DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 231 834 SP 022 819

AUTHOR Ashton, Patricia T.; And Others -
TITLE A Study of Teachers' Sense of Efficacy. Final Report,
Volume I.
INSTITUTION Florida Univ., Gainesville.
SPONS AGENCY National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.
PUB DATE [82]
CONTRACT 400-79-0075
NOTE 367p.; For related documents, see SP 022'818-820.
PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (.143) -- Information
Analyses (070)

IMRS PRICE MF01/PC15 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; Basic Skills; *Classroom
Environment; Classroom Research; Elementary Secondary
Education; Middle Schools; Secondary School Teachers;
Self Concept; *Self Evaluation (Individuals); Student
Behavior; Student Teacher Relationship; *Teacher
Attitudes; *Teacher Behavior; *Teacher Effectiveness;
Teacher Influence; Teaching Conditions
IDENTIFIERS *Teacher Efficacy Study.
a
ABSTRACT
This document reports on the Teacher Efficacy Study,
an investigation of teachers' sense of efficacy and the extent to
which teachers believe that they can have a positive effect on
student learning and achievement. Chapters discuss: (1) overview of
the Teacher Efficacy Study; ;(2) the conceptual framework used for the
investigation; (3) the Teacher Efficacy Study at the middle school
level, investigating school organization; (4) measurement of
teachers' sense of efficacy; (5) a process-product study of teachers'
sense of efficacy; (6) strategies for improving teachers' 'sense of
efficacy; (7) éfificacy and the teacher's analysis of efficacy and
teacher roles; (8) efficacy, uncertainty, and status panic; (9) a
qualitative study of efficacy; and (10) the teaching profession, its
risks, and implications for the future. Eight figures and 55 tables
accompany the text as does an extensive bibliography. (Ca)

***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS arelthe beft that can be made
from the original document.
*****************************************************************i*****
 A STUDY OF TEACHERS' SENSE OF EFFICACY

FINAL REPORT
VOLUME I

PATRICIA T. ASHTON

RODMAN B. WEBB

NANCY DODA

FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

U.S. DEPAIRTMENT OF EDUCATION .,

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EOUCATION
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
Tins document has been reproduced as
recemed from the person or organimuon
ogginahng it
L/Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction quality.

Points of vrew o ommo .s staled in tfus docu

ment do not necessarily represent officnINIE p-
posilion Of Poky

The work upon which this report is based was performed pursuant to
Contract No. 400-79-0075 of the National Institute of Education. It
does not, however, necessarily reflect the views of that agency.

9
 Preface

The Teacher Efficacy Study was initiated on the basis of two Rand
Corporation evaluation gtudies that reported a significant relationship
between teachers' sense of efficacy, that is, the extent to which teachers
believe they can have a positive., effect on student learning, and student
achievement. The purposes of our teacher efficacy research were (1)
to develop a conceptual framework for -understanding the nature,
antecedents,gend'Onsequences of efficacy attitudes in teachers, and
(2) to suggest further research necessary to reject, elaborate, and/or
extend the conceptual framework. More specifically, our objectives
were to clarify the hature of the efficacy construct by investigating
(1) factors that facilitate and inhibit development of a sense of
efficacy in-teachers, (2) teacher behaviors that are indicative of a
sense of efficacy,,.(3) effects of teachers' sense of efficary clam,
students, other teachers, and other aspects of the school envirdWnt,
and (4) methods of influenc-ing the development of teachers' sense of
efficacy. Major characteristics of the Teacher Efficacy Study included
(1) a multidisciplinary approach, (2) a comparative field study of the
effects of different organizational structures of schools on efficacy,
(3) a process-product study of teacher efficacy, teacher and student
behavior, and student achievement, and (4) the evaluation of a small-
scale attempt to influence sense of efficacy.

The multidisciplinary approach to the study of efficacy was central

to our study. In developing the preliminary conceptulA framework, we
examined the research literature in a number_of relatid fields,
including personality theory, industrial psychology, organizational
sociology, sociology of occupations and schools, and educational
anthropology. At various stages of the project, ge also consulted
an advisory group that included educational [Link]
sociologists, social psychologists, an anthropologist, a school
organizational theorist, teacher effectiveness researchers, and classroom
teachers.

A preliminary conceptual frameWork based on the literature review

and advice of the advisory group was used to guide the design of the
first phase of data collection in the spring of 1980. The basic
procedures guiding this phase of data collection were derived from
Glaser and Strauss's (1967) description of the discovery of grounded
theory; specifically, the collection, coding, and analysis of data
werecarried out together to maximize the possibility of generating
theory. During the preliminary data collection phase, 49 teachers
at two organizationally differeict middle schools responded to
a questionnaire that probed [Link] about teaching and the
influenCes of the school organization upon their efficacy attitudes,
and four teachers, two with high efficacy attitudes and two with low
efficacy attitudes, were observed five times as they taught two of
their classes and were interviewed regarding the frustrations and
rewards of teaching.
 F.

The second phase of the Teacher Efficacy Study was based on the
results of our middle school research and consisted of (1) a process-
product study of 48 high school basic skills teachers, (2) interviews
with the basic skills teachers in which we explored their efficacy
attitudes, and (3) a pilot study comparison of three approaches to
increase teacher efficacw: Findings from the two phases of data
collection were used to refine the conceptual framework and to generate
suggestions for further research.

The results of the Teacher"Efficacy Study indicate that teachers

differ in their efficacy attitudes, and these differences are-reflected
in teacher behaviors and students' perform4nce. (ha- results also
demonstrate 'that efficacy attitudes are elusive and changing. They .
are susceptible to many interattive influences, including personal,
student, organizAional, political, economic, collegial, and adminis-
trative influences. Future research efforts to improve teachers' sense
of efficacy require an ecological perspective that takes into account
the complex interactive relationships between teacher efficacy and the
school environment. Four contexts that are particularly relevant for
the design of researdh to enhance teacher efficacy include teacher
seducation programs, beginning teacher sociilizatidn practices, school
'organization, and parent-teacher relations.

Our interviews with teachers revealed that feelings of efficacy

are difficult to maintain in the current context of teaching. ,Un-
certainty, isolation, and a sense of powerlessness threaten teachers'
sense professional self-esteem, and the lack of adequate economic
rew ds and societal recognition increase teachers' feeling tf self-
doubt. Future nesearch should address these problems. We believe
that teacher efficacy offers educators and researchers a powerful
organizing construct for directing future research and educational
improvement. We have found that teacher efficacy is of significant
[Link] in understanding teachers' definitions of their role, their
attitudes foward their work, and their interactions with students.
As a consequence, we believe that teacher [Link] promise as a
useful indicator for guiding and evaluating school-wide improvements
and classroom improvements,.and most important, we believe that
developing teachers' sense of efficacy is critical for attaining the
goal of equal educational opportunity.

We would like to express our appreciation to the individuals

whose valuable assistance enabled us to complete this project. Our
consultants, Dan Lortie and Ray Rist, gave important guidance in the
initial conceptualization of this study. We wish to express a special
thanks to Richard deCharms who lit the spark sixteen years ago that
motivated the obsession with the notion of personal efficacy that
culminated in this study and who provided us with an invaluable model
for judging our research 'efficacy.' We are indebted to Virginia
Koehler, our Project Direct& at the National Institute of Education,
for her support and encourageffient, ind to Michael Cohen, also of NIE,
for his special insights into the ecology of teaching.
 '.We are'grateful to Mel Lucas and Gayle McLaurin of the Alachua
County School District for providing us witkthe student achievement,
data and to Stephen Olejnik, Marilyn McAuliffe, Linda Crocker, and
Dianne Buhr for their technical assistance in data analysis and for
their ideas for measuring teacher efficacy.

We are especially grateful to Robert and Ruth Soar for their

inestimable contribution to the study through their ever-patient
training of our observers and their meticulous analysis of the
process-product data. We wish to thank our observers, Patricia
Birkett, Tess Bennett, Marty Peters, Barbara Rubin, and Pam Vetro,
fdr their persistence in learning a complicated system qf interaction
analysis and meeting a rigorous schedule of observations.

We would like to acknowledge Tom Good and Douglas Grouws for

sharing their workshop materials with us.

Robert Sherman, our departmenechairman, gave us the support

.without which this project would have been impossible.

Elise Webb helped code and interpret ethnographic data and

took over many asks, academic and domestic, that freed others
t6 concentrate on this research. The present acknowledgment is
no reccmpense but stands as an IOU taken in public.

We owe a special debi of gratitude to our student assistants,

Zulal Balpinar, Linda DerHaag, and Wendy Elliott, for their
patience and persistence ,in transcribing endless audiotapes,
typing manuscripts, and for their courage in enduring the trauma
of mastering the computer., Elsie(VOsS's contribution to our work
on this and other projects is inestimable and deeply appreciated.

,Finally and most importantly, we wish fo thank the principals,

teachers, and students who welcomed our intrusions into their busy
live§ and gave generously [Link] time and ideas to help us better
understand the frustrations and rewards of teaching.

.0
 Table of Contents
14)

Page

List of Tables
List of Figures

1. Overview of the Teacher Efficacy Study 1

Introduction 1

The,Need for an Ecological Perspective

Context of Phase 1 Data Collection 7
Contegt of Phase 2 Data Collection , 9
Overview of the Report 9

2. The Conceptual Framework for the Study of Teachers'

Sense of Efficacy 11
Teachers' Sense of Efficacy: A Multi-dimensional
Construct 11
Teachers' Sense of Efficacy and Student Achievement . . ,15
An Ecological Perspective on Teachers' Sense of
Efficacy . 17
Conclusion 24

3. The Middle School Teacher Efficacy Study 25

Introduction 25
School Organization [Link]: The Open-Ended
Questions 27
The Effective Situation 28
The Ineffective Situation 28
Factors Contributing to Teacher Efficacy 31
Factors Contributing to Teacher Inefficacy 31
Facilitators and Inhibitors of Efficacy 31
Teacher Role Perceptions 37
Summary and Implications for Teachers' Sense"
of Efficady 39
Teacher Stress 42

School Organization and Efficacy: The Fixed-.

Alternative Questions 46
School Climate and Teachers' Sense of Efficacy. . . 46
Job Satisfaction and Teachers' Sense of Efficacy. 47
Results 49
Discussion 53

School Organization and Teachers' Sense of Efficacy:

A Microethnography 58
Introduction 58
Methodology 58
Results 61
Teacher Relationships 71
Conclusion 89

ee
4. Measurement of Teachers' Sense of Efficacy . . ... :
. 90
Introduction 90
Teaching Efficacy and Personal Teaching Efficady:
Conceptually Distinct Dimensions 94
Alternative Approaches to Measurement of Efficacy . . . 94
Conclusion 105

5. A Process-Product Study of Teachers' 'Sense of Efficacy . . 106

Introduction 106
Subjects 106
Process-Product Measures 106
Observational Data Collection Procedures 108
. Analysis of Process-Product Measures ' 108
Definitions for Categories Used on Engagement Rate Form 109
An Empirical,Search for Behavioral Correlates of
Teachers',Sense of Efficacy 135
Conclusion 137,
, 0 4,
a
6. Strategies for Improving Teachers' Sense [Link] ., . . 139
Subjects 140
Procedures -140
Results A 141
Discussion 141

7. Efficacy and the Teacher's Role: An Analysis of

Ethnographic Interview Data 145
Introduction 145
Role Analysis 148
Methodology 149
The Context of Teaching: Isolation and Doubt ,151
Teacher Role Expectations 156
[Link] Expectations Checklist 162
Peer Pressure: Tales Told Around the School 163
Vulnerability and Impression Management: 'Talking
a Good(Game 172
Teaching Poverty Students 178
Summary 191

8. Efficacy, Uncertainty, and Status Panic 195

Introduction 195
Status Awareness 196
Status Panic and Teacher Isolation 207
Uncertainty, Isolation and Alienation 222

'9. A Qualitative Study,of Efffcacy 225

Introduction 225
On the Significance of Context: An Introduction
to Theory 234
The Core Variable: Maintaining Professional Self-Esteem 238
Three Domains of Teaching 242
Defining the Situation and Achieving Self-Respect. . . 245
Classr9om Management 250
Instruction 279
Student-Teacher Relationships 301
Summary 304
411k
 a

10. Teachers: Professionals at Risk 306

Recommendations for Research to Increase Teacher Efficacy . 306
Transforming Experiments 306
Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Education
Organizational Approaches to Increasing Teacher EffiCacy . 1214
Teacher Efficacy .and Educational Bureaucracy and the
Illusion,of Professional Autonomy 327
Teacher Efficacy and Parent-Teacher Relations 331
Conclusion 334

References 335

c.

/I
 S.

List of Tables

'Pages

1. Frequency and Percentage 60 Teachers Attributions of Success

and Failure to Self, Student, and to Self and Student JointW

2. Efficacy Situatitms 29

3. Inefficacy Situations 30 4

4. Factors Contributing to Teacher Efficacy 32

5. Factors Contributing to Teacher Inefficacy 33

6. Facilitators of Efficacy 35
*.
7. Inhibitors of Efficacy .'"-\ 36

8.4 Teacher Role Perceptioa Categories 38'

9. Teacher Stressors '44

0 .
10. Teacher Coping Strategies 45

11. School Means and Standard Deviation for Questionnaire Data. . . 50

12. Chi-Square-Tests of School Differences 51

13. Wilcoxin Tests of School Differences . 0

5?
14. Distribution of Efficacy Responses 6,School . 52
t.
15. Teachers' Attribution of Responsibflity for Failure 54
0 -

7 16. Chi-Square Tests of Relation between Efficacy (Item 1) and

. other Teacher Attitudes 55' 2
17. Chi-Square Tests of Relation between Efficacy (Item 2) and
Other Teacher Attitudes 56

18. Schedule of Observations 59

19. Distrfbution of Responses by School on Two-Item Rand

EfficacyScale . .
91

20. Correlation of Rand Efficacy 1 with Rand Efficacy 2 in

Samples 95
 4 List of Tables (Cont'd) Pages

21. Webb Efficacy Items 0Miited by Teachers 97

22. correlations of Webb Efficacy IteMs with Rand Efficacy

[Link] 2 98

23. Correlations of Efficacy Vignette Items with Rand

Efficacy 1 and 2 100

24. Intercorrelation Matrix for Sense of Control Scales . . . . .104

25. Definitions for Categories Used on Engagement Rate Form . - 109

26. Item Correlations with Soars' Classroom Envfronment for

Learhing Paradigm Factor Scores--Emotional Climate 112

27. Item Correlations with Soars' Classroom Environment

for Learning Paradigm Factor Scores--Management Behavior . . 114

28: Item Correlations with Soars' Classroom tnvironment

for Learning Paradigm Factor ScoiTs--Management of
Learning Tasks 116

29. rItem Correlations with Soars Classroom Environment for

Learning Paradigm Factor Scores--Management of Thinking . . .117'

O. Intraclass Correlation Estimates of Reliability of Classroom -

Process Factor Measures 119

31. Metropolitan Mathematics Means for Basic Skil)s

Mathematics Classes 120

32. Metropolitan Language-test Means for Basic Skills

Communication Classes 121

33. Metmpolitan Reading Test Means for Basic Skills Communi-

cation Classes 122

34. Means and Standard Deviations for Normalized Teacher

Attitude, Classroom Procdss Variables and Metropolitan
Mathematics Achievement Test Scores for Basic Skills
-Mathematics Classrooms 123

35. Partial [Link] Teacher Attitude and Classroom

Process Variables and Student Metropolitan Mathematics
Achievement 124
36. Multiple Regression Analysis of 1981 Metropolitan
Mathematics Test Achievement . . 126

z0
 r

List of Tables (Cont''d) Pages

37. Means and Standard Deviations for Normalized Teather

Attieude, Classroom Process Variables, and Meiropolitan
Reading and Language Achievement Test Scores for Basic
Skill's Communication Teachers . .
127'

38. Partial Correlations of Teacher Attitude and Oassroom,

Process Variables and-Student Metropolitan Language
Achtevement 128
39. Mulpple Regression Analysis of 1981 Metropolitan
Language Achievement Test 129

40. Partial Correlations of Teadher Attitude' and Classroom

Process Variables and Situdent Reading Achievement 131
Av .
41. Means and Standaki Deviations of Teacher Attitudes and
Classroom Process Variables , 132.
l ,

42. Correlations between Teacher Attitude& and Behaviors

Based on a Paradigm [Link] [Link]
/ .

Learning. .
133
. .
,

43. Correlations of Ran Efficacy 1 with Classroom Process

Variables 135
.

44. Correlationt of Ran -Efficacy 2 with Classroom Process

Vartahles 137 ,
4

45.
. Meart-and Standard Deviations of the Climate and Control
,
System Student Attention Rating 142

4'1 46. Racial Composition and Percentage of Poverty Students

in Participating Schools 147

47. Distribution of Responses by Sdhool on Two,-ItemRand

Efficacy Scale 180
48. Number of High and Low Efficacy Teachers Interviewed
by Grade Level . . .
181 -

49. Average Starting Salaries of Public School Teachers Compared

with SalTtles in rdvate Industry, 1978-1979 198

50. Trends in Earninbs, Selected Occupations, 196771978

1
206

51.- Salaries of Glass-room-Teachers in Regular Public

Elementary/Secondary Schools 202

52. Job Satisfaction: Opinions of Public School Teachers . . . 206

i
tA
1
 List of Tables (Cont'd) Pages

53. Earned Bachelor's Degrees in Education 208

54. Scholastic Aptitude Test (.SAT) Score Average for

College-Bound Seniors 209

55. Attitudes toward the Teaching Profession: Opinions of

Public School,Teachers 210

iv
 List of Figures

Pages

1. Elements of the Multi-Method, Multi-Person,

Multi-Situation, and Multi-Variable Matrix
(modified from Smith, 1978) 8

2. Teacher's Sense of Efficacy: The Multi-Dimensional

Construct 12

3. Comparison of Motivational, Cognitive and

Affective Outcomes of Low Sense of Efficacy 14

4. Teachers' Sense of Efficacy: The Critical

Construct in a Motivational Model of
Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement 16

5. Teachers' Senseot Efficacy: The Measurement

Model 93

6. A P3radigm of the Environment for Learning 110

7. Teacher Efficacy Perceptions. . , . . . 225

8. Teacher Efficacy Perceptions and

Teacher EffectivenesS 227

V
 Chapter 1

Overview of the Teacher Efficacy Study

Introduction

Several resarchIstudies (Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, McPartland,

Mood, Weinfeld, and York, 1966; Jencks; Smith, Aclund, Bane, Cohen
Gintis, Heyns, and Michelson, 1972) have questioned the effect of
teachers on achievement. The doubts raised by these studies in
combination with a public loss of confidence in the competence of
teachers-have had a serious demoralizing effect on teachers' sense of
professional self worth. This demoralization is reflected in the
significant decline in teacheri' satisfaction vIth teaching as a
profession. The 1981 National Education Association's Status of the
American Public School Teacher Survey (NEA, 1981) indicated that less
than 22 percent of the teachers questioned replied that they certainly
would become a teacher if they could start over again, a drop of about
30 percentage points since 1966.

