of results to

be specifically designed to inform individual grade level teams.

Recommendations

Collective efficacy “concerns the performance capability of a social system as a

whole” (Bandura 1997, p.496). Understanding how collective efficacy is

operationalised has important implications for leaders and teacher teams in

their quest to become collectively efficacious. In studying teachers’ collective

efficacy, there is an opportunity to also understand the organisational culture of

the school. School administrators wishing to enhance teachers’ collective

efficacy may focus on teachers’ professional learning and promote a collective

set of norms and values within their school that would facilitate teachers’ group

operative capabilities.

The value of understanding teachers’ collective efficacy is not only its

explanatory and predictive power, but also its potential to effect change. When

emphasis is placed on intentionally planning the development of group

operative capabilities and positive interactive group dynamics and fostering

these four sources of efficacy (mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social

263

persuasions and affective/psychological states), teachers will co-construct

knowledge together around effective practice and are likely to thrive in a

learning culture.

It appears that greater efforts are needed to ensure that teachers’ collective

efficacy is firmly established in practice. Professional learning designs involving

a cycle of collaborative inquiry may enable teams of teachers to examine and

reflect on teaching practice together. Frameworks and protocols could help

teachers to develop causal connection between teaching and student

performance collectively. Hattie (2012) points out the importance of

Explicit, data-driven structure to disaggregate data, analyse student

performance, set incremental goals, engage in dialogue around explicit and

deliberate instruction, and create a plan to monitor student learning and

teacher instruction (p.60).

To make this cause-effect connection clearly visible requires teachers to focus

on instruction and their ability to make an impact on learning. The attribution

shifts when teachers make connections indicating that results are due to their

collective efforts and that they cause learning. Shifts in teacher attributions can

be achieved by focusing on teacher learning through practices which include

goal setting, tracking progress indicators, analysing student learning results

and using a matrix to assess collective impact.

A methodology of progressive inquiry highlights the cause-and-effect

relationship which gives rise to insights such that effort amounts to impact in

student learning. Donohoo and Velascao (2016) claim that “the collaborative

inquiry cycle necessitates ongoing conversations and reflection among

participants focused on assessing the impact of actions on student learning”

(p.53).

Management to enhance teachers’ collective efficacy will need to be

intentional and provide opportunities for teaching teams to build confidence

through experiencing success. However, there is a caveat; success does not

264

build confidence if little effort is exerted. Confidence in capability is built when

success is experienced through accomplishing challenging goals and

overcoming obstacles; these build resilience and a robust sense of collective

efficacy. Leaders can create conditions for models of success to be observed so

that teams can see themselves as similarly capable to perform (Goddard et al.,

2000). Providing feedback to teachers is as equally powerful and essential for

forward movement as it is for children. Feedback is the key ingredient that

facilitates effective teams taking positive strides forward (Gabelica et al. 2012).

The role of group operative capabilities during collaborative inquiry work

on instructional improvement constitutes a key form of mastery experience

which is critical for developing collective efficacy. Teachers’ collective efficacy

is the higher order determinate with a broad influence on behavioural,

attitudinal, affective and motivational elements of group functioning. Knowing

about these elements of operations in schools can enable leaders to develop

guidelines for how to structure interventions to influence social systems and

strengthen positive interdependencies between group members. When teachers

firmly believe that together they can produce the valued effect by their

collective action and the structures support the process, schools become “more

than the sum of the individual attributes” (Bandura, 1997, p.478) and can

facilitate greater student achievement.

265

References

Adams, C. M., & Forsyth, P. B. (2006). Proximate sources of collective teacher

efficacy. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6), 625–642.

Allen, M. (2017). The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1-4).

Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411

Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional

practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and

Special Education, 17(2), 86-95.

Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A.,

Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in

selected Los Angeles minority schools. Rand.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2005/R2007.pdf

Ashford, S. J. 1989. Self-assessments in organizations: A literature review and

integration. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior, 11, 133- 174. JAI Press.

Ashton, P. O., & Olejnik, S. S., Crocker, L., & McAuliffe, M. (1982). Measurement

problems in the study of teachers’ sense of efficacy. [Paper presentation]. The Annual

Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and

student achievement. Longman.

Ashton, P. T., Webb, R. B., & Doda, N. (1982). A study of teachers' sense of efficacy.

Foundations of Education, University of Florida.

Atasoy, V., & Cakiroglu, J. (2018). Preservice science teachers’ collective efficacy in

a science methods course. Educational Studies, 45(3), 326-341.

Avanzia, L., Schuhb, S., Fraccarolia, F., & Van Dick, R. (2015). Why does

organizational identification relate to reduced employee burnout? The

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2005/R2007.pdf

266

mediating influence of social support and collective efficacy. Work & Stress,

29(1), 1–10.

Bailey, L. (2015). Reskilled and ‘Running Ahead’: Teachers in an international

school talk about their work. Journal of Research in International Education, 14(1),

3-15.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American

Psychologist, 44(9), 1175.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and

functioning. Educational Psychologist. 28(2). 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1998). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and

change. Advances in Psychological Science, 1(1), 51-71.

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-

8721.00064

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review

of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.

Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 1(2), 164-180.

Barth, R. S. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6-11.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064

267

Berebitsky, D., & Salloum, S. J. (2017). The relationship between collective efficacy

and teachers’ social networks in urban middle schools. AERA

Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417743927

Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal

programs supporting educational change, Vol. VII: Factors affecting implementation

and continuation. Rand.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2005/R1589.7.pdf

Bettini, E. A., Crockett, J. B., Brownell, M. T., & Merrill, K. L. (2016). Relationships

between working conditions and special educators’ instruction. The Journal of

Special Education, 50(3), 178-190.