Receni,research suggesting that teacher attitudes can have a

significant impact on student achievement (Armor, Conry-Osquera, Cox,
Kin, McDonnel, Pascal, Pauly, and Zellman, 1976;,Berman, McLaughlin,
Bass, Pauly and,Zellman, 1977) and even on students' adult status
(Pedersen, Faucher, & Eaton, 1978) offers badly deeded support to
teachers' declining sense of self-worth. In the past, research efforts
to identify specific teacher attitudes have been, for the most part,
discouraging (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974; Getzels & Jackson, 1963). Jbus, the
two Rand Corporation evaluation studies conducted by Armor and Berman and
their colleagues indicating that teachers' sense of efficacy is a factor
related to student achievement represent a significant breakthrough in
terms of the insight they provide on the specific nature of teacher
attitudes likely to influence student achievetent.

The construct of teachers' sense of efficacy is defined as "the

extent to which the teacher believes he or she has the capacity to
produce an effect on the learning of studenteand was derived from
Rotter's (1966) social learning theory (Armor et al., 1976, p. 23). In
both Rand studies, teacher sense of efficacy was measured by the total
score obtained from two Likert scale items:

1. When it-comesright-down to it, d teacher really can't do

much because most of a student's motivation and performance
depends on his or her home environment.

1) Strongly 2) Agree 3) Neither agree 4) Disagree 5)Strongly

agree nor disagree, disagree

14
 2. If I really trY hard, I can get through to even the most
difficult or unmotivated students.

1) Strongly 2) Agree 3) Neither agree 4) Disagree 5) Strongly

agree nor disagree disagree

(Berman et al., 1977, pp. 159-160)

The importance that the Rand studies attribute to teachers' sense of

efficacy and the current dissatisfaction and disillusion with the brofession
experienced by many teachers emphasize the critical need to understandbthe
processes that influence the development of teacher efficacy. The purpose
of the Teacher Efficacy Study reported in this volume was to develop a
conceptual framework for future research of the relationship between
teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. Specifically,'we
sought to clarify the nature of the sense of efficacy construct, by
investigating (1) various methods for measuring teachers'.sense of efficacy,
(2) factors thatfacilitate and inhibit development of a sense of efficacy
in teachers, (3) teacher behaviors that are indicative of a sense of
efficacy, (4) the relationship of teachers' sense of efficacy to student
behavior and achievement, and (5) methods of influencing the development
of teacher efficacy. '

The Need for an Ecological Perspective

While the focus of this study was a single teacher characteristic --

sense of efficacy -- its nature, antecedents and consequences, and its
role in student achievement--the assumptions guiding this study depart
significantly from traditional approaches to the study of teacher effective-
ness. Traditional research in teaching has focused on the teacher as the
central, controlling figure in classroom interaction and 'has utilized
a simple, cause-effect model for analyzing the effect of teacher attitudes
and behavior on student achievement. The view of the teacher as an
independent determinant of students' classroom behavior and learning
grossly over'simplifies the complex reality of life [Link] (Carew &
Lightfoot, 1979). Students exert a powerful influence on teacher
behavior (Brophy & Good, 1974; Cohen, 1972; Cooper, 1979; Yarrow, Waxler &
Scott, 1971). Indirect effects of home, community and culture assume an
important role in life in classrooms, as do the specific contextual effects
of the organization of instruction and the nature of the school (Bossert,
1979; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Doyle, 1978). Thus, an adequate description
of the relationship between teachers' sense of efficacy, and student
achievement in classrooms requires a perspective that can accommodate
the many reciprocal and indirect influences impinging on teachers and
students. To capture the complex reality influencing the teacher in ,the
classroom, we adopted the ecological orientation recommended,by Bronfen-
brenner (1976; 1977; 1979). Research based on an ecological perspective
must incorporate (1) a concern for contextual effects, (2) investigation
of indirect and reciprocal effects, and (3) consideration of the
subjective experiences of the research participants (Bronfenbrenner, 1976).
Each of these requirements will be examined in terms of their importance.
in understanding teachers' sense of efficacy.

2,
 The Context of Teaching

The specific teaching context has often been cited as an important

determinant of teaching behavior. Many contextual characteristics,
including the siZe of the class (Glass & Smith, 1979), characteristics,
of students (Brophy & Evertson, 1981; Good & Grouws, 1977), the subject
matter (McDonald & Elias, 1976) and the activity structure of the
lessons (Bossert, 1979), have been demonstrated to influence teachers'
classroom behavior. Similarly, teachers' sense of efficacy is likely to
be influenced significantly as a result of the context in which the
teacher works.

A variety of studies provide insight into the situational and

contextual features that are likely to influence teachers' sense of
efficacy. The situationally,specific nature of teacher efficacy and its
susceptibility to subtle classroom variables were suggested in a clever
study by Cooper, Burger & Seymour (1979). The -.three major factors
identified as having causal influences on the teacher's classroom control
perceptions and success-expectancies for .a specific instructional inter-
action: the initiator of the interaction (teacher or pupil), the inter-
action setting (public or private), and the performance expectations for
the student (high or low). Three kinds of teacher control were considered:
control over timing, control over content, and control over duration.
Results indicated that high-ability students were perceived as more
controllable than low-ability students; teacher-initiated interactions
were perceived as providing more control than student-initiated inter-
actions; and the setting had effects'on perceived control of interaction
duration. Interactions with high-ability students were seen as more
likely to lead to successful outcomes than interactions with low-ability
" students. Another example of contextual effects on efficacy was provided
by Metz (1978) in her comparative study of two junior high schools. Metz
concluded that when student behavior is visibly disruptive in a total
school, teachers are less likely to see their problems in teaching as
solely due to their own personal, inadequacies, while in a school in which
students are basically orderly, teachers are more likely to see themselves
as responsible for classroom management problems. Since other teachers'
classrooms are orderly, the disorder in their classrooms must be due to
their personal shortcomings as teachers. These teachers would be less
likely to admit difficulties or seek help, because they would have to
admit their incompetence relative to other teachers in the school. Metz
suggested that school differences in observable disorder lead the teacher
to seek different approaches to dealing with the problem of management.
Teachers in schools with visible order problems are more likely to seek
solutions in major school changes, through re-evaluation of school goals
and relationships, while the teachers who perceive themselves as
individually responsible for their classroom management difficulties
will seek solutions in pragmatic methods designed to deal with specific
'student behavior or motivation problems. In support of the impact of
contextual effects, Metz observed that teachers in the school in her
study with visible order problems responded to these difficulties by
evolving a more articulated awareness of their philosophical,attipudes

16
toward teaching and students, while teachers at the school without such.
problems remained characteristically unable to articulate their
philosophical approach to teaching, their goals, or student-teacher
relationships.

As demonstrated in the two studies by Cooper, Burger & Seymour (1979)

and Metz (1978), context assumes a critical role in teachers' perceptions
of their efficacy. Consequently, the nature of the teaching context,,
and its impact on teachers' sense of efficacy was a crucial focus of
the Efficacy Study.
A

Lndirect and Reciprocal Effects on Teacher's' Sense of Efficacy

Traditional research approaches that assume unidirectional effects

and conceive of explanations in terms of antecedents and consequences
are inadecpate for the task [Link] the complexity of the
relationships existing in regard to teachers' sense of efficacy. The
importance of conceptualizing teacher-student interaction in the classroom
in tdrms of a reciprocal model has been emphasized by Cohen (1972):

[A] piece of advice that sociologists might offer is

that propositions about the relationship between teacher
activities and student learning will depend on the state
of the social system in the classroom. It is most unwise
to use a simple unidirectional causal model to characterize
the classroom,,for example, teachers affect students
through what they say, how they question, how they
explain, and through the use of curriculum materials.
Studies qf the classroom as a complex social system
suggest that cause and effect can ru6 in several directions.
Students have effects on each other. The informal social
structure produces dffferential treatment of students by
the teacher. vFurthermora, the effects which students have
on:the teacher and on other students tend to build up over
time. This kind of a characterization of learning in
the classroom calls for theories' capable of handling feed-
back effects [Link] which can change over time.
(p. 444)

The ecological approach requires the consideration of reciprocal

relations among variables; for example, teachers who believe that they
can have an effect on student learning are likely to work harder with
their students, who are, consequently, more likely to perform well on
achievement tests, which is likely to have a positive effect on teachers'
sense of efficacy, and this process is likely to continue in a cyclical
fashion. Ethnographic analyses that permitted study of mutual relation-
ships among variables were an integral part of the Teacher Efficacy Study.

An ecological perspective demands that "indirect" effects be

included in an explanatory model. For example, parent influences are
certain to be impinging on [Link]-student relation as are school
climate influences, such as administrative and physical plant effects.

4
 These indirect environmental effects outside the school setting must be
considered in order to obtain an adequate description of teachers' sense
of efficacy. Teachers' family relationships, social support network,
and community involvement activities art also likel to affect their
personal sense of efficacy. Interdependencies between school and
experiences in other settings were considered in order to identify
indirect influences on teachers' sense of efficacy.

-Phenomenological Analysis: Teachers' Subjective Perceptions

t:edley (1978) pointed out that a major weakness of traditional

process-product teacher effectiveness research is the failure to include .
the teachert' intent in the analysis. Observational data are unable to
detect the effect of different participants' perceptions of the situation
in determining their behavior and their sense of efficacy. No doubt,
teachers differ in the criteria they use to judge,their efficacy and the
stringency with which they evaluate their behavior and that of their
students. As Jakson (1968) noted, teachers, for the most part, do not
define their sense of efficacy in terms of students',sbores on achievement
tests. Thus, to evaluate teacher effectiveness solely on the basis of
a criterion that teachers do not accept is likely to.,lead to conclusions
regarding teacher effectiveness that may be unwarranted when viewed in
terms of the teachers' objectives and definition of teacher effective-
ness.

Fenstermacher (1978) emphasized another problem implicA in the

failure of traditional process-product research to consider teachers'
subjective perceptions. According to Fenstermacher (1978),, current
teacher effectiveness research has-been focusing on the wrong questions,
because concern for identifying teachers' behaviorthat increase student
achievement will not necessarily result in changes in teachers' behavior.
If a significant change in teachers behavior is the objective, research
must address the question of why teachers engage in the behaviors that
they do. FensterMacher pointed out that teachers' subjectively reason-
able beliefs will maintain their behaviors despite objectively reasonable
evidence to the contrary, unless evidence is provided to chaTlenge,their
subjectively reasonable beliefs. Before such a challenge can be
delivered, a precise understanding of teachers' beliefs must be obtained.
To further our understanding of teacher beliefs, Fenstermacher called for
research that explores the intentions underlying teachers' behavior.
Citing Shulman and Lanier, he emphasized the importance of recognizing
that teachers' actions must be understood in light of the meanings they
attach to them: ,

How teachers behave and what they do is directed in

no- small way by what they think. It is the relation-
ship between thought and action that becomes the
critical issue in research on teaching. (Shulman &
Lanier, 1977, p. 44)

Citing Harre and Secord (1972), Fenstermacher argued for the legitimacy
of the study of teachers' thinking as crucial to an adequate explanation
of teachers' behavior:

5
 The things that people say about themselves ahd other
people should be taken seriously as reports of data
relevant to phenomena that really exist and which are
relevant to the'explanation of behavior . .A person's
.

use of ordinary language in describing his own and

others' actions, in thinking about and preparing him,-
self for action is vital to a proper behavioral science.
(Harre and Secord, 1972, pp. 7, 299)

Once we have acquired an understanding of why teachers behave as they do,

we can then begin to tdentify strategies for changing their behaviors
and beliefs that are likely to maintain their ineffective behaviors.

In response to Fenstermacher's. recommendation for an investigation

of teachers' intentions as the basis for developinTan understanding of
their behavior and to Bronfenbrenner's concern for-establishing the,
phenomenological validity of research results, one of the major sources
of data for this study was teachers' perceptions and feelings,regarding
the nature of their sense of efficacy and the factors affecting it.
Teachers' perceptions alone, however, are inadequate for specifying,how
their sense of efficacy develops and affects student achievement. A
variety of studies have indkated that teachers' self-report about their
. behavior and their actual behavior are not always related (Barr & Duffy,
1978). A particularly [Link] of teachers' self-report of their
behavior fai,ing to correspond consistently with their classroom behavior
was provided by Evertson and Brophy (1974). Thus, the analysis of teachers'
self-report of their efficacy was supplemented with classroom observations
of their behavior.

'In summary, an adequate description of teachers' sense of efficacy

required a systems approach that represents indirect and reciprocal
_effects of teachers' sense of efficacy, based on a phenomenological
analysis of the teachers' perceptions of what their sense of efficacy
entails, what influences it, and how it affects their behavior, and is
considered in terms of the specific context in which teaching occurs.

A Multi-Method, Multi-Person; Multi-SituatiOn,

Multi-Variable,Approach to Data Collection
(Smith & Pohland, 1974)

In order to develop a comprehensive conceptual framework for the

study of teacher efficacy, a two-phase process of data collection was
adopted. The first stage of data collect-kin took place during March,
April and May of 1980 and was based on Glasen and Strauss' approach
to the discovery of grounded theory. The design of the second stage
of data collection emerged as the result of the analysis of the first-
phase data and consisted of a systematic observation study of basic
skills mathematics and communication teachers in four high schools
during the winter and spring of 1981.

The importance of considering multiple data_sources in building a

comprehensive conceptual,framework has been noted by many methodologists

19
(e.g., Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Sieber, 1973; Smith, 1978). Figure 1
outlins the multiple data sources considered in the Efficacy Study.

Context of Phase 1 Data Collection

Selection of appropriate schools for study was based on the guide-

lines for sampTing delineated in descriptions of strategy for developing
an empirically grounded theory (Conrad, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967);
that is, schools were identified on the basis of their hypothesized
theoretical relevance to the sense of efficacy construct. Two schools
were identified that were maximally differentiated on a number of
organizational variables conceived to be of signiflcance in influencing
teachers' sense of efficacy.

The school organizational dimensions expected to affect teachers'

sense of efficacy were (1) multi-age versus single-age grouping,
(2) interdisciplinary versus self-contained, single subject-matter class-
rooms, and (3) flexible, exploratory curriculum versus traditional junior
high curriculum. The two middle schools selected for study consisted of
grades six through eight and were similar in size (approximately one
thousand students), in urban location, and in racial and SES composition,
comprised predominantly of minority and low socioeconomic level students.
Schdol A, however, had a modern middle-school orientation; that is,
multi-age grouping, team teaching, and a flexible, exploratory curriculum.
Appftximately 160 students we-re assigned to a team of five teachers who
shared reponsibility for the curriculum. These students remained in
the same group with the same teachers for threedears. School B, on the
other hand, was organii-ed in_a traditional junior [Link], with
students assigned to different teathersfor different subjept matter.
Evidence to support the expectation that the two_school organizations
would have a differential effect on teachers' sense Cf efficacy was
derived from a study of open-space schools reported by Meyer (1-971),_

Teachers at the two schools were asked to spend two hours completing
a questionnaire designed to nvestigate their perceptions of teaching.
Half of the teaChers at each of the two schools completed the questionnaire.
The number of teachers completing the questionnaire at the middle school
was 29 and 20 at the junior high. Following scoring of the teachers'
responses to the twq Rand items, two teachers with a high-efficacy score
and two teachers with a low-efficacy score were identified at each of the
schools. To reduce the confounding effect of context, teachers of similar
subject matter were selected for observation: social studies and language
arts and reading. Teachers were observed teaching two of their classes
from four to five times over a six-week period. Observers took ethno-
graphic field notes during each of their visits. After the observations
were completed, the observers completed an hour-long, interview with their
teachers. The day after the'end of classes for the year, participating
teachers met at the University with the field observers to react to pre-
liminary interpretations of the data.

7
1. Methods

1.1 Questionnaires
1.2 Projective measures
1.3 Observation
1.4 Informal interviews
1.5 Documents

2.o Persons

2.1 Students
2.2 Cooperating teadhers
C.
2.3 Principals
2.4 Other teachers

3. Situations

3.1 Students
3.2 Classroowteaching
3.3 MultipTe schools
3.4 Dirriculum planning meetings
3:5 Faculty meetings

4. Variables

4.1 Individual: traits, attitudes,-perceptions, motives, behaviors

4.2 Group: interaction, activity
4.3 Organizational: schools

Figure 1: Elements of the multimethod, multiperson,

multisituation, and multivariable matrix
(modified from Smith, 1978)

21
 Context of Phase 2 Data Collection

In an effort to obtain systematic observation data to support the

hypotheses generated from the grounded theory study of the two middle
schools, a process-product study of 48 basic skills communication and
mathematics teachers from four high schools was conducted. Basic skills
classes were selected for study because we felt that these classes,
comprised primarily of low socioeconomic level black students who had,
experienced repeated failures, were likely to make teachers' sense of
efficacy especially salient. Observers were trained in the use of
three systematic observation instruments:---the-FloridaClimate and
Control Schedule (Soar & Soar, 1981), Teacher Practices Observation
',Record (Brown, 1968), and a student engagement rate form, an observa- 0
tional schedule adapted from Stallings and Kaslcowitz (1974) by Research
fOr Better Schools (Huitt, Traver & Caldwell, 1981). Following training,
0-servers visited the teachers' classrooms from two to six times during
a four-month loeriod and completed a series of observations using each
of the three instruments during each of their visits. The majority
of participating teachers also completed a questionnaire assessing their
sense of efficacy and instructional practices and also-completed an
hour-long interview with one of the observers.