Blake, E. (2019). New research reveals the cost of international education around the world

in 2019. International Schools Database. https://www.international-schools-

database.com/articles/the-cost-of-international-education-around-the-world-

in-2019

Blatti, T., Clinton, J., & Graham, L. (2019). Exploring collective teacher efficacy in an

international school in Shanghai. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and

Educational Research, 18(6), 214-235.

Bloomberg, P., & Pitchford, B. (2016). Leading impact teams: Building a culture of

efficacy. Corwin Press.

Bobbett, J. J. (2001). School culture, teacher efficacy, and decision-making in demonstrably

effective and ineffective schools. [Doctoral thesis, Louisiana State University]. LSU

Historical Dissertations and Theses. 333.

https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/333

Brace, N., Snelgar, R., & Kemp, R. (2012). SPSS for psychologists. Macmillan

International Higher Education.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The experimental ecology of education. Educational

Researcher, 5(9), 5-15.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417743927

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2005/R1589.7.pdf

https://www.international-schools-database.com/articles/the-cost-of-international-education-around-the-world-in-2019




268

Brooks, D. (2008). Lost in the crowd. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16brooks.html

Brophy, J. E. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher

expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(5), 631.Bruce, C., & Flynn, T.

(2013) Assessing the effects of collaborative professional learning: efficacy shifts

in a three-year mathematics study, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(4),

691-709.

Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it

done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113.

Cantrell, S., & Callaway, P. (2008). High and low implementers of content literacy

instruction: Portraits of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7),

1739–1750.

Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as

determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4),

821–832.

Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The Measurement of Cohesion in Work

Teams. Small Group Research, 31(1), 71–88.

https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100104

Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and

considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4(2).

Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an

instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment

Questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(3), 244-266.

Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A.

Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 91-109). Harper

& Row.

Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis. A&C Black.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/opinion/16brooks.html

https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100104

269

Chong, W., Klassen, R., Huan, V., Wong, I., & Kates, A. (2010). The relationships

among school types, teacher efficacy beliefs, and academic climate: Perspective

from Asian middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(3), 183–190.

Chubb, J. E. (1988). Why the current wave of school reform will fail. The Public

Interest, 90, 28.

Chwalisz, K., Altmaier, E. M., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Causal attributions, self-

efficacy cognitions, and coping with stress. Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology, 11(4), 377-400.

Ciani, K., Summers, J., & Easter, M. (2008). A ‘‘top-down’’ analysis of high school

teacher motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 533–560.

Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 1(3), 98-101.

Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers' sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The

Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 323-337.

Coleman, J. S. (1987). Norms as social capital. In G. Radnittzky & P. Bernholz

(Eds.), Economic imperialism: The economic approach applied outside the field of

economics. Paragon House Publishers.

Cooksey, R. & McDonald, G. (2011). Surviving and thriving in postgraduate research,

Tilde University Press.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures

for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage.

Crano, W. D., Brewer, M. B., & Lac, A. (2014). Principles and methods of social

research. Routledge.

Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). An expanded

typology for classifying mixed methods research into designs. In A. Tashakkori

& C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research

(pp. 209-240). Sage.

270

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

Crotty, M., & Crotty, M. F. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and

perspective in the research process. Sage.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning:

What matters. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.

Davidson, D. (2000). A coherence theory of truth and knowledge. In S. Bernecker,

& F. Dretske (Eds.). Knowledge, readings in contemporary epistemology, Oxford

Press.

Daxue Consulting. (2020, October 20). International schools in China maintain slow

growth. https://daxueconsulting.com/the-market-of-international-school-in-

china-a-booming-sector/

DeWitt, P. (2019). How collective teacher efficacy develops. Educational

Leadership, 76(9), 31-35.

Donohoo, J. (2013). Collaborative inquiry for educators: A facilitator's guide to school

improvement. Corwin Press.

Donohoo, J. (2017). Collective teacher efficacy research: Implications for

professional learning. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 2(2), 101-116.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-10-2016-0027

Donohoo, J. (2018). Collective teacher efficacy research: Productive patterns of

behaviour and other positive consequences. Journal of Educational Change, 19(3),

323-345.

Donohoo, J., & Katz, S. (2019). Quality implementation: Leveraging collective efficacy to

make “what works” actually work. Corwin Press.

https://daxueconsulting.com/the-market-of-international-school-in-china-a-booming-sector/

https://daxueconsulting.com/the-market-of-international-school-in-china-a-booming-sector/

https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-10-2016-0027

271

Donohoo, J., & Velasco, M. (2016). The transformative power of collaborative inquiry:

Realizing change in schools and classrooms. Corwin Press.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best

Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement. National Educational Service.

Duhigg, C. (2016). What google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. The

New York Times Magazine. https://centre.upeace.org/wp-

content/uploads/2020/09/7.1-what-google-learnt.pdf

Egger, K. J. (2006). An exploration of the relationships among teacher efficacy, collective

teacher efficacy, and teacher demographic characteristics in conservative Christian

schools. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Texas]. UNT Digital Library.

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc5376/

Emmer, E., & Hickman, J. (1990, April). Teacher decision making as a function of

efficacy, attribution, and reasoned action [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting

of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, NY.

Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990, April). Further development of an elementary

science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale [Paper

presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in

Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.

Epstein, J. L. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research, and

implications for integrating sociologies of education and family. Marriage &

Family Review, 15(1-2), 99-126.

Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and

commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. The Journal of Educational

Research, 80(2), 81-85.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Smith, D. (2020). The teacher credibility and collective efficacy

playbook, Grades K-12. Corwin Press.

Forsyth, D. (1990). Group dynamics. Brooks/Cole.

https://centre.upeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/7.1-what-google-learnt.pdf

https://centre.upeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/7.1-what-google-learnt.pdf

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc5376/

272

Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools,

districts, and systems. Corwin.