Overview of the Report

In-Chapter 2, the conceptual framework for future research on

teachers' sense of efficacy is presented. Bronfenbrenner's ecological
approach provides the basic framework for organizing the relationships
between teachers' sense of efficacy and the Variables conceived to be
related to it.

The comparative stut; of the two organizationally different middle

schools is reported in Chapter 3. ThiS study consisted of three
different approaches to the study of school organizational effeCts on
efficacy: an open-ended questionnaire, a fixed alternative questionnaire,
and an ethnographic comparison,of two teachers from each school. The
results of each of these methodologies indicate that the interdisciplin-
ary team-based school with multi-age grouping of students had a positive
relationship to teachers' sense of efficacy.

Several approaches to measurement of teachers' efficacy are presented

in Chapter 4. The difficulty of developing reliable and valid self-
report measures of teacher efficacy is. discussed and various strategies
for dealing with these problems are considered.

In Chapter 5, the process-product study of the relationships between

teacher efficacy, teacher behavior and student achievement in 48 high
school basic skill mathematics and communication classes is described.
From these data, it appears that teachers''sense of efficacy promotes
development of a positive, supportive classroom climate that facilitates,
student achievement and, in turn, a higher sense,of efficacy.

A pilot study comparing the effectiveness of three different strategies

for increasing efficacy is reported in Chapter 6. We conclude from

2
this study that a school-wide approach in which organizational structures
are developed to bolster teachers' sense of efficacy is likely to be
the most effective approach for increasing teachers' sense of efficacy.

In Chapter 7, we report on the results of a social-pSychological

analysis of interviews conducted with 33 of the middle and high school
teachers who participated in the Efficacy Study. The purpose of the
interviews was to investigate how teachers define and experience their
work in the schools. Analysis of the interview data indicated that the
social-psychological climate of [Link] promotes self-doubt,
conformity, and impression management among teachers. Work with low-
achieving students intensifieit-he environmental pressures upon teachers.
Low and high efficacy teachers differed in their approach to dealing with
the threats and frustrations of teaching low-achieving students. High
efficacy teachers maintained high academic expectations of their students
and established friendly, supportive relations with them. Low-efficacy
teachers were more likely to lose patience with their low achieving
students, hold low [Link] their academic success, and demand
little in terms of academic performance.

A sociological analysis of factors contributing to teachers' sense

'of efficacy is presented in Chapter 8. Ethnographic interviews conducted
with 23 high school basic skills teachers and 10 middle and junior high
teacfl'er's revealed that many teacters may be suffering from status panic,
a term used by C. Wright Mills (1951) to indicate the anxiety experienced
by achievement-oriented white-collar workers due to the discrepancy
between their expectations of prestige, advancement, and rewards and
their actual status. Teachers come to their work with aspirations for
vertical mobility but find little opportunity cor advancement in their
chosen profession. The lack of opportunity foe,advancement, combined
with an inadequate salary and the decline of public confidence in .

educatioPinteract to cause status panic in many teachers, a condition

contributing to:low efficacy attitudes.

In Chapter 9 we analyie classroom observations and interview

data from the two middle schools using Glaser and Strauss' (1967) approach to
grgunded theory. The central social-psychological problem facing
teachers identified through this analysis is the establishment and
maintenance bf a sense of professional self-esteem in a profession
characterized by uncertainty and few concrete rewards. To'cope with
the:threats to their self-esteem teachers chdose teaching strategies
that offer,them the most success and the least evidence of failure.

In Chapter 10 our-recommendations for future research of teachers'

sense of efficacy are discussed. The conditions otteaching in t9day's
society--the uncertainties and'the frustrations--place such a
tremendous stress on teachers' efficacy beliefs that efforts to support
these beliefs will require bold visions of significant transformations
in the current context of teaching. Teachef',éducation, teacher
pcialization practices and teacher-parent relations offer particularly
promising areas for research to *mote our understanding of ways to
foster teachers sense of efficacy and student achievement. Changes in
school organization are needed to enable teachers to maintain their
sense pf efficacy.

10

23
 Chapter 2'

The Conceptual Framework for the

Study of Teachers'Sense of Efficacy
4.

Teachers' sense of efficacy is basic to teacher motivation. Our study'

of teacher efficacy indicates that the extent to which teachers believe
they are capable of influencin% student performance affects their enthus-
iasm and persistence in working with their students and, ultimately, their
students' achievement.

rn this section, a conceptual framewoi* for the study of teachers'

sense of efficacy js described. Based on an ecological perspective
.(Bronfenbrenner, 1976),the [Link] origims of teachers' sense of
efficacy will be [Link] faCtOrs corftributing to the development
and maintenance of teacher sense of efficacy will be considered. The
'

conceptual framework was derived from four majorsources:

1) a revfgq of the research literature dealing with .

the organizational [Link]-psychological factors

affe;ting teacher and student behavior;

(2) a comParative study [Link] middle sc(lools, using

survey and ethnographic techniques (for a detailed
report, see Chapter 3);

(3) a presage-process-product study of the relationship

between teachers' sense,of efficacy, teacher and
student behavior, and school achievement in 48 high
school basic skills communications and mathematics
Classrooms in four high schools. (See Chapter 5
'
for a detailed report of methodology and results.)

*4(4) an analysis of interview and observational data

gathered in the middle [Link] schools, usin
, Glaser and Strauss' grounded theory methodolog
(For a detailed report, see Chapters 7, 8 and 9.

Teachers' Sens3 of Efficacy: A Multi-dimensional Construct

Our theoretical framework for teachers' sense of efficacy is based

on a modification of Albert Bandura's (1977) social learning formulation
of sense of self-efficacy as a cognitive mediator of human behavior.
As represented in Figure 2,teachers' sense of effi,cacy is a multi-dimen-
sional construct that is hierarchically onganized and reciproCally deter-
mined.

The major dimensions,of teachers' sense of efficky are represented

in Figure 2 and include first, a general causal belief in action-outcome
contingencies; second, a generalized sense of self-efficacy;othird, a
general belief in teachers' ability to motivate students' and fourth, 4.,/
specific belief in their own perceived competence in motivating students.

11

24
 .11.=11-

` 4

'Generalized Beliefs
about
Response-Outcome Contingency

Wes

Specific Beliefs Generalized Beliefs

about about
Teachers' Ability [Link] Students Perceived Self=Efficacy
(Rand Efficacy 1)
Personal Causation
Student type
(deCharms, 1968)
Content (task)
Situation

Specific Beliefs about Personal

Competence in Motivating Students
(Rand Efficacy 2)
Student type
Content (task)
Situation

[Link] 2
0N

Teachers' Sense of Efficacy: The Multi-Dimensional Construct

 Developmental and social-psychological research and theory (Bandura, 1977)
indicate that through personal life experiences, individuals develop a .

generalized expectancy of the relationship between action and outcome; thus,

teachers enter the profession with individual differences in their general-
ized expectancy between action and outcome; in addition, through their
individual life experiences teachers have developed personal expectations .
regarding their own ability to influence outcomes. This is equivalent 6
deCharms' (1968; 1976) sense of personal causation or Bandura s general-
ized sense of self-efficacy. When specific experience in a given situation
is lacking, the teachers' generalized sense of self-efficacy will be a major, ,

,eterminant
41 of behivibr. However, with training and experience, teachers
[Link] beliefs about the ability 'of,teachers, in general, to
- motivate different types of students in different types of sltuations and
their own personal ability to motivate students in specific ituatiOns. In
sum,teachers' unse of efficacy represents their implicit personal theory
of student motivation. 6

As conceived by Bandura and applied.% our mOdel,- sense of efficacy

is a critical con'struct in understanding motivation, because it Wluences
the nature and extent of behavior, the amount of effort expended and
degree of persistence maintained in the face of difficulty. Seligman's
learned helplessness theory (Abramson, Seligman & Teasdale, 1978) is
helpful in explaining the impact of the various dimensions of teachers'
sense of efficacy on teacher behavior (See Figure 3). A low sense of
efficau, may be due to the teachers' belief that certain low-achieving
students, by virtue of their home environment, Cannot be motivated by
their teachers. This would be a case of "universal helplessness" in
Seligman's terms, thebelief thaeno teacher would be capable of motivat-
ing this group of students. Teachers with a sense,.of "universal helpless-
ness",would exert less effort in motivating difficult students, seeing
all effort'as inherently futile (a motivational deficit), would be
resistant to learning'from experiencesMth low-achieving students that,
contradict their basic belief (6 cbgnitive deficit) but would maintain ,

their self-esteem, because they would feel -no responsibility for being
unable to do what no one else could do (no affective deficit). In contrast,
the teacher who has a personal sense of helplessness or inefficacy, that
is, the teacher who believes that low-achieving students can be motivated,'
to aChieve, given an effective teacher, yet foelspersonally ineffectual
with these students,'011 experience-01e motivational and cognitive,
"deficits characteristic of a sense of universal helplessnets and, in
addition, will experience a loss of professional self-esteem, an affective
[Link] fhat is li)cely to be accompanied by high feelings of stress,
possibly resulting in hostile, negative interactions with resistant/
students. An example of personal inefficacy was provided by one, of the
teachers we interviewed who was deeply troubled'by her failure to reach
her students: -

Well, I-still feel I havethe capacity for it. B ut

in some instances I'm not sci,sure that I care. But
Other times I care a great deal. .Sometimes I feel,
what's the use. Teaching can be very frustrating,
a very frustrating experience. I'm'noi going to I
mince words about it, that's the way I feel. I feel
threatened too. I,can see where a lot,of those
-classet could be'very threateninb.

13

26
 Low Sense of Efficacy

Teachers' Inability to Motivate Students Teacher's Personal Sense of Incompetence in

Motivating Students

1.
Negative Expectations due to Universal Helplessness Negative Expectations due to Personal Helplessness

Cognitive Motivational No Affective Cognitive Motivattonal Affective

deficit deficit defici ,deficit deficit deficit

Difficulty in Passivity Little stress Difficulty Passivity High stress

learning that and little due to personal in learning and little depression
students can effort resilence by that one is effort guilt and/or
be motivated exerted to denying capable of exerted to , shame
by teachers motivate responsibility motivating motivate
'students for motivating -students students
students

Figure 3
Comparison of Motivational, Cognitive and Affective Outcomes
of Low Sense of Efficacy Attributable to Belief
in Teachers' Inability to Motivate Students and
Teachers Personal Sense of Incompetence
in Motivating Students

28
In contrast, the,low efficacy teacher with a sense of universal helpless-
ness will experience little stress and may be able to maintain enthusiam
through the personal resilencY [Link] having low expectations of being
able to influence student performance. An example of this type of ineffi-
cacy was provided by another teacher who was able to maintain her personal
sense of competence and remain untroubled by her inability to reach some
students by concluding that they were incapaae of learning grammar:

I dorilt want to teach grammar, and I told the principal

that. In fact, I told him not to assign me to a language
arts [Link]. We argued about it. I said I'm not
interested in teaching grammar to illiterates. He said
that was because I don't like teaching grammar. But I
said, wrong. I love grammar. I'm a Whiz at grammar. It's
the easiest thing in the world to teach. But these students
can't get it, and I don't agree with teaching it to them. . .

Given'the distinctive differences between a low sense of efficacy attHbut-

able to belierin teachers' inability to motivate students in contrast to
a belief in one's personal inability to motivate students, efforts to
influence teachers' sense of efficacy mugt be based on an analysis of the
origin of the inefficacy: if it is attributable to the teachers' feel,ings
of personal incompetence a different strategy would be required from the
case in which sense of inefficacy is attributable to ideological beliefs
about the modfiability of various student types.

Teachers' Sense of Efficacy and Student Achievement

:The rolE of teachers' sense of efficacy in student achievement is

suggested from the-results of the process-product study that we
conducted in the classrooms of 48 high school basic skills communications
and mathematics teachers. (See Chapter 5 for a detailed description
of this study;) The relationships obtained in that study are indicated
by solid black arrows in Figure 4; broken arrows indicate relationships
that are postulated in our theoretical framework but were not tested
in ourbasic skills study.

In brief, we found that teachers' sense of efficacy was silpificantly

related to student achievement, as measured by Metropolitan Achievement
test scores (r=.78, p<.003 in mathematics classes and r=.83, p<.02 in
communication classes), with students' entering ability controlled by
holding constant the students' scores on the Metropolitan test from the
previous year. In addition, teachers' sense of efficacy was related to
teacher and student behaviors that suggest that teachers with a high
sense of efficacy are more likely to be attentive to the individual
needs of all students and to respond to students in a positive, accept-
ing supportive style that encourages student enthusiasm and involvement
in decision-making.

15
29
 Teacher Behavior Student Behavior
r
-Warm, accepting 1Students'
keadhers' Seae. -Student enthusiasm
f Efficacy - response to !Sense of Student
-Student initiation
students ---),Efficacy 7* of interaction -) Achievement
-Acceptance of L_ _J with teacher
student initiative
-Attention to all
studenWjndividual
needs

fi9ure 4

Teachers' Sense 0 Efficgy; The 44041 Construct

in A Met1V4t1enel Model of Teachet Behavior qid Student Achievement

30 31
 An Ecological Perspective [Link]' Sense of Efficacy

Our research suggests that many variables influence teachers' sense

of efficacy and, in turn, are influenced by it. Not only classroom
factors, but many other influences, both within and outside of .the
school, affect teachers' sense of efficacy. For example, the teachers'
family relations, social support networks, and community involvement
activities are likely to affect their personal sense of efficacy.
Interdependencies between school and exPeriences in other settings must
be included to represent the factors affecting teachers' sense of
efficacy adequately. Bronfenbrenner's (1976) conception of an ecology
of education comprised of a nested arrangement of interrelated systems
is useful for structuring our contextual analysis of teachers' sense
of efficacy:

(1) The microsystem consists of the teachers' immediate

setting, typically the classrood or school;

(2) The mesosystem is comprised of the interrelations

among the teachers= major settings: these relations
include the principal, colleagues, the schooj 'norms,
the school organizational-structure aneauthority
relations ,. [Link] teachers' social support system,
including family.

(3)--The exosystem refers to the formal and informal

social structures that influence the teachers'
immediate setting, including the socio-economic
level of the community, the nature of the school
district, the mass media, the state and national
legislative agencies.

(4) The macrosystem consists of the predominant cultural

beliefs and ideologies that have an impact on teacher
thought and behavior or on the various other systems
impinging on teachers.

An important source of information regarding factors that affect

teachers' sense of efficacy is teachers subjective reports of what helps
them to feel effective as a teacher and what contributes to feelings of
inefficacy. Such a phenomenological analysis can be useful in identifying
approaches most likely to increase teachers' sense of efficacy. From our
analysis of teachers' responses to such a question we identified a number
of factors that seem to be particularly salient for teachers' sense of
efficacy. These factors will be discussed in the context of Bronfen-
brenner's ecological systems,and research literature supporting the
importance of these factors for teachers' sense of efficacy will also be
noted.

Microsystem

According to teachers' subjective perceptions, various aspects of

their classroom have significant impact on their sense of efficacy. Our

17
11
th
32
conception of sense of efficacy as a situation-specific dynamic is
derived in part from our interviews with teachers in which they
attributed changes in their sense of efficacy to varying classroom
attributes.

Student type. According to teachers' self-report, student type

appears to be the most significant class-level variable affecting their
sense of efficacy. Brophy and Evertson (1981) documented many of the
student attributes that influence teachers' expectations of their
effectiveness and their consequent interactions with students. For
most teachers, students' ability (Prawat & Jarvis, 1980) appears to
be the single most significant student characteristic affecting teachers'
sense of efficacy.

Heterogeneous grouping of students may reduce the impact of student

type on teachers' sense of efficacy. In a comparison of teachers who
taught heterogeneously grouped glasses (N=28) with teachers who taught
basic skills classes (N=38), we found that the teachers of basic skills
classes reported a lower sense of personal efficacy (t64=1.83, p<.05)

Class size. Teachers are nearly unanimous in citing class size as

an important factor in their ability to be effective motivators, and
size'becomes an even more salient feature for basic skills teachers,
because they rep6rt that individual attention is much more important
for the motivatjon of low-achieving students than for average and above
average students. A recent meta-analysis by Glass and Smith (1979)
provides validation of this long-he1d assumption pf teachers, that until
now was considered only a subjective percegtion of teachers. However,
the Glass and Smith study indicated that important achievement gains
are detectable only when class size is reduced to 15 and below.

Role definitions. Teachers' role defini6ons are likely to influence

their sense of efficacy. For example, one enthusiastic teacher that we
intetviewed defined her role primarily in terms of socialization aims
and expected academic gains to be small', consequently, she was not
overly troubled by the fact that her students were not making rapid
achievement test gains and did not experience a decline in her pro-
fessional self-esteem when confronted with basic skills students:

I was anticipating (basic skillsY teaching to be a

total disaiter. I mean, obviously it wasn't. I

turned around and asked for [Link] periods of basic

skills for next year. It's hard. It was the hardest . . .

they were the hardest two classes I had to teach. That's

what I'm saying. That at the beginning I didn't see
that they had those behaviors (they needed). They
didn't come in on task. I feel like they've made some
progress towards that. We're doing mual, much better
towards the end'of the year. I think a lot of it is just
what you expect, you know. If you tell the students I
expect you to work for an hpur, I care so much that you
get this, that I want you working for one hour because
I know that that's what you need, a lot of them seem to
buy that. You know, I care about you. You must, there-

18
 fore, care about yourself. You surely must'care
enough. If I am a stranger, and I care this much
to make you wark, then you must see what I am
trying to say to you . . You know a lot of
.

times that sort of thing seems to work.