Gabelica, C., Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M.R., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a

powerful lever in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123–144.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003

Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B. A., Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving

the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of

school-based inquiry teams. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537-553.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). Frequencies. In D. George & P. Mallery (Eds.),

IBM SPSS Statistics 23 Step by Step (pp. 115-125). Routledge.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569.

Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and

human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12, 472–485.

Goddard, R. D. (1998). The effects of collective teacher efficacy on student achievement in

urban public elementary schools [Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University].

OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center.

http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1241095125

Goddard, R. (2001) Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of school

and student achievement. Journal of Education Psychology, 93(3), 467-476.

Goddard, R. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of

collective efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational and

Psychological measurement, 62(1), 97-110.

Goddard, R., Goddard, Y., Kim, E., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical

analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and

collective beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education,

121(4), 501–530.

http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1241095125

273

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A.W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its

meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational

Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs:

Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future

directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-13.

Gray, J. A., & Summers, R. (2016). Enabling school structures, trust, and collective

efficacy in private international schools. International Journal of Education Policy

and Leadership, 11(3), 3.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Educational evaluation and

policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

Guba, E. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Sage.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research.

In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-

117). Sage.

Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis

of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of

analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87(5), 819.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. L. (2010).

Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson-Prentice Hall.

Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership,

and student reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 96, 527-549.

https://doi.org/10.1086/461843

Hardin, J. (2010). A study of social cognitive theory: The relationship between professional

learning communities and collective teacher efficacy in international school

settings [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479

https://doi.org/10.1086/461843

274

https://www.proquest.com/openview/24f5ec3b72163df9cb41fa7c543c34ac/1?

pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers’ Work and

Culture in the Postmodern Age. Cassell.

Hargreaves, A. (2011, October 28-30). Push, pull and nudge: The future of teaching and

educational change [Paper presentation]. The Global Teacher Education Summit,

Beijing, China.

Hargreaves, A., & O'Connor, M. T. (2018). Collaborative professionalism: When

teaching together means learning for all. Corwin Press.

Harris, A. (2014). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and

potential. Corwin.

Hattie, J. (2016, July 11). Mindframes and maximizers [Paper presentation]. Third

Annual Visible Learning Conference, Washington, DC.

Hattie, J., Masters, D., & Birch, K. (2015). Visible learning into action: International case

studies of impact. Routledge.

Hayden, M. (2006). Introduction to international education: International schools and

their communities. Sage.

Holopainen, J., & Björkman, I. (1998). Personnel Review The personal

characteristics of the successful expatriate: A critical review of the literature and

an empirical investigation. Personnel Review Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 34(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480510578476

Hoogsteen, T. J. (2020). Collective teacher efficacy: A critical review of education’s

top influence. Advances in Social Science Research Journal, 7(6), 574-586.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in

parent-school relations. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 287-294.

https://www.proquest.com/openview/24f5ec3b72163df9cb41fa7c543c34ac/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

https://www.proquest.com/openview/24f5ec3b72163df9cb41fa7c543c34ac/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480510578476

275

Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry

and improvement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/2.html

Hoy, A. W. (2000, April). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching

[Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, New Orleans, LA.

Hoy, A.W., Davis, H., & Pape, S. J. (2005). Teacher knowledge and beliefs. In P. A.

Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp.

715–737). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2012). Educational administration: Theory, research, and

practice (9th ed.) McGraw-Hill.

Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and

measure of enabling school structures. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 37(3), 296-321.

Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational

model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective

efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 77-93.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2006). Academic Optimism of Schools: A

Force for Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3),

425–446. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043003425

Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the

organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355–372.

International Schools Council (ISC) Research. (July, 2020). International Schools

Market Intelligence Report for China, pp. 85-117.

https://iscresearch.com/intelligence/

Jakobsen, J. C., Gluud, C., Wetterslev, J., & Winkel, P. (2017). When and how

should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised

https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043003425

https://iscresearch.com/intelligence/

276

clinical trials–a practical guide with flowcharts. BMC Medical Research

Methodology, 17(1), 1-10.

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos.

Houghton Mifflin.

Jerald, C. D. (2007). Believing and achieving (Issue Brief). Center for Comprehensive

School Reform and Improvement, Washington, DC.

Joslin, P. (2002). Teacher relocation reflections in the context of international

schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 1(1), 33–62.

https://doi.org/1475-2409(200209)1:1;33-62;026080

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.

Kim, U., & Park, Y. S. (2006). Factors influencing academic achievement in

relational cultures: The role of self-, relational, and collective efficacy. In F.

Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education, Vol. 5: Self-efficacy and

adolescence (pp. 267–285). Information Age Publishing.

Kirby, M. M., & DiPaola, M. F. (2011). Academic optimism and community

engagement in urban schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 542-

562.

Klassen, R. M. (2010). Teacher stress: The mediating role of collective efficacy

beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(5), 342-350.

Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M., 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.

Klassen, R., Usher, E., & Bong, M. (2010). Teachers’ collective efficacy, job

satisfaction, and job stress in cross-cultural context. The Journal of Experimental

Education, 78(4), 464–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903292975

https://doi.org/1475-2409(200209)1:1;33-62;026080

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970903292975

277

Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving

instruction. Corwin Press.

Kurz, T. B. (2001). An exploration of the relationship among teacher efficacy, collective

teacher efficacy, and goal consensus. [Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M

University]. Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Langer, G., & Colton, A. (2005). Looking at student work. Educational Leadership,

62(5), 22-26. http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/

el200502_langer.pdf

Lee, J. C., Zhang, Z., & Yin, H. (2011). A multilevel analysis of the impact of a

professional learning community, faculty trust in colleagues and collective

efficacy on teacher commitment to students. Teaching & Teacher Education, 27(5),

820-830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.006

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research (Vol. 108). Pearson Custom.

Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). Meta-analytic review of unpublished research: The

nature and effects of transformational school leadership. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423.

Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual

Review of Psychology, 41(1), 585-634.

Lightfoot, S. L. (1983). The good high school: Portraits of character and culture. Basic

Books.

Lim, S., & Eo, S. (2014). The mediating roles of collective teacher efficacy in the

relations of teachers’ perceptions of school organizational climate to their

burnout. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 138–147.

Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-performance spirals: A

multilevel perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 645–

678. https://doi.org/10.2307/258790

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.006

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/258790

278

Little, J. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in

teachers. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance.

Prentice-Hall.

Lomos, C., Hofman, R. H., & Bosker, R. J. (2011). The relationship between

departments as professional communities and student achievement in

secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 722-731.

Louis, K. S., & Kruse, S. D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on

reforming urban schools. Sage Publications.

Mackenzie, S. (2000). Collective efficacy and collaborative climate in Maine high schools

[Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maine]. Electronic Theses and

Dissertations.

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd/130

McAuley, E. (1991). Efficacy, attributional, and affective responses to exercise

participation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13(4), 382-393.

McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of

academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Leadership and

Policy in Schools, 5(3), 203-229.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1991). Enabling professional development: What have we

learned? In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in the

‘90s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (pp. 61-82). Teachers College

Press.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Do all these people have to be here? Reflections on collecting

data in another culture. In S.B. Merriam (Ed.) Qualitative research in practice:

Examples for discussion and analysis (pp. 58-61). Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.

Jossey-Bass.

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd/130

279

Merriman, R. (2020, February 17). International school market has grown 10x since

2000: What does that herald for investment migration? Investment Migration

Insider. https://www.imidaily.com/industry-trends/international-school-

market-has-grown-10x-since-2000-what-does-that-herald-for-investment-

migration/

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook. Sage.

Mitchell, R., & Tarter, J. (2016). A path analysis of the effects of principal

professional orientation towards leadership, professional teacher behavior, and

school academic optimism on school reading achievement. Societies, 6(5), 1-11.

Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Teaming up: Linking

collaboration networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 28(2), 251-262.

Moore, W. P., & Esselman, M. E. (1992, April). Teacher efficacy, empowerment, and a

focused instructional climate: Does student achievement benefit? [Paper

presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco, CA.

Moosa, V. (2021). Review of collective teacher efficacy research: Implications for

teacher development, school administrators and education

researchers. International Journal of Theory and Application in Elementary and

Secondary School Education, 3(1), 62-73.

Morales, J. (2016, June). School bureaucracies that enable: Principals' perception of their

experience in creating and sustaining enabling school structures [Doctoral

dissertation, Azusa Pacific University]. ProQuest Dissertation and Theses

database (UMI 10134253).

Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative

methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362-

376.

https://www.imidaily.com/industry-trends/international-school-market-has-grown-10x-since-2000-what-does-that-herald-for-investment-migration/



280

Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological

triangulation. Nursing Research, 40, 120–123.

Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and

performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210– 227.

Nordick, S. (2017). Fundamental features of fostering teacher collective efficacy:

Principals' attitudes, behaviors and practices. [Doctoral dissertation, Utah State

University]. Digital Commons @USU.

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/6639

O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation

factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673-690.

Oliver, D. F. (2001). Teacher personal and school culture characteristics in effective

schools: Toward a model of a professional learning community [Doctoral dissertation,

Louisiana State University]. LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses.


Pagano, R.R. (2009). Understanding Statistics in the Behavioral Sciences (9th ed.).

Wadsworth.

Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. University of

Kentucky. http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/eff.html

Pajares, F. (2007). Culturalizing educational psychology. In F. Salili & R. Hoosain

(Eds.), Culture, motivation, and learning (pp. 19–42). Information Age.

Parise, L., & Spillane, J. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: How

formal and on-the-job teaching opportunities predict change in elementary

school teachers’ practice. Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 323–346.

Parks, M., Solmon, M., & Lee, A. (2007). Understanding classroom teachers’

perceptions of integrating physical activity: A collective efficacy perspective.

Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21(3), 316–328.

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/6639


http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/eff.html

281

Paskevich, D. M., Brawley, L. R., Dorsch, K. D., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1999).

Relationship between collective efficacy and team cohesion: Conceptual and

measurement issues. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(3), 210.

Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T. E. (1998). How leaders influence the cultures of schools.

Educational Leadership, 56(1), 28-30.

Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.

Reeves, J. B. (2010). Academic optimism and organizational climate: An elementary school

effectiveness test of two measures. [Doctoral dissertation, The University of

Alabama].

Riggs, I. (1995, April). The characteristics of high and low efficacy elementary teachers

[Paper presentation]. The annual meeting of the National Association for

Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

Riggs, L, & Jesunathadas, J. (1993, April). Preparing elementary teachers for effective

science teaching in diverse settings [Paper presentation]. The annual meeting of the

National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools.

Longman.

Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student

achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51–65.

Ross, J., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy:

Results of randomized field trial. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 50-

60.

Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment

to organizational values. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179-

199.

282

Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Gray, P. (2004). Prior student achievement,

collaborative school processes, and collective teacher efficacy. Leadership and

Policy in Schools, 3(3), 163-188.

Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1–28.

Rotter, J. B., & Mulry, R. C. (1965). Internal versus external control of reinforcement

and decision time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(4), 598-604.

Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in

task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61.

Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design (Vols. 1-3). Sage Publications.

Salloum, S. (2011). Collective efficacy, social context, teachers' work, and student

achievement: A mixed method study. [Doctoral dissertation, University of

Michigan]. Deep Blue. https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/89792

Sandoval, J., Challoo, L., & Kupczynski, L. (2011). The relationship between

teachers’ collective efficacy and student achievement at economically

disadvantaged middle school campuses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(1),

9–23.

Schechter, C., & Tschannen‐Moran, M. (2006). Teachers' sense of collective efficacy:

An international view. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6),

480-489. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540610683720

Schein, E. H. (2006). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). John Wiley &

Sons.

Schneider, B., & Lee, Y. (1990). A model for academic success: The school and home

environment of East Asian students. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 21(4),

358–377. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.1990.21.4.04x0596x

Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating

ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific,

https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/89792

https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540610683720

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1525/aeq.1990.21.4.04x0596x

283

interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 9–

16. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p9

Sederberg, C. H., & Clark, S. M. (1990). Motivational and organizational incentives

for high- vitality teachers: A qualitative perspective. Journal of Research and

Development in Education, 24(1), 6-13.

Seeman, M., & Evans, J. Y. (1962). Alienation and learning in a hospital setting.

American Sociological Review, 27(6), 772-783.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.

Currency Doubleday.

Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identities: The sources of collectivistic

work motivation. Human Relations, 43(4), 313-332.

Shaughnessy, M. F. (2004). An interview with Anita Woolfolk: The educational

psychology of teacher efficacy. Educational Psychology Review, 16(2), 153-175.

Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan

Management Review, 28, 25–31.

Short, S. E., Sullivan, P., & Feltz, D. L. (2005). Development and preliminary

validation of the collective efficacy questionnaire for sports. Measurement in

Physical Education and Exercise Science, 9(3), 181-202.

Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: The study of small losses. In B. M.

Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 231-266.

JAI Press.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and

relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher

burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611.

Skinner, B. F. (1967). B. F. Skinner (an autobiography). In E. G. Boring and G.

Lindsay (Eds.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. 5, pp. 387-413).

Appleton-Century-Crofus.

https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p9

284

Smith, P., & Hoy, W. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement in

urban elementary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(5), 556-568.

Spink, K. S. (1990). Group cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball

teams. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(3), 301-311.

Stacey, V. (2020, October 13). Int’l schools market sees continued expansion in 2020

– ISC Research. The Pie News. https://thepienews.com/news/intl-schools-

market-sees-continued-expansion-in-2020-isc-research/

Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S. Y., Chen, C., Stigler, J. W., Hsu, C. C., Kitamura, S., &

Hatano, G. (1990). Contexts of achievement: A study of American, Chinese, and

Japanese children. Monographs of the society for research in child development, i-119.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.

Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). School characteristics and educational

outcomes: Toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle

schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 703-729.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics: International

edition (6th edn.). Pearson.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Issues and dilemmas in teaching research

methods courses in social and behavioural sciences: US

perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(1), 61-77.

Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., & Teddlie, C. B. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining

qualitative and quantitative approaches (Vol. 46). Sage.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International

Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). The effects of a state-wide conflict management

initiative in schools. American Secondary Education, 29(3), 2–32.

https://thepienews.com/news/intl-schools-market-sees-continued-expansion-in-2020-isc-research/

https://thepienews.com/news/intl-schools-market-sees-continued-expansion-in-2020-isc-research/

https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

285

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.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive

construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher Efficacy: Its

Meaning and Measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202

Tschannen-Moran, M., Salloum, S., & Goddard, R. (2014). Context matters: The

influence of collective beliefs and shared norms. In H. Fives, & M. Gill,

International handbook for research on teachers' beliefs (pp. 301-316). Routledge.

Urton, K., Wilbert, J., & Hennemann, T. (2014). Attitudes towards inclusion and

self-efficacy of principals and teachers. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary

Journal, 12(2), 151–168.

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.

Voelkel Jr, R. H. (2011). A case study of the relationship between collective efficacy and

professional learning communities. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of California,

and California State University]. UC San Diego Electronic Theses and

Dissertations. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/71z7d7qw

Wang, T. (2015). Contrived collegiality versus genuine collegiality: Demystifying

professional learning communities in Chinese schools. Compare: A Journal of

Comparative and International Education, 45(6), 908-930.

Wang, M.C., Haertel, G.D., & Walberg, H.J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for

school learning. Review of Educational Research, 64, 249–294.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/71z7d7qw

286

Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as

predictors of professional commitment. The Journal of Educational

Research, 100(5), 303-310.

Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational

process. Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203-215.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 71, 3–25.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. Sage

Publications, Inc.

Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in schooling.

Harvard University Press.

Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. (1993). Group goals and group performance. British

Journal of Social Psychology, 32(4), 307-334.

Whyte, G. (1998). Recasting Janis's groupthink model: The key role of collective

efficacy in decision fiascos. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 73(2-3), 185-209.

Wilcox, K., Angelis, J., Baker, L., & Lawson, H. (2014). The value of people, place

and possibilities: A multiple case study of rural high school completion. Journal

of Research in Rural Education, 29(9), 1–18.

Willingham, C. C. (2019). The Role of the Principal in Promoting Teacher Collective

Efficacy Through Enabling School Structures: A Mixed Methods Study [Doctoral

dissertation, The University of Alabama]. ProQuest One Academic.

(2229635350).

Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and

beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.

287

Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers' sense of efficacy and

their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2), 137-

148.

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J.E.

Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and

application (pp. 305-328). Springer.

289

Appendices

Appendix A: Study One Survey

Project: To understand the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its relationship with school structures in the context of an international school in Shanghai.