In contrast, the first teacher quoted on page 13 deined her role in

terms of academic achievement goals and,consequently, was beset with
self-doubt as a result of her inability to motivate her students and,
further, attributed their difficulties to their moral weakness in an
unsuccessful attempt to protect her professional self-esteem.

Our comparison of middle and junior high school teachers indicated

sharp contrastsgn the role definitions of the teachers in the two
schools (see page 39 of this report) and,related differences in the way
teachers interacted with students. In her comparison of two junior
highs, Metz (1978) also [Link] differences among teachers in
their role definitions, resulting in divergent [Link], as well
as differences [Link] way individual teachers aefined their roles in
relation to different types of students or classes. Other recent
research, however, has`questioned the impact of teachers' role defini-
tions on teacher behavior. Rohrkemper and Brophy (1980) concluded that
teachers' role definitions may be less relevant to teacher behavior than
their percelitions ofthe type of problem they perceive the student to be
presenting. In an observational study of three groups of teachers .

differing in role orientation: teachers who stressed affect, teachers

who emphasized cognition, and those who emphasized both,Yrawit (1981)
concluded that teachers who defined their roles primarily in terms of
affective concerns were "no more effective in promoting positive affect
in their classrooms than those who emphasized cognitive goals, and both
these groups were less effective than the mixed or in-between groups'
(pp. 1 and 3). Inasmuch as different role'definitions are likely to be
associated with different criteria for assessing one's sense of efficacy;
further research is needed on the impact of role definition on teachers'
sense of efficacy, teacher behavior and stuaent achievement.

Activity structure. Teachers sense of efficacy is likely to vary

with the activity or task. Some teachers perceive themselves [Link] more
effective in large group than small group instruction, for example.
Such personal assessments Will influence the teachers' choice of future
activities, and as a continually expanding literature indicates, choice
of activity structure has extremely important implications for student
achievement and social development (Bossert, 1979; Carew & Lightfoot,
1979; Cohen, 1979; Johnson & Johnson, 1974; McDermott, 1977; Rosenholtz,
1980).

Mesosystem

Recent research on effective schools (Brookover, Beady, Flood,

Schweitzer & Wisenbaker, 1979; Cohen, 1981; Rutter et a4., 1979) has 4
emphasized [Link] of within school relationships affecting

19

3
 teachers' sense of fficacy. Our study of teachers from two organizationally
different middle schools dramatized the difference that school-level factors
can have on teachers' sense of efficacy. Our comparison of the attitudes
of 29 teachers from a modern middle school with a team organization, multi.-
age grouping and an exploratory curriculum with 20 teachers from a middle
school with departmental organization, traditional age-grade grouping, and
a junior-high curriculum revealed important differences between the two
schools on a 'number of mesosystem variables. (See Chapter 3 for details,
of methodology and analysis.)

School norms. Teachers, at the two schools varied significantly in

thei) role perceptions and expectations for students. Teachers at the
modern middle school defined their role more'often in :terms of meeting
the affective, socialization needs of their students, and perhaps in part
because of their experience with multi-age,grouping, were less concerned
with abi3ity differences among their students. Their expectations for
their students' achievement and improvability were significantly higher
than the junior high'teachers who had a more fatalistic attitude toward
their students' performance.

While our findings are based on correlational data and may only be
indicative-of initial differences in teachers, they are supportive of
other research indicating that school norms can be influential in deter-
mining teacher attitudes and behavior. For example, Leacock (1969)
described the process by which teachers low sense of efficacy regarding
V` certain students can become a school pattern, An organizational norm:4
"There's nothing we cn doCtfiese kids can't learn. In such an 6nviron-
ment, new teachers are'pressured to accept_the dominant cultUre of the .

school. Thus, for many teachers, maintaining order becomes the ultimate
goal (Cohen, 1972) inasmuch as motivating academic achievement is
considered,an impossible aim, given the students that they [Link]
to teach.

Collegial relations. The isolation from colleagues and consequent

loneliness characteristic of the teaching profession have been noted by a,
number of analysts (Jackson, 1968;*Lortie, 1975). This aspect of teach-
ing is probably a significant contributor to teacher dissatisfaction
inasmuckas teachers are typically high in social needs (Holland, 1973;
Super, 1970). The relationship of collegial relationships, however, to
sense of efficacy is complex.

In our study, teachers at the modern middle school reported more

negative colleague relationships than teachers at the junior high.
However, negative colleague relationships do not appear to have a direct
negative relationship to efficacy, since teachers' sense of efficacy as
well as general job satisfaction were higher at the middle school. It
is likely that the expression of negative feelings about some colleagues
was a result of the increased contact with colleagues produced by team
teaching. At the junior high, teachers rarely worked together and,
consequently,'had little conflict with other teachers. A number of
studies have indicated that conflict among school [Link] be indicative

20
 of a higher sense of. professionalism and pr9ductive organjzational
activity than low levels of conflict (Brookover and Lezatte, 1977;
earwin,, 1970).

Decition-diaking structures:--One- of the differences-between the,

modern middle school and junior high that may relate to the differepce
observed in teacher efficacy was the greater involvement in school
decision-making afforded teachers by the mechanism of a teacher
advisory council comprised of representatives from the various teaching
teams. However, this difference may also contribute to development of
discordant colleague relations. The designation of team leader created
a power differential among teachers that led to conflict. While our
sample teachers often expressed the desire for greater participation iT
decisions, they were typically unable to be specific about the areas
and means of involvement. Sarason (1971) and Goodlad (1975) suggest
that teachers have become so accustomed to a subordinate role that
assuming a greater role in decision-making is not easily accomplished.
Teacher decision-making appears to be an important factor contributing
to teachers' sense of efficacyiyet our understanding of effective
methods of implementation is currently very limited.

Principal Relations. The role of the principal in influencing

teacher effectiveness has become a prominent issue as a result of the
effective schools research (Cohen, 1981). In our middle school study,'
theyrincipal appears to,set the style,and direction of [Link]:
'The different'role conceptions of teachers were directly Telated to
the principal's conception of the teacher's role'. While this may be
due primarily to the administrator's initial selection bias in hiring
teachers, further research into the process [Link] influence on
teachers' role perceptions seems warranted.

Another aspect of the principal's role that has implications for

teachers' sense of efficacy is the principal's control over the scarce
rewards and perquisites of teaching. 'The principal or his designate
has some power to reduce teaching load, class size, provide equipment
and material and other support services. The way the principal chooset
to allocate resources is likely to have a significant effect on teachers'
sense of efficacy. Our study shows teachers frequently commented on
their perceptions of how quttably the principal distributed scarce
resources.

Exosystem I)

Nature of the school distric Our interviews with teachers took

place during a very disruptive period in management-labor relations in
the district. Teachers had expected a\raise based on state legislative
allocations, but the raise was denied them by administrative decisions,
at the district level. The impact of this action on teachers', [Link]
efficacy was evident. Many teachers were vm, vocal about their loss of
motivation and their decision to reduce thew, efforts with students in
the aftermath of the salary decision. Other S udies have noted the

\
21

36
 impact of district-level decisions on the stress and effectiveness of
teachers (Bidwell and Kasarda, 1975; Cichon and Koff, 1978; Cohen, 1976) ,s
Macrosystem

A number of our basic cultural beliefs have important implications

for teachers' sense of efficacy, among these are our conceptions of the
nature of the learner and the role of the teacher. Another important
influence is the cultural expectations regarding the role of education
in society.

Conceptions of the Learner.'While teachers that %;le interviewed were

able to identjfy and describe many of the factors that enable them to be
effective motivators of students, perhaps the [Link] influence
is the subtle and covert conception of the learner conveyed in American
.cultural'belfefs. As teachers talk about their students, it is evident
that responsibility for success and failure is laid squarely on the
-gtudent, as demonstrated.in_the 41stribution of teachers' responses to
two questions thatve posed asTin [Link] what did they attribute their
. students' success and failure. See Table 1. Teachers overwhelmingly
attributed both success and failure to student characteristics. In the
. minds of most teachers, stud,ants fail to abhieve either because they are
. inherently .unable or because they have willfully decided notop achieve.
Either of these conclusions is likely to/reduce teachers' efforts to
motivate these students. According'to Michael LeWis (1978), the
tendencito blame poor studentstfor their plight is deeply engrained
in our culture. It is the mechanism by which those more fortunate
economically are able to maintain their sense of self-worth. Lewis'
thesis, applied to the context of the classroom, yields insight into the
psychology of the teacher. By blaming students for their own failure
either because of weaknesses of character, that is, laziness, lack of
motivation and apathy, or lack of innate ability, the teacher is freed
from the heavy burden of being, in some sense, responsible for students'
failure. Caught up in the self-protective strategy of "blaming the
victim" to preserve their sense of professional self-worth (Ryan, 1976),
teachers fail to recognize the self-protective strategies at work among
many failing students. For the low achiever, effort becomes a "double-
edged sword" because to try and fail provides incontrovertible evidence
of-their low ability (Covington and Omelich, 1981). As long as they do
not try, they do not have to face the implications tilt low ability has
for their fragile sense of self-worth.

More capable others refuse-to work, because they anticipate the

futility of their efforts; perceiving themselves doomed by race an'd/or
poverty to a limited future, they refuse to be co-opted by a hostile
system and attempt to rise above [Link] means of an open rebellion
against the norms and expectations of the system (Metz, 1978). As
pointed out by Metz, for many low-achieving males high status in their
peer group is negatpely related to academic effort and classroom
cooperation. Thus, students who choose to exert academic effort risk
not only academic failure but Toss of social status as well. Givan
the importance of social status among students, the choice of sojal
status over academic success is not a difficult one for most (Bidwell, 1965).

22

3 '7
 . Table 1

(
Frequency and Percentage of Teachers' Attributions
of Success and Failure to Self, Student,
and to'Selfgand Student Jointly/
0
,

Self-Student
Self Student Jointly,
Attribution of succeiF- 4 42 14
c
6% 70% 23%

Attribution:of failure 6- 40 12
67% 20%

..

I.\
0
,

Fa

, 23
,

38
 As Bloom (1978) and Sarason (1971) have pointed out, psychology
has lent support to the cultural beliefs that conceive of learning
ability as a highly stable trait varying widely among individuals; and
-educational msearch, most notably through the -Coleman_Report (1966),
has in recent years contributed to the societal expectation that home
environment, not Schooling, is the critical factor in determining
achievement. Thus, when new teachers emerge from educational institutions
determined to reach every student and meet with resistance, they have
culture and social science to support their contention that they should
not be held responsible. As Rist (1978) concluded in his book, The
Invisible Children, the tragedy of this ready defense s it frees
teachers,, and the teacher education profession as well, from having to
face the realization that they may not possess the knowledge and skills
necessary for motivating some students. Without an admission of this
inadequacy, no effort is made to discover more effective strategies, and
thousands of teachers simply learn to live with a low sense of efficacy
and accept complacently the fact of student failure:

Conclusion

Our Outline of the theoretical framework of teachers' sense of

efficacy and the system of interrelationships impinging on it .inevitably
oversimplifies the complexity of the dynamics involved. :Teachers, sense
of efficacy provides a powerful focus for 'directing research and develop-.
ment effoits, because of the implications it has for student and teachpr
development; the complexity of the Many variables involved cannot be
overemphagized. Research designed to investigate' [Link] inter-
actions and interdep6ndencies among these variables is needed to begin
to identify the'more important contributors to teachers' sense of
efficacy and effective means of increasing it..

Teachers' sense of efficacy is an important factor in teacher moti-

vtion, but it must be recognized that other factors, for example, the
personal value and commitment that teaching holds for teachers, will
influence their effort as well as the incentives they feel they derive
from the profession. This can be demonstrated clearly in our data in
that teachers' sense of efficacy is generally not significantly related
to teachers' [Link] rating of job satisfaction or experience of stress,
or desire to choose teaching as a career, given the opportunity to choose
again. ,Thus, while teachers' sense of efficacy, as defined by the Rand
questions, has significant implications for the achievement test performance
of studeRts, it is probably only indirectly implicated'in the broader
question orteacher job satisfaction. Our data suggest that salary and
work load and lack of 15ublic support and respept, are' probably the more . .

important determinants of teachers leaving theprofession,

24
 Chapter I
11.

[Link] S'chool Teacher Efficacy StO

,

Introduction

The purpbse of the Middle school phase'of the Teacher Efficacy

Study was td begin to elborat. the cpnceptual framework for future
study of teachers' sense,Pf efficacy by examining the relationship
of school organizationalstructure and teachers'. sense of efficacy.
Guided by the ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1976), we
.identified three major objectives for the initial phase of the Teacher
Efficacy Study: ,

(1) to investigate teachers' subjective perceptions of

their teachincreffectimeness_and the factors that
facilitate, and inhibit their sense of efficacy,
through the use of open-ended questions;

(2) to search for relattonships petWeen teacher efficacy

as measured by the Rand iteus (see page 1 of this
report) and a vailety dfschqor and teacher character-
istics believed to be related to teacher efficacy:
.a)Aschool organizational differences,' b) teacher job
satisfaction; c) teacher emphasis (i.e., subject matter.
or interpersonal i-elationships), d) teacher stress,
e) teacher sense of freedom, f) teachers" preference
for a particular student type, gl teacher attributions
for student failure, h),sehobl Climate, andj) collegial
relationships; a fixed alternativeqUestionnaire was
designed to [Link] relationships;

(3) to explore the school organizatiohal factors contributing

to teacher's Sense'of efficacy through a microethnpgraphic
study of teache' attitudes in two organizationallY different
schbols.
Al
0
For each of the threeobjectives, different methodoldgy was
utilized. The use of the three different approaches (a type of
triangulation) was selected in an effort to [Link] validity of
our conclusions by seeking convergent results emerging across the three
- ffethodologies (Drzin, 1970).

SVfihis ittudy was an attempt. to understand how organizationally

different schools shape characteristic patterns of teacher thought and
behavior related to their sensse of Wicacy, two middle schools with
major organizational differences were selected: a school having a modern
middle school organizatioriand a school having a traditional junio)- high
organization. Specifically, the two schools differed on the following
dimensions:

25

40
 1. InterdisCiplinary team versus department organ- ization.- In
the middle school, teachers and studenps are [Link] a
team with four or more teachers, representing different
subject areas, serying a common group of 120-170 students.
Teachers arid students on a team have neighboring classrooms
and share the same part,of the school plant and a similar
daily schedule. teachers frequently plan their instruction
op a common theme for [Link] ipterdisciplinary
planning. In addition, there isteaM decision-making
regarding the students they share and their curriculum
needs. In the junior-high, teachers in the same department
meet periodically for curriculum planning. Classrooms are
located in proximity by department; for example, all sixth
grade history teachers in the same wing, so that teachers
who teach the same students are rarely in close proximity.

2. Multi-age vekus single-age groaping: In the middle school,

students remain with-the same team of four teachers for three
years and are assigned to one of these four teachers as their
homeroom teachen and adviser for the duration of three years.
All classes for the three years are taken with the same
teachers. Thui, in each clasethere will'be students at three
age level§ equivalent to grades six., seven, and eight. In a
math class, for ekample, of 24 students, eight' wobld be in
the first year of middle school, eight would be in their second
year, and eight in their third year. In the juniorhigh,
students are 'grouped by chronological age and the npmber of
years in the school.

3. Adviserfirvis%Zrogram versus Homeroom: In the middle school,

mdlti-age gro f about 24 students are assigned a Teacher-
, Adviser with whom-they meet daily for a'25-minute class. In
the junior high, the first five minutes of every first period -
class is called homeroom and is used for an attendance check.

In order to highlight the organizational differences in this study, the

two schools selected were as [Link] possible in other areas, including
size, racial and socioeconomic distributton of the student population and
the school community. The specific organizational differences between
the two schools are described jn detail in APpendix A.

4 Research Rarticipants

Teachers at the two schools w ere asked to spend two hours completing
a questionnaire (see Appendix B) designed to [Link] perceptions
of teaching. They were paid,$10 each for their contribution to the study,
Approximately half of the teachers at each school [Link] questionnaire
(n=29 at Middle School and n=20 at Junior High). The sample consisted of 35
white female, 5 white male, 7 black female, and 2 black male teachers. Their
ages ranged from the early-twenties to late fifties, with the majDrity:
between the-ages of 25 and 35. Since the [Link] of the questionnaire
was similar at the two schools, it was assumed that the samples were
probably equivalent; however. qeneralizatieas are limited in that teacher
participation was voluntary. ,

26'

41 -'
 SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND EFFICACY: OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS

The-Wor intent of the questionnaire was to engage teachers in

defining the nature of their Sense of efficacy through direct
questions I.
about their teaching effectiveness. In this sectioN results of the open-
ended items from the questionnaire are presented.. For these itals,
teachers' responses were typed individually on dote cards and sorted
into
groups-of:similar responses; these groups were_then 4dentified according
to common characteristics and frequency counts obtained,
a
16 explore teachers, perceptions of the types of seitvations in which
they are likelS, to fdel effective and ineffective and the-factors
that
facilitate and inhibit their effectiveness, several different questions
lere posed. A "Teaching Incidents Essay" was Opined from the teachers
&scribing their most and least effective teaching experiences: The
purpose of this item was to require:the teachers to provide Concrete in-
stances in which their feelings of efficacy were dramatically illuminated.
In this way, we hoped to be able to specify what types of situations are
likely to be perceived as effective and ineffective teaching and to
what
teachers attribute their success and failure.

The directions foe the "Teaching Incidents Essay" were worded as

follows:

Describe one Incident from your teaching expetience in which you feel
you were most effective,

First Describe the s4tuation as it occurred at the time.

Second What did you dolin the situation?

Third How didyou feel about the situation at the time you were
experiencing it?

Fourth. Describe what you feel enabled you to be effective in this

situation,

Describe one incident [Link] teaching experience in which you feel

you were least effective.

First Describe the situation as it occurred at the time.

Secona What did you do in the situation?

Third How did you feel about the situation at the time you were
experiencilig it?'

Fourth Describe what you feel contributed to your ineffectiveness

in this situktion.

Fifth How would you respond differently now, given a similar situation?

27

4
 The Effective Situation

Teacher Aescriptions of the situation in which they felt most

-effective were categorized, and the frequency of occurrence of the
categories was calculated for the teachers in the two schools. The
resdlts are reported in lab12. Teachers' descriptions of their
most effective teaching situation focused on one of three categories:
(1) a teaching situation, (2) work with a single student or group of
students, or (3) a particularly effective, organizational structure.
Overall, the largestmumber of responses (40%) focused on the success-
ful teaching of academic subject matter. However, a substantial
proportion (44%) of Junior High teachers described situations which
required handling of difficult students; this situation was mentioned
less frequently by Middle School teachers (24%). Also, 25% of the
responses from Middle School teachers focused on situations related
to the structural organization of the school, specifically, a team
taught lesson and multi-age, multi-level grouping, or individualized
instruction.

The teachers' reiponses to the first question of the Critical

Incidents Essay suggest that teathers differ in terms of their focus
when evaluating their own effectiveness. While the majority of
teachers define their effectiveness in terms of their success in teach-
ing an academic lesson, a significant proportion of teachers define
their effectiveness in terms of coping with the problems of students,
while another group of teachers focus on the nature bf the classroom
structure, defining effectiveness in terms of context. In additiofiy?
the organizational structure of the school,appears to affect teachers'
orientation in defining their effectiveness. Teachers at the Junior
High were more likely to focus on the handling of difficult students
in their assessment of their own effectiveness while teachers at the
Middle School tended to focus less on handling students and more on
teaching of subject matter.

The Ineffective Situation

In contrast to the effective situation, teacher descriptions of

situations in which they experienced their least effective teaching
focused predominantly on students with some type of problem, either
behavioral or academic (59%) rather than on difficulties in teaching
subject matter (20%) (See Table 3). Junior High teachers were more
-likely to cite a situation involving a group of difficult students
(47% compared to 22% at the Middle School), while Middle School
teachers were more likely to describe a situation involving a single
student with a problem (33% compared to 16% at,the Junior High).

These data suggest that teachers' sense of inefficacy is more

likely to be due to problems in coping with student behavior than in
teaching academic c3ntent. It is informative, also, to note that
only a few teachers referred to school organization or lack of
materials as an importarit eTement in the description of the teaching
situation in which they felt most ineffectiye. Thus, teachers seem
to perceive-that their problems in teaching are primarily problems
in handling students with difficulties.
28

43'
 Table 2

Efficacy Situation&

FocLis
Middle School Junior High Total
# % # % # '%

Teaching 12 50 7 39 19 45

Teaching of academic subject 10 42 7 39 17 40

matter

Teaching an affective lesson 2 8 0 0 2 5

Student 6 24 8 44 14 33

Difficult students 2 8 4 22 6 14

Individual work with single

student with problem:
Academic problem 2 8 2 11 4 10
Behavioral problem 2 8 2 11 4 10

Organization 6 25 3 18 9 22

Individualized classroom 1 4 1 6 2 5

Team taugh1 lesson 4 17 1 6 5 12

Multi-age, multi-level groups 1 4 1 6 2 5

TOTAL RESPONSES 24 18 42

29

44
 Table 3

Inefficacy Situations

Focus Middle School Junior High Total

# %
,-

Problem with students 15 55 12 63 27 59

[Link] of students 6 22 9 47 15 33
Single student with problem 9 33 3 16 12-. 26

Teaching of academic subject 5 19 4 21 9 20

matter

School organization problems 4 15 3 16 7 15

Equipment and material problems ,3 -.11 0 0 3 7

ts

TOTAL RESPONSES 27 19 -46

..
,

.-

30

,
45
 Factors Contributing to Teacher Efficacy'

In response to the question regarding what they felt contributed

to their*effectiveness in the situation in which they felt most
effective as a teacher, the teachers [Link] their
success to their own personal characteristics or behaviors (69% of the
responses were of this type). Personal characteristics, such as
, creativity, flexibility, enthusiasm, and interpersonal skills, were
mentioned,most often by Middle School teachers, while effective
teaching behavior (e.g., giving students responsibility for their own
learning and knowing how to motivate) was mentioned most often by
Junior High teachers (See Table 4). Student characteristics, the
nature of the learning activity, and organizational factors were also
mentioned as influencing their effectiveness, but these factors were
mentioned relatively infrequently when compared with the number of
responses citing teacher personality and teaching behaviors.

Factors Contributing to Teacher Inefficacy

Table 5 reports teacher perceptions regarding the factors con-

tributing to their ineffectiveness in the situation in which they
felt most ineffective as a teacher. Consistent with the findings
indicating that teachers attribute their,effectiveness to their own
personal traits and skills, the majority of teacners attributed their
ineffectiveness to personal inadequacies (63% of the teachers'
responses were of this type). Middle School teachers were more
.
likely to attribute their ineffectiveness to organizational factors
than the Junior High teachers (27% compared to 15%)', while Junior
High teachers were more likely to attribute their ineffectiveness to
students than were the Middle School teachers (18% for the Junior High
teachers in contrast to 9% for the Middle School teachers).

Facilitators and Inhibitors of Efficacy

Bronfenbrenner (1976) emphasized the importance of assessing the

effect of environmental forces as a critical aspect in analyses of a
system. Rayder, Larson, and Abrams (1977) reported that a number of
environmental forces identified by teachers as affecting their class-
rooms were related to third graders' achievement test scores, the most
salient of these being perceived administrative support. To identify
factors that teachers in our sample perceived as influencing their
effectiveness, the following item was adapted from Fox et al. (1970):

Many things are likely to affect ode's effectiveness A a

Middle School teacher, and these things are likely to be
different for different teachers. For yourself personally,
think about what helps you to be an,effective teacher and

31

46
 Table 4

Factors Contributing to Teacher Efficacy

'

Focus Middle School Junior High Total

Teacher Characteristics 25 45 9 31 34 40

Teacher Behaviors 12 21 13 45 25 29

Student Characteristics 9 16 3 10 12 14

Organizational Factorst, 5 9 2 7 7 8
,

Nature
,
of the Learning Activity 4 7 2 7 6 T
Parents 1 2 0 0 1 1

32

47
 Table 5

Factors Contributing to Teacher Inefficacy

Middle School Junior High Total

Focus

Teacher Characteristics 19 42 13 39 32- 41

Lack of interpersonal skills 3 1 4

Lack of knowledge 7 3 10
Lack of experience 4 4 8
Lack of enthusiasm 2 2 4
Frustration 2 0 2
Expectations 1 3 4

Ineffective Teachers Behaviors 9 20 8 4 17 22

Organizational Factors 11 27 5 15 '16 22

.
--

Time 1 0 1

Teacher-Student ratio 4 0 4
Too many'preparations 1 0 1
Absence of school suspension 1 0 1
Lack of help from other teachers 2 1 3
Lack of materials 1 0 1
Too many student ability levels 1 2 3
Lack of administrative support 0 1 1
Lack of administrative discipline 0 1 1

Students 4 9 6 18 10 13

Parents 1 2 1 3 2 3

33
48
 what makes it difficult to be effective as a teacher.
List everything that you can think of that helps you
to be effective in the classroom. Then list every-
thing that you can think of that makes it difficult
for you to be effective.

My Effectiveness as a Middle School Teacher

Is facilitated by: Is made difficult by:

Teachers' responses to this item were largely unexpected. The

item was included in an effort to elicit in an unstructured way the
envirdnmental factors that facilitate and detract from effective
teaching. It was surprising to find that overall the most frequent
response to the question of facilitators of effectiveness was in
terms of teachers' personal characteristics (44%). There was some
evidence of a differential effect related to school organizational
differences, 'however. Middle School teachers were more likely to
cite system supportlactors (46%) as facilitators of teaching than
their own personal characteristics (41%), while Junior High teachers
were more likely to mention personal traits (49% compared to 38% for
system support factors). In addition, a greater percentage of Middle
School teachers (46%) identified system support factors as contributing
to their effectiveness than did Junior High teachers (38%) who were
more likely to cite their own personal characteristics as facilitating
their effectiveness. Eleven percent of the total responses from
Middle School teachers cited characteristics specific to their
particular school structure (i.e., teams, multi-age groups, advisor-
advisee program). See Table 6.

The factors that teachers identified-as making it difficult to be

a good teacher provide an interesting contrast to the factors cited
as facilitative'of effective teaching. These results appear in Table 7,
Teachers' own personal characteristics were only rarely cited as
inhibiting effective teaching (10% of the total response). Lack of
system support was seen as the major contributor to ineffective
teaching in both the Middle School and the Junior High (51% of the
teachers' responses), and student characteristics were seen as the
second most influential factor contributing to ineffective teaching
(30% of the total responses). The teachers in the two schools were
very similar in their perceptions of what makes it difficult to teach
effectively.

34
 Table 6

Facilitators-of Efficacy

%
Middle School Junior High Total
Focus
# % # % # %

Teacher Characteristics 74 41 54 49 128. 44

Personality 25 14 20 18 45 15
Skills 13 7 10 9 23, 7
Knowledge 10 6 8 / '7 18 6
Attitudes 9 5 8 7 17 6
Training 4. 2 1 .1 2 .6
Beliefs 2' 1 0 0 2 .6
Experience 3 1 4 4 7 2
Personal Life 8 4 3 3 11 3.

Systerr Support 83 46 40 38, 123 42

Administration 12 7 10 9 22 8
Supportive Staff , 13 7 5 5 18 6
Materials 11 6 10 9 21 7
Teams 10 6 0 0 . 10 3
a
Small classes 5 3 2 2 7 2
Planning time 4 2 0 0 4 . 1
Aide 4 2 2 2 6 2
Good facilities 9 5 9 9 18 6
Sdhool philbsophy 2 1 0 0 2 .6
Same students/3 years 2 1 . 0 0 2 .6
Multi-age grouping- 3 2 0 04, 3 1

Advisor/Advisee Program 4 2 0 0 4 1
Workshops 0 0 2 2 2 .6
Counselors 2 1 0 0 2 .6
Media Center 2 1 0 0 2 .6

Students 15 8 11 10 26 9

Parent Support 8 4 5 13 4
5

t
 Table 7 .

Inhibitors of Efficacy

Middle_School unior,High___ _Total

Focus # % #

Lack of System Support 65 51 58 52 123 51

Poor administrators 0 0 6 5 6 -a
Poor coworkers 9 7 3 3 12 5
PaperWork 9 7 8 7 17 7
109 much wft/Too little time 6 5 7 6 13 5
County 4 3 0 0 4
Lack of Oanning time 6 5 7 6 13 5
Too many students 7 5 8 7 15 6
Lack of Materials 3 2 8 7 11 5
Interruptions, distraciions 4 3 , 2 2 6 3
Poor facilities 8 6 5 4 13 5
Poor pay . 3 2 4 4 7 3
Bureaucracy 2 2 0 0 2 1
Lack of recognition 4 3 0 0 4 2

Students 33 26. ' 38 34 71 30

Behavior 14 11 15 13 29 12
Lack of Motivation 7 5, 11 10 18 8
\ Lack of Supplies 1 1 1 1 2 1
\Low achievement 2 2% 0 0 2 1
eading level 2 p2 1 1 3 1
Wit responsible 2 2 0 0 2 1
Personal problems 1 1 1 2 1
SES 1 1 . 1 1 2 1
Abily level 1 1 4 4 5 2
Illiteeate 0 0 2 2 2 i
Other 2 2- 2 , 2 4 2

Teacher Characteristics 14 11 9 8 23 10

Lack of Parent upport 16 12 7 6 23 TO

\\ 36
 0

S.

Teacper Role Perceptions

In conceptualiiing teadiers' sense of efficacy, it is imperative

,

to consider teacherg' perceptions of their responsibilities.

Teachers'
sense of efficacy assumes meaning terms-of-the -roles-in- which-teachers-
perceive themselves. For example, if a teacher assumes that her major
responsibility is to impart subject matter she is likely to have a
different criterion of'effectiveness than the,teacher who perceives her
major role as helping each child develop a sense of self-worth.
To
examine the range of responsibilities [Link] accept as part of
their role as teachers, the following questions adapted from Fox (1970)
were used to explore the variability in teachers' perceptions of their
-
job: ,

All of-us-have cartain things about our own role performance

which we think are important. There dre ten numbered blanks
on the page below. In the blanks, please write ten adjectives
or short descriptive phrases, each referring to the simple
statement, "As a middie school teacher, I do the following
things."
,

Answer as if you were giving the answers to yourself, [Link]

somebody else. Write the answers in the order that they occur
to you.' We-are tnterested in bath positive and negative
aspects. Dalt worry about logic'but try [Link] as clear'as
possible. Write each, descriptive word or phrase as rapidly
as possible. Your first impressions are good enough.
9
AS CMIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHER I DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS:

The teachers' responses to this question were sorted And categorized;

the frequencies with which the responses occurred are reported for Middle
School and Junior High in Table 8. The results were surprising in that
there was a great deal of variety in the teachers' responses, and
traditionally accepted role responsibilities, like evaluation and design
of curriculum, were relatively uncommon responses. The most frequent
response occurring in 51 percent of the questionnaires was a reference
to classroom management. The second most frequent response was instruction'
or helping students learn subject matter, while experiencing positive ,

and negative affect were the next most common responses of the teachers.
Other role responsibilities mentioned by at least one-third of the sample
were motivate, plan, help students'emotiopally, and listen.

37

52
 Table 8

Teacher Role Perception Categories

'Middle School Junior-High Total

Categories # % #

Manage Classroom '

14. 48, 11 38 25 51 ,

Instruct/Help students learn 11 38 13 65 24 49

,subject matter
.

Experience poiitive affect . 14 48 8 40 22 45

Experience negative affect 12 41--_ .9 45 21
, 43
, Motivate 10, 34 ,--'`-9_, 45 19 39'
Plan 11 38 7 35 18 . 38
Help students emotionally 12 41 6 '30 18 36
Listen 12 41 5 25 17 '''. 35
Adapt teaching to students' 5 17 10 50 15 1'
ability/individualize i
-.

Grade (evaluate) 9' 31 4 20 13- 27

Work with colleagues 8 28 4 20 12
, -24
'Understand .8 28 4 20 12 24
Establish-personal relationship 12 41 0 0. 12 24
with students
Care 8___ 28 3 15 11 22
Work with parents 5' 17 6 30 . 11. 22
,
Work hard 9 31 1, 10
.
5 - 20
Talk 4 14 3 15. 7 14'
'1-6-dtb responsibiTity 4 14 3 15 7 14
Keep records 3 '10 4 20 7 14
Act as a role model 7 24 0 0 q' 14
Help students learn social skills 2 6 4 20 6 12'

38
 rOf greatest interest are the responses distinguishing the two
schools. Divergent emphases emerge from a comparison of the teachers'
responses: teachers at Mtddle School clearly'place a greater emphasis
oh interRersona3-interactiOn with students;' e.g., 41% of the Middle
School teachers mentioned"establishing personal relationships with
students-," while this response did not occur at all among teachers at
Juniorligli. Twenty-four percent of the'Middle School teachers cited
"Act as,a role model," while this [Link] never occurred in the
responses of the Junior High teachers. Care was mentioned by 28% of
'the Mfddle School teachers and by 15% of the teachers at
Junior High.
In contrast, 65% at Junior Higly'responded,"instructs or helps students
learm subject matter" in comparison with only 38% of Middle School-
teachers. Another interesting difference was that only 7% of the
Middle School teachers mentioned 1%dapt teaching to students' ability
1
level"compared to 35% at Junior Htgh. This finding is intriguing,
because structural differences in the schools, specificallk, multi-
age grouping at Middle School, suggest that adapting!teaching to ability
level would be a more pervasive problein at Middle School, yet teachers
there are apparently not as concerned wip this responsibility as
1;* teachers at Junior High. Of interest also is Middle: School's high
percentage (31%) of teachers [Link] that theM Nork hard" in
comparison with only 5% of the Junior High teachers. .

Summary and Implications for Teachers' Sense of Efficacy

The analysis of the teachers' responses td the open-ended items

of the questionnaire indicated [Link] in terms of their focus
when they evaluated their own effectiveness. The majority of teachers
focused on the teaching of subject matter, but about a third focused on
working effectively.'With a student or students with speciaj problems.
Teachers at the junior High were more likely to foqus on students
in defining their effectiveness than Were the Middle Scfiool teachers..'
The reason for schogl and teacher differences in the [Link] evaluating
teaching effectiveness is an important tiuesticin that needs examination
to increase our understanding of teachers' perceptions of their sense
of efficacy.

When teachers were asked to. descrfbe the teaching situation in

which they felt most i-neffective, they focused prima-ily on their
inabflity to cope with a difficult student or students. Asked about
the factors contributing to their effectiveness and ineffectiveness in
the specific situations in which they considered themselves most and
least effective, most teachers attributed both their success and their
failure to their own personal characteMstics, with a relatively small'
minority attributing their ineffectiveness to sChool orOnizational
factors or students. On the surface, this result-seems .0 conflict with
the teachers' responses to the more general question of facilitators
and inhibitors of effectiveness. While the teachers did tend to respond
with personal characteristics to the question of faCilitators, they
responded primarily with system characteristics when asked to list
.factors contributing to their ineffectiveness. The teachers' emphasis
on the importance of their own personal characteristics in determining

39
 their teaching effectivenets is especially informative regarding teachers'
perceptions of teaching effectiveness, since this particular item was
selected for inclusion in the questionnaire because it was assumed
that it was asking teachers to identify environmental o'r system factors
influencing effectiveness. The fact that the majority of teachers
responded with personal characteristics rather than environmental factors
on the question of facilitators but not on the question of inhibitors
raises an important question for the cbnceptualization of teachers' sense
of efficacy. It suggests the possibility of the need for a :two-factor
theory of teachers' sense of efficacy similar to Herzberg's two-factor
theory of job satisfaction (Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman,
1959). j

From responses from accountants and engineers, Herzberg concluded

that the factors contributing to job satisfaction differed from the
factors accounting for job dissatisfaction. Workers reported feeling
satisfaction as a result of achievement, recognition, responsibility,
advancement, and other aspects of the job that related to the nature of
the work itself, while job dissatisfaction arose from negative aspects of
e the work environment, for example, salary, working,conditions, administra-
tors, and administration policy and relationships with supervisors. Absence
'of the dissatisfiers did not insure job satisfaction, only the absence
of job dissatisfaction. Presence of specific satisfiers was essential
for feelings of job satisfaction.