You are invited to participate in our doctoral research project. The purpose of this investigation is to understand the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its relationship with school structures in the context of an international school in Shanghai.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There are no foreseeable risks associated with this project. This project will protect the identification of all participants. All information gathered will be de-identified and pseudonyms will be used for all responses in reports. If you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, you can withdraw from the survey at any point. It is very important for us to learn your opinions. You can download an information sheet that explains the study in more detail here, we are required by the University of Melbourne to include this in all our surveys. Please read the consent form, indicate your consent if you choose to do so, then continue on to our survey which will begin on the following page. This project has been given school level approval.

Consent Form

• I consent to the participation in this doctoral research project, the details of which have been explained to me, and I have been provided with a written plain language statement to keep.

• I acknowledge the purpose of this investigation is to is to understand the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its relationship with school structures in the context of an international school in Shanghai.

• I understand that my participation in this project is for research purposes only.

• I acknowledge that the possible effects of participating in this research project have been explained to my satisfaction.

• I understand, in this project I may be required to take part in the following:

• I will be invited to respond to an online survey which will examine the schools’ learning environment with a focus on the conditions that enable confidence in group-level abilities to organise and execute the course of action required to influence set outcomes. Responses to the survey is expected to take no more than 10 minutes.

290

• Following the online survey, I may volunteer to participate in a semi-structured interview of up to 60 minutes. Interviews will be scheduled during a three-week period at a convenient time with the class teacher and will not disrupt student instructional time. The researcher will ask me to share experiences regarding formal school structures, informal teacher networks, collective teacher efficacy beliefs and student learning within my international school. With my permission, the interview will be audio-recorded so that the researcher can ensure to make an accurate record of my responses. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from this project anytime without explanation or prejudice and to withdraw any unprocessed data that I have provided.

• I understand that the data from this research will be stored at the University of Melbourne for five years after the last publication or public release of information arising from the research. When that period of time has elapsed, data retention or disposal will be reviewed. Responsibility for oversight of data retention will be taken by the researchers.

• I have been informed that the confidentiality of the information I provide will be safeguarded subject to any legal requirements; my data will be password protected and accessible only by the named researchers.

I consent to participating in the Teacher Survey:

• Yes

• No Thank you very much for your time and support.

Section I: Teacher Demographics

▪ How would you rate your level of expertise? a. Graduate teacher b. Proficient teacher c. Highly accomplished teacher d. Lead teacher

▪ Please select: a. I am a host country teacher b. I am an expatriate teacher

▪ Which level do you teach?

▪ Gender a. M b. F

291

▪ Year of employment in this school a. 1-2 years b. 2-3 years c. 3-4 years d. 4-5 years e. 6 + years

Section II: Collective Teacher Efficacy

Please indicate your response to the following statements. Select the items that describe your opinion most appropriately. Indicate your responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

1 Strongly Disagree

2 Disagree

3 Slightly Disagree

4 Slightly Agree

5 Agree

6 Strongly Agree

1. Teachers in this school are confident they can motivate any student.

2. Teachers in this school do not give up, even if a child is resistant to learning.

3. Teachers will persist with adjusting instructional strategies if a child doesn’t learn the first time.

4. Teachers believe that every child can learn.

5. Teachers implement effective learning strategies (e.g. offer timely feedback, develop challenging and interesting course work, support students to meet high expectations and reward success).

6. Teachers in this school have what it takes to get the child to learn.

7. Students arrive to school ready to learn.

8. These students are strongly supported by their community and this helps to ensure learning.

9. There is a strong expectation for persistent effort and academic success.

10. Teachers hold high expectations that students participate in all learning tasks.

Section III: School Structures

Please indicate your response to the following statements. Select the items that describe your opinion most appropriately. Indicate your responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

1 Strongly Disagree

2 Disagree

3 Slightly Disagree

4 Slightly Agree

5 Agree

6 Strongly Agree

292

1. Administrative rules in this school enable honest communication between teachers and leadership.

2. Administrative rules enable rather than obstruct teaching and learning.

3. Administrative rules are guides to solving problems rather than rigid procedures.

4. Administrative rules in this school are used to discipline teachers.

5. In this school red tape keeps teachers from doing their job well.

6. Administrative rules in this school are substitutes for professional reasoning.

7. The administrative hierarchy of this school helps teachers to do their job.

8. The administrative hierarchy of this school promotes the mission of the school.

9. The administrators in this school use their governance to enable teachers to do their job.

10. The administrative hierarchy student achievement.

11. The administrative hierarchy of this school impedes innovation.

12. In this school the command of the principal is used to undermine teachers.

We value your input and would like to gather more insights from you. Please indicate if you would like to volunteer to participate in a semi-structured interview and share your experiences regarding the items in this survey:

A. Yes. Please provide contact email address: ____________

B. No

293

Appendix B: Study One Semi-Structured Interview

Project: To understand the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its relationship with school structures in the context of an international school in Shanghai.

(Allotted time: approximately 60 minutes)

You are invited to participate in our doctoral research project. The aim of this semi-structured interview is to understand the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its relationship with school structures in the context of an international school in Shanghai. Before the end of our session, I will ask you to provide some feedback on the survey items and this semi-structured interview.

With your permission, this semi-structured interview will be audio recorded. In order to ensure confidentiality, please do not mention this school and faculty members by name.

Questions

▪ Demographics: ▪ Teacher

▪ How would you rate your level of expertise? ▪ How long have you been an expatriate teacher? ▪ Which level do you teach?

▪ Collective Teacher Efficacy:

▪ Teacher CTE conceptual knowledge ▪ Do you know what Collective Teacher Efficacy is? ▪ In your opinion does this exist amongst your team? Can you give me

an example?