Similarly, the teachers in our sample typically mentioned environ-

mental factors, for example, administrators, lack of materials, poor
facilities, students, as contributing to feelings of inefficacy, and only
rarely mentioned personal characteristics, while a majority of the teachers
referred to aspects of personal competence as facilitating their effective-
ness. Herzberg argued for the presence of two independent dimensions of
job satisfaction and job,dissatisfaction. The data obtained from teachers
in this study suggest tliat efficacy may need to be conceptualized in a
4 .
similar fashion; that is, efforts to increase job satisfaction by
influencing the "dissatisfiers," e.g., smaller classes, better administra-
tor-teacher relations, Tewer interruptions, will not in themselves increase
feelihgs of effectiveness; only as teachers experience greater success in
the classroom and greater [Link] will their feelings of
efficacy improve. [Link] dissatisfiers, and thus relieving
debilitating frustration ahd stress, may have the indirect effect nf
providing the [Link] teachers to experience a greater sense of
personal competence.

This interpretation [Link] also in explaining the observation

that teachers focused on student problems when asked about the situation
in which they felt most ineffective. According to a two-factor theory
of teachers' sense of efficacy, teachers would experience a sense of
inefficacy when confronted with students they felt they could not influence
or with difficult system constraints, large classes, excessive paperwork,
lack of materials, etc., but, given positive system supports and "good"
students, they would not feel effective unless 'they felt success in
achieving academic goals.

40
 In our comparison of role perceptions of teachers at the Middle
School with those'of the Junior High teachers, the school differences
were dramatic. Middle Sdhool teachers were much more likely to refer
to affective concerns, "establishing a personal relationship, listening,
helping students emotionally, caring, acting as a role model.," than
Junior High teachers who focused predominantly on the role of "instructor
of subject matter." This difference suggeits that schools may vary
significantly in terms of their teachers' perceptions of role
responsibilities, and, consequently, differ in the dimensions in terms
of which teachers evaluate their efficacy. It appears that teachers
at the Middle School in this study feel a greater press to evaluate
themselves in terms of their-effectiveness at establishing personal
relationships With students than teachers at the Junior High, which
may account for the fact that many more teachers at the Middle School
feel they "work hard" in comparison to teachers at the Junior High.
At the Middle School there seems to be a powerful school norm emphasizing
affective'objectives which is not present at the Junior High. The
school culture provides a context within which the teacher evaluates
persona) competence. Consequently, teachers at Middle School would be
more likely to consider their competence in achieving affective goals
with students when they consider their sense of efficacy than teachers
at the Junior High. ThUs, in attempting to understand teachers' sense
of efficacy and the factors influencing it, it is important to consider
the impact of the school culture and the teacher competencies that are
particulaMy valued at the school in order to understand the dimensions
6fiThwhia teachers base their sense of efficacy. The results of this
study provide evidence of the variability among teachers in the rdles
they cOnsider integral to the position of-teacher and the differences
that different schools ascribe to various roles; thus, the context
in which teachers evaluate themselves will be crucial to their judgments.

*co

41
 Teacher Stress.

Teacher stress and burnout have been prominent topics in

of teaching in recent years. discussion
Kyriacou (Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1977)
defined teacher'stress as

P,a response by a teacher of negative affect (such as anger,

anxiety, or depression) accompanied by potentially
pathogenic
phystological changes (such as increased heart rate,
or release
of adrenocorticotrophic hormone into the bloodstream)
as a
result of the demands made upon the teacher in his role
as
a teacher. (p. 299)

A number of factOrs have been identified as contributing

stress: to teacher

(1) the'Clegree of role conflict or role ambiguity

involved,
(2) the degree to which the teacher perceives that he is
unable
-to meet the demands made upon him,
(3) the degree to which the teacher's ability to meet the
demands
is impaired by poor working conditions,
(4) the degree to which the demands are new or unfamiliar,
and
(5) the degree to which the teacher is already experiencing
stress
resulting from sources outside his role as a teacher.
(Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1977, p. 299)

The second factor, "the degree to which the teacher

unable to meet the demands made upon him," seems to be perceives that he is
conceptually similar
to teachers' sense of inefficacy. Thus, it is reasonable to
propose that
teachers' sense of efficacy affects teacher stress.
To the extent that
teachers feel confident that they are having a positive impact
on student
learning, teacher stress should be reduced.
However, the evidence indicating
other factors, for ,example, inadequate salary and excessive
clerical work
(McLaughlin & Shea, 1960; Rudd & Wiseman, 1962)Ialso
contribute to teacher
gtress suggests that teachers' sense of efficacy is
not the sole determinant
of teacher stress.

In addition, the effect is likely to be reciprocal.

In as much as
emotional arousal can affect self-efficacy,
as evidenced by Bandura's
(1977) research;'a negative emotional state, that is,
teacherstress,
attributable to environmental factors, will eventually affect
the teachers'
sense of personal competence. For example, teachers
may begin to feel,
"How effective can I be when I am paid -

so poorlY?" or "How can I be effective

when I'm given such large classes to teach?"
or "Since the principal never
acknowledges my effectiveness, I must not be very effective."

EvidenCe suggests that a large prdportion of

:eachers are disillusioned
with teaching; for example, Sparks (1979) reported
that 46% of the teachers
he questioned were dissatisfied with teaching and would
not choose it as a
career, if they had it to do over again. Inability to deal with the
stresses that teaching imposes is likely to be a major
contributor to this
-dissatisfaction on the part'of many teachers. Thus, stress is certain to

42

7
be an important variable to be considered among the factors contributing
to a teacher's sense of efficacy.

To explore the sources of stress in teaching and teachers' methods

of coping, we asked teachers to complete the following two items:

I feel excessive stress as a teacher when

People have a variety of approaches to dealing with stress.

Describe what you do when you feel tress from teaching.

Like Lortie (1975), we found that "troublesome students" (consisting

of 37% of the stresses identified bythe sample of teachers) and "time
pressures" (24%) were the greatest stresses for teachers (See Table 9).
However, school differences in the extent to which students were reported
as "stressors" are notable. Only 28% of Middle School teachers' responses
identified students as a source of stress compared to 52% of Junior High
teachers. Even more interesting is the fact that only 7% of the Middle
School teachers mentioned unmotivated students as a stressor in contrast
to 24% of the Junior High teacher responses.

Teachers were very similar in their responses to the second item.

(See Table 10). However, Junior High teachers were somewhat more likely
to respond that they get upset or accept the situation (20% of the Junior
High teachers compared to 6% of the Middle School teachers),..while the
Middle S'ehool teachers were more likely to respond that they try to solve
the problem (3% of the Junior High teachers compared to 16% of the Middle
School teachers).

43
 Tabl e 9

Teacher Stressors

Middle School Junior High Total

% # %
Students 12 28 13 52 25 37

Disruptive students 9 21 7 28 16 24

Unmotivated students 1 7 6 24 ,9 13

Too much to do and too little time 8 19 8 32 16 24

Paper work 6 14 0 0 6 9

Inadequate support system .., 5 12 13 4 6 9

machinery, material, adminfistration

Grade papers.. 3 7 0 '0 3 4

,

Apathetic parents 2 5 0 0 2 3
.,

Self inadequacies 2 5 10 4 3 4

Large classes and varying abilities 1 2 1 4 2 3

Other 4 9 1 4 5 7

5L1
44
 Table 10
)

Teacher Coping Strategies

Middle School Junior High

Focus a
Total \
r % # % # %

Recreate 12 24 8 23 20 24

Get away from situation 10 20 8 23 18 21

.
.,

Try to solve problem 8 16 3 9 11 13 /

i

Talk to others 5 10 3 9 8 9
/

Talk to other teachers 5 10 3 9 8 9

Get upset 2 4 4 .11 6

7J

Accept the situation 1 2 3 9 4

P
Profes'sional activity 1 2 2 6 2 /2
i 9
Other 6 12 2 6 8

/
l

43

45
60 .
 SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND EFFICACY: THE FIXED-ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS

The purpose of the fixed-alternative questions was to (1) search

for relationships between teachers sense of efficacy and other variables
considered to be related to effective teaching and (2) to investigate the
relationship between school organization and sense of efficacy. In the
next sections the specific variables of interest in the search for
relationships that may provide insight into,the processes by which
teachers' sense of efficacy influences student achievement are discussed.

School Climate and Teachers' Sense of Efficacy

A number of important research studies have appeared recently to

challenge the Coleman et al. (1966) and Jencks et al. (1972) conclusion
that schools do not make a difference in the lives of children of'
poverty. These studies emerged from a variety of different perspectives,
and methodologies and, yet, are consistent in their results. That is,
the overall climate of the school has a significant impact on students'
learning. When this climate is supportive of student achievement,
student gains in learning are very likely, irrespective of the socio-
economic level of the students.

Brookover and his colleagues.(Brookover, Gigliotti, Henderson, &

Schneider, 1973; Brookover, Schweitzer, Schneider, Beady, Flood, &
Wisenbaker,1978 ) have conducted a series of studies that suggest that
the negative effects of low SES on school achievement can be 6vercome
' if the school climate fosters high academic expectations in students
and a sense of academic success. Following a study of relationships
between teacher and student perceptions of climate, Ellett and Masters
(1978) concluded that an educationally effective school climate will
vary as a result of differing combinations of organizational, inter-
personal and ,socio-psychological factors. Thus, a variety of different
school climate configurations could be associated with high student
achievement.

A major research endeavor in Great Britain has substantiated U.S.

findings regarding school climate. Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston,
& Smith (1979) reported that students' achievement was related to the
overall "ethos" or climate of the school. Specifically, the degree of
academic emphasis, the availability of incentives, the extent to which
students were given responsibility, teachers' expectations about
students' work, and the feedback students received about their work
provided a cumulative effect that combined to create the school ethos.
Like Ellett and Masters, Rutter:et al. concluded that it was not a
single specific style or set of behaviors that constituted an effective
sehool climate but a quality of life that pervaded the environment and
was composed of different specific factors in different school contexts.

A number of teacher factors of school climate have been found to

relate to school achievement, specifically, colleague relationships
a(Ellett & Masters, 1977) and teacher present evaluations-expectations of

46
students and teacher perception of student academic improvability
(Brookover et al., 1978). The differences in the organizational structures
of the two middle schools in this study, [Link], multi-age grouping and
team teaching, were expected to influence school climate. To investigate
the relationships among school organization, climate, and teachers' sense
of efficacy, the three school climate factors id,entified above were
assessed. Colleague relations were measured by a [Link] the School
Survey (Ellett & Masters, 1977); see Appendix B,\items 61-66. Teacher
present evaluations-expectations were assessed using a subscale of
the school climate instrument developed by Brookover and his colleagues;
see Appendix B, items 40-44. Teacher perceptionsof student improvability
werealso assessed using a subscale developed by Brookover and associates,
see Appendix B, items 45-49. .

Cohen (1979) reported that schooL organization, can affect the degree
of intergroup conflict; to determine if multi-age grouping and team
teaching are related to reduced conflict and teacher sense of efficacy,
questions from Deslonde's Multicultural Social Climate Scale (Cohen, 1979)
were included in the teachers' questionnaire (see Appendix B, items 50-60).
%

\
job Satisfaction and Teachers Sense of Efficacy

The teacher's general satisfaction wit; teaching,was expected to

have a reciprocal relationship with sense of efficacy. Unfortunately,
there seems to be a rather general Aissatisfaction of teachers with
teaching (Lortie, 1975). Research on job satisfaction offers some clues
as to why teaching ts not perceived as a highly satisfying occupation.
From an extensive review of research,on the'determinants of job
satisfaction, Vroom (1964) concluded that factors most Conducive to
job satisfaction include "high pay, substantial promotiqnal opportunities,
considerate and participative supervision, an opportunity to interact
with one's peers, varied duties, and a high degree of control over
work and methods and work pace (p. 173). As Lortie (1975) aptly
demonstrated, teaching offers little in these areas.

Research on job satisfaction has consistently shown that workers'

job satisfaction is positively associated with the extent to which they
participate in decision-making (Hornstein, Callahan, Fiscn, & Benedict,
1968; Meyer & Cohen, 1971). However, Vroom (1964) demonstrated that
the importance of participation in decision-making to job satisfaction
is dependent upon the participant's personality. Participation in
decision-making was most positively related to job satisfaction and
performance of persons high in need for independence and lvilf in
authoritarianism (r = .55) and less positively related for tndividuals
low in need for independence and high in authoritarianism (r=.13).

Vroom (1964) argued that job satisfaction is a function of the

joint effects of work role and personality variables, especially
motivation; this relationship becomes particularly complex in;estimating
teachers' job satisfaction as a result of lack of consensus oh the
nature of the teaching role and the specific contextual constraints on
the role as a result of various organizational expectations.

47
p0
 The complexity of the relationship is compounded by considering the
element of effort. Lortie (1975) pointed clit that highly involved and
comMitted older, unmarried women were relatively dissatisfied with
teaching; thus, high effort and commitment in the context of inadequate
rewards may be associated with lower levels of satisfaction and,
concomitantly, sense of efficacy.

One particularly salient feature of the teacher's role for a

consideration of job satisfaction and sense of efficacy, emerging from
both Jackson's'(1968) and Lortie's (1975) study of teachers., is the
uncertainty regarding effectiveness. Lortie reported that this aspect
of the,teacher's work eyoked more emotion than any other he studied.
In fact, questioning teachers about their effectiveness led to such
emotional "flooding" that Lortie was forced to rephrase his question
in gentler terms. He wrote:

Thus a seemingly simple Eluestion on problems of

evaluating progress unleashed a torrent of feeling and
frustration;, one finds self-blame, a sense of inadequacy,
the bitter taste of failure, anger at the students, despair,
'and other dark emotions. The freedom to assess one's own
work is no occasion for joy; the conscience remains
unsatisfied as ambiguity, uncertainty, and little apparent
change impede the flow of reassurance. Teaching demands,
it seems, the capacity to work for protracted periods
without secure knowledge that one is having any positive
effect on students. Some find it difficult to maintain
their self-esteem. (p. 144)

This tormented sense of uncertainty must be a significant concern

in identifying factors related to sense of efficacy. For example, how
do teachers cope with the uncertainty in a way that enables them to
maintain a sense of efficacy? One of the paradoxical functions of
teachers' support groups, according to Lortie, is to help each other
deal with feelings of self-doubt when confronted with the impossibility
of fulfilling the formal goals of the profession'and institution.

Within the context of the discussion of the relative dissatisfaction

of teachers with teaching, it is important to recognize that there
appears to be no consistent relationship between job performance and
job satisfaction. In fact, current research fundings "conclusively
reject" the hypothesis of job satisfaction as a causal determinant of
job performance and offer only moderate support for performarke as a
determinant of satisfaction (Greene, 1975, p. 252). Greene contends
that a more complex relationship obtains: 'It is reward not satisfaction
that directly affects performance. How sense of efficacy would be
implicated in this relationship is not immediately evident. To attempt
to derive some preliminary evidence regarding the relationship of
teacher job satisfaction to sense of efficacy, teachers were asked to
describe some of their feelings about teaching (see Appendix A, items
29-39).

48

63
 Results

School Differences

School means for the teachers' responses to the questionnaire items

are presented in Table 11. A comparison of the distribution of responses
from the two schools, using chi-square analysis (see Table 12), indicated
that the Middle School teachers considered teaching more important to
them than the Junior High teachers (x2=6.14, 2<.05) and were morg likely
to choose teaching again, if they haT a chance to do it again (e=7.69,
p <.01). The differences in teacher stress reported at the schools was
not statistically significant (x2=3,65, p>.60).

Since the responses for some of the items provided more than,simple
nominal data and were at least ordinal in nature, the more powerful
Wilcoxin test was used to examine differences in distributions of teacher
response patterns for those items. Results of-this analysis (see Table
13) indicate that Middle School teachprs were more satisfied with
teaching than Junior High teachers (x4=3.85, p<.05).

Coefficient alpha calculated for the Brookover et al. (1979),

Cohen (1979), and School Survey (Ellett & Masters, 1977) school climate'
items was .61, .84, and .59, respectively. It was concluded that these
coefficients were sufficiently high to warrant use of a total score for
each. One-way analysis of variance indicated that Middle School teachers
had higher e*pectations of academic success for their students (F= 6.18,
p<.05). Middle School teachers reported more difficulties with collegial
relations than did Junior High teachers (F=8.24, p<.01). No'significant
differences in student intergroup conflict (CohenT 1979) were detected.

Of most interest for the purposes of this study, there was a trend
approaching significance, indicating that Middle School teachers had a
higher sense of efficacy than Junior High teachers, measured by their
total score on the Rand Efficacy items, F(1, 46)=2.82, 2.<.10. While
the school effect on teachers' sense of efficacy failed to attain
statistical significance, the fact that Middle School teachers did
have higher mean scores on both efficacy items may be suggestive of the
need for further investigation of the relationship between school
organization and teacher's sense of efficacy. It is possible that the
skew and limited variability (M=8.66, SD=1.51) may have restricted the
possibility of discovering real differences in teachers' sense of
efficacy due to school differences. Response distributions for the
two efficacy items for each school are presented in Table 14. Exam-
ination of this table reveals that 50% of the Middle School teachers
scored 8 or above compared to 30% of Junior [Link], and, in
contrast, 32% of Middle School teachers scored 6 or less compared to
55% of Junior High teachers. These data suggest that there may be real,
school differences in efficacy that a larger sample and a more reliable
(longer) instrument might well be able to detect.