▪ Confidence in capabilities: ▪ How confident are you that teachers in this school make an impact

on student learning? Can you give me some examples? ▪ What do you think influences student achievement? ▪ What do you do when you realize a child hasn’t made the necessary

growth in learning? Explain. ▪ Do teachers in this school have what it takes to get all children to

learn? Explain. ▪ How does the staff work together to seek knowledge, skills and

strategies and apply this new learning to their work?

294

▪ Do you feel confident to take risks and try different instructional strategies? How so?

▪ How does the staff review student work, to share and improve instructional practices?

▪ How do individual teams apply learning and share results of their practices?

▪ Student academic discipline:

▪ In your opinion, is there a strong expectation for academic success? ▪ What does this look like amongst staff, parents and students?

▪ School structures:

▪ Coercive/enabling formalizations: ▪ How much time is provided to facilitate collaborative work on

instructional strategies and analysis of student learning? ▪ Please explain how the administrative rules of the school impact

communication between teachers and administrators ▪ Enabling/hindering centralizations:

▪ How would you describe administrator’s ability to include teachers in sharing power, authority, and decision making?

▪ How are teachers involved in creating high expectations that serve to increase student achievement?

▪ Please explain how the administrative hierarchy of this school impacts teachers to do their job?

295

Appendix C: Study Two Survey

Project: To understand the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its relationship with school structures in the context of international schools in Shanghai.

You are invited to participate in our doctoral research project. The purpose of this investigation is to understand the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its relationship with school structures in the context of international schools in Shanghai.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There are no foreseeable risks associated with this project. This project will protect the identification of all participants. All information gathered will be de-identified and pseudonyms will be used for all responses in reports. If you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, you can withdraw from the survey at any point. It is very important for us to learn your opinions. You can download an information sheet that explains the study in more detail here, we are required by the University of Melbourne to include this in all our surveys. Please read the consent form, indicate your consent if you choose to do so, then continue on to our survey which will begin on the following page. This project has been given school level approval.

Consent Form

• I consent to the participation in this doctoral research project, the details of which have been explained to me, and I have been provided with a written plain language statement to keep.

• I acknowledge the purpose of this investigation is to is to understand the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its relationship with school structures in the context of international schools in Shanghai.

• I understand that my participation in this project is for research purposes only.

• I acknowledge that the possible effects of participating in this research project have been explained to my satisfaction.

• I understand, in this project I may be required to take part in the following:

• I will be invited to respond to an online survey which will examine the schools’ learning environment with a focus on the conditions that enable confidence in group-level abilities to organise and execute the course of action required to influence set outcomes. Responses to the survey is expected to take no more than 10 minutes.

• Following the online survey, I may volunteer to participate in a semi-structured interview of up to 60 minutes. Interviews will be scheduled during a three-week period at a convenient time with the class teacher and

296

will not disrupt student instructional time. The researcher will ask me to share experiences regarding formal school structures, informal teacher networks, collective teacher efficacy beliefs and student learning within my international school. With my permission, the interview will be audio-recorded so that the researcher can ensure to make an accurate record of my responses. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from this project anytime without explanation or prejudice and to withdraw any unprocessed data that I have provided.

• I understand that the data from this research will be stored at the University of Melbourne for five years after the last publication or public release of information arising from the research. When that period of time has elapsed, data retention or disposal will be reviewed. Responsibility for oversight of data retention will be taken by the researchers.

• I have been informed that the confidentiality of the information I provide will be safeguarded subject to any legal requirements; my data will be password protected and accessible only by the named researchers.

I consent to participating in the Teacher Survey:

• Yes

• No Thank you very much for your time and support.

Section I: Teacher Demographics

▪ How would you rate your level of expertise? a. Graduate teacher b. Proficient teacher c. Highly accomplished teacher d. Lead teacher

▪ Please select: a. I am a host country teacher b. I am an expatriate teacher

▪ Which level do you teach?

▪ Gender a. M b. F

▪ Year of employment in this school a. 1-2 years

297

b. 2-3 years c. 3-4 years d. 4-5 years f. 6 + years

Section II: Collective Teacher Efficacy

Teaching capability and task analysis

Please indicate your response to the following statements. Select the items that describe your opinion most appropriately. Indicate your responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

1 Strongly Disagree

2 Disagree

3 Slightly Disagree

4 Slightly Agree

5 Agree

6 Strongly Agree

Items

1. Teachers in this school do not give up, even if a child is resistant to learning.

2. Teachers believe that every child can learn.

3. Teachers implement effective learning strategies (e.g. offer timely feedback, develop challenging and interesting course work, support students to meet high expectations and reward success).

4. These students are strongly supported by their community and this helps to ensure learning.

Coordination of Group Dynamics

Please indicate your response to the following statements. Select the items that describe your opinions most appropriately. Indicate your responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

1 Strongly Disagree

2 Disagree

3 Slightly Disagree

4 Slightly Agree

5 Agree

6 Strongly Agree

Teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to…

Items

1. Achieve group goals.

2. Skillfully perform planned tasks.

3. Work effectively together.

4. Resolve conflicts.

5. Keep a positive attitude.

298

6. Maintain effective communication.

7. Talk about how to use and share materials.

Interactive Group Dynamics


1 Strongly Disagree

2 Disagree

3 Slightly Disagree

4 Slightly Agree

5 Agree

6 Strongly Agree

Teachers in my grade/subject level have confidence in their ability to…

Items

1. Demonstrate a strong work ethic.

2. Work to overcome distractions.

3. Show enthusiasm.

4. Perform under pressure.

5. Persist when obstacles are present.

6. Work hard even when it seems like your team isn’t getting any breaks.

7. Be prepared for every meeting.

8. Devise successful strategies.

9. Be mentally present for every meeting.

Section III: Team Cohesion


1 Strongly Disagree

2 Disagree

3 Slightly Disagree

4 Slightly Agree

5 Agree

6 Strongly Agree

Items

1. Our team is united in trying to attain goals.

2. I’m unhappy with my team’s degree of commitment to tasks.

3. Our team members have inconsistent aspirations for the team’s performance.

4. This team does not give me sufficient opportunities to improve my personal performance.

299

5. Our team would like to spend time together after work hours.

6. Members of our team do not socialize together outside of work.

7. Our team members rarely socialise together.

8. Members of our team would rather socialise on their own than together.

9. For me, this team is an important social group to which I belong.

10. Some of my closest friends are in this team.

Section IV: School Structures

Please indicate your response to the following statements. Select the items that describe your opinion most appropriately. Indicate your responses ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