Teachers' responses to the item asking for attribution of respon-

sibility for student failure also suggested a potentially important
difference between the teachers in the two schools, though statistically

49
64
 Table 11

School Means and Standard Deviations for Questionnaire Data

Item-Number N Mean SD \ Min. Max.

r
Efficacy 1 Middle School 28 3.43 .96 5
Junior High 20 2.95 1.15 5

Efficacy 2 Middle School 29 3.76 .79 2 5

Junior High 20 3.50 .79 2 5

26. Stress Middle School 29 3.34 1.01 1 5

Junior High 20 3.10 1.12 0 5

29. Satis- Middle School 29 2.21 1 \4

faction' Junior High 20 2.95 1.19 1

30. Teaching Middle School 29 3.97 1.30 1 7

as Life Junior High 20 3.55 1.64 2 7
Interest

33. Work2 Middle School 29 1.41 .50 1 2

Junior High ' 20 1.70 .57 2 3

34. Freedom Middle School. 29 6.14 .87 4 ^7

Junior High 20 6.05 1.05 3 7

37. Importance3 Middle-School 29 1.52 .51 1 2

of Teaching Junior High 20 1.90 .55 1 3

38. Assessino Middle School 29 1.38 .49 1 2

Teaching4 Junior High 90 1.60 .60 1 3

5
40- Brookover Middle School 29 23.86 4.10 15 35
49 Junior High 20 26.65 3.47 20, 33
6
50- Cohen Middle School 29 41.52 7.08 17 51
60 Junior High 20 43.65 8.04 26 56

61- Colleague, Middle School 29 14.79 2.51 10 18

66 Relations/ Junior High 90 16.75 2.07 11 18

'Lower score indicates greater satisfaction.

4The lower the score, the harder the teacher feels s/he works.
3The lower the number, themore important teaching is to the teacher.
4The higher the number, the more difficult the teacher feels
it is to
assess' teaching.
5The lower the score, the higher the teacher expectation for student
success.
§,The higher the score, the greater the school cultural conflict.
/Higher score indicates better colleague relations.

50

65
 Table 12 .

0
Chi-square Tests of School Differences
,

,
Item df
P-
\

Efficacy 1 4.10 4 .39

Efficacy 2 2.71 3
, .44
Total Efficacy Score a.07 7 .33
Training 1.83 2 .40
Elementary Degree .21 1 .65
0
Secondarx Degree 1.34 1 .24
Middle School Degree 2.46 1 .12
Willingness to be observed .44 1 .51 /
Willingness to attend workshop' 1.64 1 .20
Willingness to serve as consultant 2.02 1 .16
26. How stressful is teaching? 3.65 5 .60
29. How satisfied are you with teaching 8.68 4 .07
Teaching as % of total life interests 9.80 6 .13
31. Teaching Emphasis/Warmth or Uork .36 2 .84
32. Type of Student Preferred 5.27 3 .15
Type of Student Preferred--2nd Choice 2.63 4 .62
33. How hard do you work? 3.64 2 .16
34. How free are you in your work? 3.90 4 .42
, 37. How important is teaching to you? 6.14 , 2 .05
35. To what do you attribute student failure 5.60 3 .13
38. How difficult is it to assess teaching? 2..48 2 .29
39. Would you choose teaching again? 7.69 1 .01

C.
 Table 13

Wilcoxin Tests of School Differences'

*x2
Item df

Efficacy 1 1.93 1 .16

Efficacy 2 .97 1 . .32
29. How satisfied are you with teaching? 3.85 1 .05
30. How hard do you work? . 2.30 1 .13
31. How important is teaching to you? 3.89 1 .05

Table 14

Distribution of Efficacy Responses by School

3 4 5 6 . 7 8 9 10
School # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %

Middle 0 0 2 7 0 0 7 25 5 18 11 39 2 7 1 4
School

Juriior 1 5 1 5 3 15 6 30 3 15 4 20 2 10
High

52

67
 significant differences were not detectable'. The item appeared on the
questionnaire as follows:

.When my students fail to learn a lesson that I have taught,

their failure is probably due to -

Responses were categorized as either an attribution to self (e.g.,

.1 wat not prepared; I failed to present the lessOn adequately) or to
students (e.g., students were not listening, they lacked the ability;.
they were not motivated) or to both student and self. From Table 15,
it can be seen that Middle School teachers v,ve much less likely than
Junior High teachers to blame students for their failure.

Efficacy.

Comparison of the distributions of the teachers' scores on elle

two Rand efficacy items using chi-square analysis indicated that et16
two items do not appear to be measuring the same construct (x2=11.11, 2<.52),
and consequently, analyses of the response patterns for efficacy and
the other items (in the questionnaire were carried out for-each efficacy
item separately. These results appear in Table'16 and 17. ,Results
indic;te a relationship between trainIng and scores on Rand Efficacy item
1, (x'=16.56, o .03); that is, teachers with training beyond the.
Bachelors degree are more likely to score higher on Efficacy, as measured
by Rand item 1. This result, however, did not hold for Efficacy item 2.
Teachers, with high scores on Rand Efficacy 2 Were more likely to
agree to serve as a consultant to the Efficacy project than teachers with
low scosres (xc=8.14, 2.<.04). Teachers' preferences for different types
ofr,students Were associated with their scores on Rand Efficacy item 2.
.(x6=21.21; 2.<.01). There was a trend indicating a potential relation-
sTiip betweenteacher job satisfaction and efficacyAx4=20.12, 2.<.06)%
as measured,by Rand efficacy item 2.

Discussion

Middle School teachers considered teaching to be more important to

them than did Junior High teachers. The Middle School teachers also
'reported that they were more satisfied with teaching and were more
likely to choose teaching as a Career, if they had a chance to do it
again. In addition, the Middle School teachers had high expectatjons of
academic success for their students and tended to have a higher sense of
,efficacy- While a selection bias or some factor other than school .

structure, per se, may account for these positive results, they warrant
further study.

Teachers' responses to the question of their perceptions of their

role demonstrate dramatically that the Middle School teachers perceive
their teaching responsibilities differently than the Junior High teachers.
Clearly, the Middle School teachers are more concerned with their students'
affective development than the Junior High teachers. The Middle School

53

CS
 Tabl e 15

Teachers Attribution of Responsibil ity for Fail ure

Middl e School Junior High - Total

# % # % # i
Self 12 41 7 30 19 38

Student 4 14 7 35 11 22

Self and Student 9 31 7 35 16 32

Other 4 14 0 0 4 8

54

GD
 -V

Table 16

Chi-square Tests of Relation Between

Efficacy (Item 1) and Other Teacher Attitudes

Item 2
df

Efficacy 2 11.11 12 .52'

7
Training 16.56 8 ,03
Elementary Degree 3.83 4 .43
Secondary Degree 3.22 4 .52
Middle School Degree 3.17 4 .53
Willingness to be observed 3.11 4; .54
/
Willingness to attend workshop 1.53 4' .82
Willingness to serve as consultant 6.14 .19
4
26. How stressful is teaching? 11.81 20
1
.92
29. How satisfied are you with iteaching 18:39 16 .30
30. Teaching as % of total life interests 16.49 24 .87
31. 'Teaching emphasis/warmth of. work 8.97 8 .35
32. Type of student preferred 9.93 12 .62
Type of student preferredr-2nd choice 11.15 16 .80
33. How hard do you work? 2.16 8 .98
34. How free are you in your,work?,, 20.47 ' 16 .20
37. How important is teaching to you?, 4.62 8 .80
38. How difficult is it to assess teaching? 6.98 8 .54
39. Would you choose teachig again? 2.42 4
.
.66

55,

70
 Table 17

Chi-scuare Tests of Relation Between

Efficacy (Item 2) and Other Teacher Attitudes

2
Item x df p

Efficacy 1 11.11 12 .52

Training .69 6 .99
Elementary Degree 1.96 3 .58
Secondary Degree .80 3 .85
Middle School Degree 4.16 3 .24
Willingness to be observed 5.24 3 .16
Willingness to attend workshop .93 , 3 .82
Willingness to serve as consultant 8.14 3 .04
26. How stressful is teaching? 21.76 15 .11
29, How satisfied are you with teaching? 20.12 12 .06
30. Teaching as % of total life interest 21.24 18 .27
31. Teaching emphasis/warmth or work 12.04 6 .06
32. Type of student preferred 21.21 9 .01
Type of student preferred--2nd choice 17.52 12 .13
33. How hard do you work? 6.72 6 .35
34. How free are you in your work? 6.76 12 .87
37. How important is teaching to you? 8.84 6 .18
38.. How difficult is it to assess teaching 8.14 6 .23
39. ,,Would you choose teaching again? . 3.13 3 .37

56
teachers' report of greater satisfaction in teaching than the Junior High
teachers may be related to the difference in perception of their teaching.
role. Jackson (1968) and Lortie (1975) among others have noted that
teachers tend to derive their rewards and satisfactions in teaching from
their role in the total development of the individual student. The
Middle School emphasis on affective goals and long-term relationships of
students and teachers over a three-year span may give a greater sense
of effectiveness by virtue of their being able to observe their contri-
bution to students' development over an extended period. The rapid
and significant changes that students undergo during the middle school
years may intensify teathers' feelings of effectiveness, when teachers
are given the opportunity to participate in this growth from the students'
entrance into middle school until their exit three years later.

Experimental research that investigates the potential impact of

prolonged exposure of teacher and student over more than the year of
traditional teacher-student assignment might reveal that teachers' job
satisfaction would increase as a, function of being able to see students'
long-term growth. With a longer association, teachers may become more
assured that they are indeed having an impact on their students' lives.

The finding of difficult collegial relations among the middle school

teachers was not unexpected. Draud (1977) reported a similar finding in
his comparison of middle and junior high school teachers. Brookover
and Lezotte (1977) noted that conflict among school staff may be
indicative of a creative, committed group of professionals. In their
study of team organization, Cohen, Bredo, and Duckworth (1976) concluded
that the way teams work together influences job satisfaction. While,
in most cases, teaming led to higher frequency of teacher interaction
and job satisfaction; this was not true of all teams. They attributed
differences in team satisfaction to the nature of team teaching tasks
ard the quality of teacher interactions on the team. Results of a study
by Arikado and Musella (1973) suggest an intriguing hypothesis that may
be pertinent to the findings of this study. They found that teachers
in leaderless teams reported greater job satisfaction than teams with
formal leaders. Tentative evidence derived from interviews, with
teachers in this study suggests that the status of team leader may create
dissatisfaction among team teachers. Further work is needed to explore
the processes that are conducive to conflict resolution and facilitative
team relationships.

In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that the middle

school with its team organization and affective orientation may have
potential for improving teacher job satisfaction. In light of the
transition to middle schools that many junior high schools are currently
undergoing, it would be advisable to conduct comparative studies of
teacher attitudes prior to and following such transitions to determine
if the positive results obtained in this study are consistent outcomes
of a middle school organization. In the context of such research, it
would be useful to design quasi-experimental transition studies that
could examine the impact of specific components of middle school
organization on specific aspects of job satisfaction in order to increase
our understanding of the processes that contribute to positive school
climate and teachers' sense of efficacy.

57

72
 SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND TEACHERS' SENSE
OF EFFICACY: A'MICROETHNOGRAPHY

Introduction

The purpose of this ethnographic study of the two organization-

ally different middle schools was to explore the relationship of school
organization to teachers' attitudes toward their work, especially their
sense of efficacy. Organizational features, such as the arrangement of
teachers, students, and administrators in time and space, the division
of labor and leadership, and the tasks to be performed within their
incumbent roles and responsibilities, contribute to the unique shape of
the participants' experience, attitudes, and behaviors within a school.
The way in which teachers' professional lives differ in response to
differences in school structure may have important implications for
their sense of efficacy. Consequently, the fundamental question to be
addressed by this reseafth was: How do teachers' attitudes differ in
organizationally different schools, especially in terms of their sense
of efficacy, and how can these differences be explained by the vari-
ationsin school organization?

Methodology

The exploratory nature of this research task required a method-

ology capable of examining teaching and its contextual determinants in
a way that would be useful in generating hypotheses for directing further
research and theory building. To provide useful insights into the
processes by which school organization Influences teacher thought and
action, a methodology was required that has the capacity to go beyond
merely describing what teachers do and what teachers believe in each
school. A methodology was needed that would allow the researcher to
describe ". . .the complex meaning systems people use to organize their
behavior, to understand themselves and others and to make sense out of
the world in which they live" (Spradley, 1980, p. 5). Because of its
usefulness for these purposes, ethnography was chosen as the appropriate
methodology for this study.

Consisting of an in-depth analysis of four teachers' perceptions

of their professional lives, as they were influenced by school organi-
zation, this research qualifies as a microethnography, focusing as it
does on only one aspect of teaching in contrasting school organizations.
The concept of world view, borrowed from the field of anthropology,
provided the focus of the study. World view refers to the system of
beliefs, attitudes and explanations teachers use in conducting and
evaluating their professional lives.

Fora period of a year, two teachers each from the two organiza-
tionally different middle schools were observed as they taught their
classes and as they related to other teachers, staff, and students. The
approximate-schedule of observations appears in Table 18. (An effort was
made to keep the number and timing of observations of the four teachers
equivalent.) The teachers were also interviewed at length about
their attitudes toward teaching. The four teachers were selected

58
 Table 18

Schedule of Observations

Date School Teacher Date School Teacher

8/25/80 1 & 2 1S, 1Q, 1L, 2D, 2J 4/14/81 1 1L

8/26/80 1 1S, 1Q 4/15/81 2 2J
8/27/80 2 20, 2J, 2B 4/16/81 1 1L
8/28/80 1 1S, 1Q, 1L 4/27/81 1 1Q
9/10/80 1 1S, 1Q, 1L 4/28/81 2 2B
9/11/30 2 2D, 2J, 2B 4/29/81 1 1L
10/28/80 2 2D, 2J, 2B, Dean's 4/30/81 2 2J
office, Cafeteria, 5/1/81 1 & 2 1Q, 1L, 2J, 2B
hallways 5/4/81 1 1Q
10/29/80 1 1S, 1Q, 1L, Team, 5/6/81 2 2B
Cafeteria, hallways 5/8/81 1 1L
12/19/80 2 2D, 2J, 2B, hallways 5/12/81 2 2J
2/2/81 1 1Q, 1L in Faculty 5/14/81 1 1Q
meeting 5/18/81 2 2B
2/4/81 2 2J 5/20/81 1 1L
3/31/81 1 1L 5/22/81 1 & 2 1Q, 1L, 2J, 2B'
4/1/81 2 2J
4/7/81 1 1Q
4/8/81 1 1Q, 1L
4/9/81 2 2B
4/10/81 2 2J, 2B

59 74
 according to the following criteria:

- Two or more years of teaching in the school

- Previous teaching experience in another school

- Willing to particiOate in year-long study

- Identifieu by school principal and assistant principal

as "good" classroom managers

- In the middle school, belonged to the same team

- Ih the junior high, belonged to the same department

but different grade levels

These criteria were established in order to reduce teacher differences

that might not be related to school organization and highlight charac-
teristics that might.

All data collected in the field were recorded in field note§ or

on tape. Following each day of field work the field notes were expanded
and transcribed onto tapes. Then, these tapes were transcribed on
5" X 8" note cards for analysis purposes.

The primary methodological strategy employed was cultural theme

analysis, a process of identifying domains which appear to have an
organizing capacity, providing a system of meaning for individuals within
a cultural setting. Defined by Spradley, a cultural theme is ". . . any
principle recurrent in a number of domains, tacit or explicit, and
serving as a relationship among domains; any subsystems of cultural
meaning" (1980, p. 141).

60

75'
 Results

The major cultural themes distinguishing the teachers in the two

schools will be described followed by a discussion of the major school
organization factors identified in the analysis as contributing to the
thematic differences.

Teaching Conceptions: An Exalted or a Burdened Profetsion?

Teachers' attitudes about the job of teaching were found to be

sharply different in the two schools. At the middle school, the teachers
operated with a cloak of heroic pride and the prevailing belief that
the job of teaching is hard work, sacrificial, underpaid, but terribly
important. In spite of pronounced frustrations that there were not
enough hours in the day, these teachers viewed their job as a personal
challenge and managed to maintain a near-the-surface awareness of the
grandeur of their job.

They professed the belief that teaching was therefore an almost

exalted profession, particularly in view of the working hardships
teachers face and that it was a source of profound personal satisfaction.
This attitude was poignantly expressed by one middle school teacher:

I think that teaching is an inspired profession,

I really do. For philosophical and relAgious reasons
I feel like teaching is a gift and a unique opportunity
to help other individuals it's a great contribution
. . .

that we can make to our fellow human beings and to our

society . realizing that we're taking.
. . not only . .

their intellect but their total being over a period of

years, and we're spending. as much time as their
. .

parents do with their children, and we're entrusted

with their development and that's a great responsi-
bility and yet a great opportunity, and I see it as
both, and I consider my position an exalted one if
you want to say it tilat way, and I think that's one of
the reasons I have stayed with [teaching] . . .

realizing my rewards are maybe not in the financial

realm. . .if I feel good about what I'm doing and feel
like I'm really contributing to society and my fellow
man, maybe that's much more worthwhile than the dollar.
So, I guess that is a basic assumption. that I feel . .

it is a calling . . . .

One of the things that helped develop that idea of

the calling or the exalted position is the middle school
concept. I think if you taught at the high school or
let's say a junior high school situation, I don't think
the stress is on the total development of the child. . .

you see yourself as instilling a certain amount of

intellectual knowledge. Now if you only perceived your
role that way it doesn't give you this full feeling--
still it's a tremendous responsibility, but when you
think about the total development of the chilli which
the middle school talks about, you know, self concept,

61
 in a sense we're talking about his moral development--
values and how he relates to other people and is he
going to be a contributing member of society and
we're talking about a lot more things than just his
mind, then that makes it much more fulfilling . .