1 Strongly Disagree

2 Disagree

3 Slightly Disagree

4 Slightly Agree

5 Agree

6 Strongly Agree

Items

1. Administrative rules in this school enable honest communication between teachers and leadership.

2. Administrative rules enable rather than obstruct teaching and learning.

3. Administrative rules are guides to solving problems rather than rigid procedures.

4. In this school red tape keeps teachers from doing their job well.

5. Administrative rules in this school are substitutes for professional reasoning.

6. The administrative hierarchy of this school helps teachers to do their job.

7. The administrative hierarchy of this school promotes the mission of the school.

8. The administrators in this school use their governance to enable teachers to do their job.

9. The administrative hierarchy obstructs student learning.

10. The administrative hierarchy of this school impedes innovation.

11. In this school the command of the principal is used to undermine teachers.

We value your input and would like to gather more insights from you.

Please indicate if you would like to volunteer to participate in a semi-structured interview and share your experiences regarding the items in this survey:

A. Yes. Please provide contact email address: ____________

B. No

301

Appendix D: Study Two Semi-Structured Interview

Questions

Project: To understand the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its relationship with school structures in the context of international schools in Shanghai.

(Allotted time: approximately 60 minutes)

You are invited to participate in our doctoral research project. The aim of this semi-structured interview is to understand the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its relationship with school structures in the context of international schools in Shanghai.

With your permission, this semi-structured interview will be audio recorded. In order to ensure confidentiality, please do not mention this school and faculty members by name.

Questions:

▪ Demographics: ▪ Teacher

▪ How long have you been an expatriate teacher? ▪ Which level/subject do you teach? ▪ How long have you worked in this school?

▪ Collective Teacher Efficacy: ▪ Teacher CTE conceptual knowledge

▪ What do you know about Collective Teacher Efficacy? ▪ Definition: ‘Collective teacher efficacy (CTE) is a groups’ shared belief

in the conjoint ability to organise and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment’

▪ Can you relate to this definition of CTE in this setting? How? ▪ Teachers’ perception of community:

▪ Can you describe the student demographics of your school? Background and educational values?

▪ What are the characteristics of the school that influences CTE? ▪ What are the characteristics of the teachers that influence CTE? ▪ What are the characteristics of the students that influence CTE? ▪ What are the characteristics of the families that influence CTE? ▪ Is this community safe? Any drug or alcohol abuse? ▪ How do family educational values influence students/the school?

302

▪ What might influence the academic orientation of the school? ▪ What things do you think influences student achievement? ▪ What role does the school play in influencing student academic

achievement? ▪ What role do teachers play in influencing academic achievement? ▪ What role do parent/families play in influencing student

achievement?

▪ Group Competence: ▪ What might influence student motivation? ▪ How do you know teachers/admin are competent and effective? ▪ In this setting, do you believe there is a lot the school can do to

produce high student achievement? ▪ Group Task Analysis:

▪ How do the school facilities support instructional activities? ▪ In your opinion, is there a strong expectation for academic success in

this school? How does this influence the work of teaching? ▪ Team Cohesion:

▪ Social Cohesion: ▪ Tell me about the social expatriate life? What social communities

are you part of? ▪ Task Cohesion:

▪ Tell me about your team cohesion? ▪ How does the expatriate social life and work life play out? ▪ We found that Team Cohesion isn’t a predictor of CTE (which is

your group shared belief in their combined ability to achieve goals), What do you think this means?

▪ We also found that social cohesion impacts your task cohesion, what do you think this means?

▪ What is your team currently working on in your practise? How is your team working to improve?

▪ How does your team evaluate their collective impact? ▪ Coordination of Group Dynamics:

▪ What’s required to work effectively as a team? ▪ Do you experience this with your current team? ▪ How much do you rely on your team members? ▪ Can you achieve as much success without the members of your

team? ▪ How does the transiency of staff affect your work? ▪ How often do you discuss planning, instructional strategies and

pedagogical beliefs?

303

▪ What do you do when you meet together? What’s the purpose of meetings? How is this articulated? What do you do with student data? How often do you observe one another?

▪ Do these meetings extend teacher capabilities? ▪ Interactive Group Dynamics:

▪ How do members of your team demonstrate their commitment to group goals?

▪ What pressure does the team experience and how do members react? ▪ What sort of preparation is required before group meetings?

▪ School structures: ▪ Please explain how leadership supports your team? ▪ What do you need from your leaders/school structures?

Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne

Author/s:Blatti, Tania

Title:Understanding the nature of teachers’ collective efficacy and its relationship with schoolstructures in the context of international schools in Shanghai

Date:2021

Persistent Link:http://hdl.handle.net/11343/297560

Terms and Conditions:Terms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in Minerva Access is retained by thecopyright owner. The work may not be altered without permission from the copyright owner.Readers may only download, print and save electronic copies of whole works for their ownpersonal non-commercial use. Any use that exceeds these limits requires permission fromthe copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from these works.

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/297560

Understanding the nature of teachers' collective efficacy and ...

Documents

Transcript of Understanding the nature of teachers' collective efficacy and ...