The middle school teachers' conception of teaching as a noble

profession, in which they are entrusted with a great moral responsibility,
was supported by a series of beliefs they held about students and the
effects of schooling. The middle school teachers were convinced that
the job of teaching offered them an opportunity to affect the lives and
futures of their students in significant ways. Teachers unquestioningly
felt that the importance of their job was first and foremost determined
by the students, and they were committed to working for improvement and
change in all students. To achieve success in these grand aims, the
middle school teachers reported that teaching their students to assume
responsibility for their behavior, and, ultimately, for their lives was
a major objective. The strength of these convictions and their relation-
ship to a strong sense of efficacywere conveyed in the comments made by
another middle school teacher when she was asked about her teaching goals:

First, before you can teach them anything, you have to

teach them how to live, if they don't know how to yet.
Unfortunately, a lot of them don't. And you have to
teach them to take responsibilities for their own
actions. You can't ever let them get into a situation
where they blame anybody else for their performance at
school. It's something that they have to take the
responsibility for. 1 really feel that that's true.
The thing I want to teach them is how to continue
learning after they leave me or after they leave school.
And I don't want them to just do things because they
get a grade for it or something like that. And that's
why I mally stress a lot of recreational reading. And
I think it's very important to teach them how to get
alohg with each other -- not just in the school setting
but in [Link] settings too. And it's unfortunate
that we have all of these responsibilities that we do.
Because you can't teach kids how to read or do math or
anything else if they don't know how to live. And
though some of them do, many of them don't.
I didn't have this orientation at the beginning. At
the beginning I thought I was supposed to go in and teach
Language Arts. And that's all I was going to do. . . .

This was when I taught at another middle school, but it

wasn't very organized. And I had just eighth graders
then. And I soon began to realize that there were lots
of behaviors of the 'kids that they learned other places. . .

that really interfered With learning, and there were lots

of things they were bringing from home -- lots of problems
and things that interfered with their learning. And I
thought that what I needed to do was ignore those other

62
77 4.
 things. ' I really thoughtthat was my job. To ignore
all the problems and to go ahead and teach them. And
I thought it could be done. But I found out that you
couldn't.
You can't let the problems be an excuse for why the
kids don't learn. But you still have to take the other
problems and extraneous things into account or you can't
teach them. And there is a difference between using ,

those things as an excuse, and saying, "This kid can

never learn, because look at his home life." That, I
totally disagree with. But-I still think that you need
to look at those things and work with those things before
you teach the kids.

This middle s"chool teachers' commitment to reach all students is also

reflected in her response to a request to describe the different kinds,of
students that she teaches:

Then I have some kids who don't come from a supportive

environment. So whenever they get to school, before they
can learn anything, they've got to have the supportive
environment established at school, because nobody at home
is telling them that it's important for them to learn this
or that or the other thing. So I have to first of all
convince them that it's important and make them trust me
enough so that they would want to learn whatever it is
that I have to teach them. And so, besides teaching those
kids the kind of stuff I'm teaching the other kids, I
also have to teach them values about learning. And then
there are kids who you_not only have to teach values about
learning, but you also have to teach them life values.
They don't know that there is a way to live without
fighting or they don't know that there is a way to live
where you take responsibility for your life, and you can
really do things about your life, and they have to be
shown that the things they do have consequences and that
they can control their own lives. So then you have to
teach them that learning is important. You have to teach
them that they can control their own lives, and you also
have to teach them whatever it is that you're supposed to,
be teaching them. . .
.

Yes, I woUld say that's really been the major way that
I differentiate them. I have found it really doesn't
have all that much to do with economics at all.

The teachers at the middle school were continually generating new

ideas for teaching and for improving the quality of school life for
themselves and their students. They viewed the job of teaching as an

63
opportunity to create, explore and experiment with educational issues
and conditions. This attitude is reflected in a middle school teacher's
response to a request to define teaching:

It's a process of sharing what the teacher has learned

or experienced with the student. Plus, it's a process of
helping the-student to discover both his own curiosity
about how things work and things around him or things
that have happened. Also, to help him discover his own
values and [Link] find information that he may be seeking
and how to take that information and actually apply it
to what he's learned before [Link] how that
information may affect his values or how he's going to
use it in his life. I really think one of the key
processes is helping the student take what you are
offering him and relate it back both to other
situations or other lessons that he's learned and also
to his values and the way he As going to structure his
life. . Iiguess I'm a person,who feels that teaching
.

and Aucation is a process that has to be experienced.

I'm not one of these people Who is really content
oriented. I'm more concept oriented, working with ideas.
And in order to teach ideas I think the student has to
experience them. That might be through lab experiments
in science or if it's in social studies it would be
simulations or through role playing or other types of
activities. It's essential, I feel, that the teacher
take what is maybe an abstract idea and put it into a
real situation where the student is given a chance to
work with it, see it work in operation or role play it or
somehow experience it so that he gets a deeper under-
standing of what it's all about. And it's important that
we realize that you know the amount of information con-
tent is expanding at such a rapid rate that there is no
way possiiile that a4teacher can teach all Jthe content
that is necessary in a Oven area, So, what you want to
do as a teacher, I think, [Link] expose the stud'ent to
ideas and then show him how he can search on his own to
find information that relates to those ideas; teach the
student how-to analyze information that comes to him,
to organize material and information that comes to him
and then,take those concepts and aftually be able to
think them through to some rational process, scientific
method or whatever you want to Call it - through some
type of organized system to take the information and
then analyze it and apply it to new ideas.

,Teachers did regret not having more time for planning, grading papers
and managing school business. Rather than foregcing quality, however,
this meant the job was more demanding. The incredible effort expended
by many middle school teachers is typried in one teacher's description
of her schedule;

64
 I usually get up around 4:30 or 5:00 o'clock. I grade
paRers and plan my lesson for the day:'' I'm just too
tired at night usually to do anything like that. For
example, I got up this morning at 4:30. I didn't have
any papers to grade, but I had all my lessons for today
to plan and I had to read about five stories today so
that I could have an intelligent discussion with the kids
about them. I have one group reading a novel, and I have
to, you know, plan the way we're going to discuss it today.
And then, whenever I finish,that, r come to school. So
that means that some days I get here like 7:15 or some
days I don't even get here until 8:00, which is five
minutes late. But I rationalize that if I'm doing my
school work, then I can come in whenever I reach a good
stopping point. And I like, whenever I can, to get here
early enough to be able to go around and say good morning to
some peopleand get a few little communication things in.
Anytime I can, I'd rather talk to people instead of writing
them a note. I think it gets the job done in a better way.
And then, in the morning I try to sit-in the planning room
the whole time. Sometimes'I do come to my classroom. It's
very hard ft.:, me to get right into sitting down and
accomplishing something right after school. And, fortunate-
ly, it's that same way for most of the people on my team.
So a lot of time, after school, we're all a little more
casual when we sit around to talk about what happened during
the day. I just feel like there is almost no time, here at
school, when we're not talking about something that'll
benefit the kids in some way. You know, it's not that we
plan it that way, it just happens that way. You know, that's
where our concern is. I love coming to school and working.
The things about my job that I get disgusted about are those
paper work kinds of things when your kids aren't here. The
time [Link] are her , it's so valuable to me I really enjoy
it. I love it. AnIdnd of dissatisfactions that I have a
with teaching does t ever 'come from - well, I. can't say
never, but they [Link]'from - the time I spend in the
classroom. I think that',s a really exciting time.

At the Junior High, the teachers did not have these same convictions
aboutthe job of teaching. While they "liked" teaching, they did not talk
of it in glowing terms but described it more as a burdened profession, a
trying job. As opposed to viewing the job as heroic, these teachers spoke
of teaching in factual, limiting terms. This attitude is cohveyed in the
brief, doctrinaire responses the Junior High teachers gave in contrast to
[Link], philosophical reSponses from the Middle School teachers when
they were asked to-define tedching. One teacher replied:

Teaching is teaching a ehild how to use all his skills.

 A second unior Hieteacher responded:

elping students to learn to Hecome, to grow as

individuals, to become all they can be in,every
way. ,

//
It was clear that for them the job was not a guaranteed opp6rtunity
/

to shape students' lives and futures:N. In fact, they were fairly uncertai
about the school's'capacity to do that. They did see the job as an
opportunity to teach students about a designated ptece of the curricululy
or to prepare them for high school requirements. Somehow, these teachers
had a dim memory of those ideals whicH led them to teaching in the firft
place, but the glow of those dreams had faded and the real demands of
executing the curriculum colored their notions about teaching. They were
not unhappy and rather liked their work but didn't really speak with -

enthusiasm about teaching. When asked if there are things that you
look forward to each day the two Junior High teachers responded:

No. I think I kinda do look forward to each class

as it comes in. I don't°think I look forward to any
one thing in particular, because I usually try to
t change the pace during class so I won't be bored. I

try not to bore myself. Sometimes I do, but after

six classes . ...

Oh, well, I don't know. Most of the days I don't.

I mean, I don't ever . . well maybe Monday
.

mornings,,Inaybe if I'm especially tired or some-

,
thing like that or just don't feel good, but most
of the time you know, I don't. I hardly ever dread
[coming in] unles*there's some,other kind of
pressure about things. And if there's, oh, I don't
know, maybe something particularly exciting.
, .

Relating'the significance of the teaching job to the effective

execution of the curriculum may account for some of the teachers' attitudes
about teaching. Teaching creativity, ingenuity and experimentation were
got viewed as part of the job as much as the capacity to cover material
in the course of a school year. Technical aspects of the job were more
consuming as teachers perceived themselves to be at the mercy of the
curriculum. Thus, teaching was not acknowledged as an'opportunity tp
explore and experiment with educational issues and conditions.

With regard to beliefs about students and job attitudes, the teachers
had a somewhat fatalisti f. perspective on student improvability -- some
will and vibe won't, and there''s [Link] much one can do, as one Junior
High teacher responded when asked, "Have you ever had a child who's not
interested in school activities?"
 Teacher: Well, there's quite a'number of those and
some of them are, you know, lacking. I can creal with
sode and some of them I never, you . . they leave
.

exactly the same shape that they came in.

Interyiewer: What has worked with you with kids like

that?

Teacher: Just explaining sometimes, you know. I know

social studies may not be one of the things that you
really like, but, you know, I think you can try. I

think you can do something, and sometimes it does and

sometimes it doesn't - sometimes it helps, you know,
and sometimes it doesn't.

Since the focus was on the curriculum, students' potential was defined
mostly in terms of academic success (i.e., good grades, appreciation for
subject matter), and not in terms of social and emotional growth and
development. Possibilities for student improvement were thereby limited.
Teaching was viewed as a job with limited power and potenttal for producing
change in students' lives. This attitude Kas particularly evident in the
Junior High teachers' concern about the lack of ability grouping in their
classes:

Interviewer How does your teaching situation affect

your capacity ta achieve your teaching goals?

Teacher: First of all, that kids aren't grouped . . .

it makes it difficult for teaching. Some of them are

capable and some of them are totally, you know, you've
got everything from an ESE kid just one slot out of EMR
tO gifted in the same room and it's very difficult to
handle the needs of both of those kids when the range
is so huge. Also, meeting the needs of this great
disparity of ranges - that is totally beyond me.

Interviewer: How would you group kids?

Teacher: Well, I think it would probably be easier to

group them maybe behaviorally, but behaviorally probably
comes from academically, whether they are able, you know,
whether they are frustrated by the material, whether
they are able to perform. When they're not, then they
become problems in one way or another, either they're
not producing so it's an academic problem for me. t
would probably be easier for me to group them on at
ability level they are.

Interviewer: Can you give an example of ho you might

change some part of your teaching or gr ng or
expectations?

67
 Teacher: Well, you expect, if I assjgn a written
report, or if I assign anything outside I don't expect
as indepth or as thorough, or I dont expect
in many instances what you would really call a report
from certain students.' I mean if they copy something
straight out of an encyclopedia I feel like I'm lucky.

When asked "Do students support your teaching goals?" one of the
Junior High teachers responded:
C.4

. . .they're more supportive of their own little social

thing . . .it's just that my thing is not that important.
It's important to me, it's just not that important to
them. They're not trying to keep from doing it, but
it's just not that important to them. It's a minor thing
in their lives.

Teacher Role Perceptions: Student DeVelopment vs Academic Instruction

Job attitudes were closely linked to the teachers' role perceptions.

Teachers' perceptions about what they ought to be doing at work were
quite different at the two schools. At the middle school teachers saw
themselves as responsible for the tasks of planning' effective lessons and
eva:uating progress, but essentially perceived their most crucial role to
be that of "hdlping students" in a number of different ways. Essentially
thee perceived themselves as agents of personal development, performing
the tasks of advising, guiding, encouraging and caring for students with
the intention of teaching students how to get alone in the world. Second
tO the teacher-helper role was the role of developing teacher-student
*relationships. Third was the role of teacher collaborator and team
member. jeachers believed that the roles of teacher-helper and relation-
ship-enhancer were complimented by the role .of team member. All:three
major roles highlight a role perception which focuses on the inter-
personal dimensions of school life, as the two Middle School teachers
explained:

I think just by vir, ue of the fact that this school is,set

up based around tedis and AA's and everything, it means
that one of the mot important things thft this school
is making sure of i that the kids are tappy and
comfortable here adu then they feel,safe, and when you
know that that's a really important thing at the school
you feel better about spending time trying to make it
happen. You don't feel like you'Te short-changing the
kids. I think there are probably a lot of schools where
the subject matter or whatever it is that you're supposed
to be teaching as far as the content goes, that overrideS
any other concern and I would say that at least on this
team, and probably all across the school, that we have to
make sure that the kids are happy first. Because other-
wise they aren't going to learn anything anyway And we
have to come to recognize that so we do something about it.

68

63
 ,

You know, I really feel that if you're going to have

any really effective development of the child in the
emotional level you have to have alprograM that is
laid out very clearly and then is encouraged. You do
what it says is supposed to be done. That's basically
what the advisor-advisee program iS aboui: It's a
format where certain types of activities are set up so
that you can work with students' Olues,and help them
clarify what they think is important in\thefr lives.
And it also works with their self-doncept which is
extremely important to an adolescent because they go
through a lot, you know, at this age, and a lot of
times it is easy to piCture oneself as "the ugly
duckling", unacceptable, a social Outcast, or\whatdVer
it might be. We help a student realize that Olere are
good things about him and naving,a pcmitive concept and
a positive self-image is gitremeiy important. It is
hard even to work in an academic level if you're\
frustrated with [Link] what's happening in your
life. And you have a means of dealing with this or
with these types of problem-.

In contrast, the teachers from the junior high saw theMselves first in
the role of instructor, teaching students their subject matter. Second,
teachers saw themselves as disciplinarians in the role of classroom manager.
The third role was that of grade,gtver. Giving grades was an important
part of the job for these teachers .andlwas perceived as a major role as
well. The emphasis here was on -the management aspects of teaching as
opposed to the interpersonal dimensions of the school world. The
importance given to these aspects of teaching is evident in the teachers'
responses to the question, "How do you evaluate your students?"

Test scores, teacher tests (not Metropolitan) and soMe-

times self-evaluation kinds of things, I'velused those
too. But for the acddemic mark, it's mainly based on
tests and classroom work. Now with the behavior part
of it, that's based on, well, observatiOn - marks fon
ona particular thing or another, like with the gum or
if they're sent to the office or any of those kinds of
things that I have to say more than once gr if I have,
to write their name on the board at the beginni-ng of '

the period when people aren't where they're supposed

to be.

Easy, three ways: tests,. homework and classwork.

Differences in classroom instruction and management indicated differences

in teachers' goals and priorities in teaching. The middle school teachers
used a variety of teaching methods, focused on "understanding over completion"
and frequently grouped students in an effort to meet individual student needs.
When classroom activities were interrupted by an infraction, it was
immediately stopped, and lessons were continued. With the majority of cases,

69
teachers later counselled students, advising them to behave in appropriate
ways. Teachers were concerned that students learn self-control; and
disciplining was used as a tool for that instruction. Students were
rarely sent to the office but instead were required to draw up a contract
of agreement between themselves and their teachers. At the middle school,
teachers worked hard to make lessons interesting, emphasized learning
over grades and valued student interests and needs. Curriculum was viewed
as a flexible resource.

Teachers at the junior high planned and iaught lessons which repeated-
ly relied on one matn teaching model. The teachers disseminated informa-
tion, and the students read and answered questions from the texts.
Students in a single class did the same activities, and few accommodations
were made for those moving faster or slower than the average students in
the class. Student interests were rarely considered with any sincere
interest to acknowledge them, and very little attention was given to
"understanding". The paramount goal was getting through the chapters and
having students complete required work.

Infractions were viewed as time-consuming irritants,and culprits were

generally removed from the room and sent to the office. Teachers did not
follow up with any counseling with the scudents who were sent out. There
was,a belief that students ought to come to school ready to learn. The
teachers worked hard to be efficient and organized, to follow the curriculum
guide and to maintain allegiance to academic goals. The curriculum was
viewed asa fixed guide.

Organizational Factors Related to Teachers' Sense of Efficacy

Three school factors seem to be particularly important in influencing

teachers' sense of efficacy: team teaching, the school principal, and
multi-age grouping.. The nature and influence of these aspects of the
schools' organization will be discussed in some detail.

70
 Teacher Relationships

Introduction

For the majority of teachers, professional collegial relationships

are rare. Teaching is a profession characterized by the neutral isolation
of its members and an individualistic conception of teacher roles and
responsibilities (Lortie, 1975). With little idea of a state of the art
compounded by the absence of a common technical culture, teachers enter
the profession with the overwhelming task of determining what teaching
is all about, and determining that alone. As Lortie explained in his
work School Teacher (Lortie, 1975):

Each teacher must laboriously construct ways of

preceiving and interpreting what is significant.
That is one of the costs of the neutral isolation
which attends the absence of a common technical
culture. (p. 73)

This free-wheeling, wide open status for the profession perpetuates

a wide variety in the characteristics of its members. At the same time,
it exacerbates the individual teacher's burden of success or failure as
he/she can rarely derive consolation from compliance with some set of
normal proftssional expectations. 'Moreover, it reduces the likelihood
of collegiality since :teachers represent individual personalities who
have struggled to find individual ways to survive. With such an individ-
ualistic orientation, other teachers are more likely to be viewed as
intruders rather than comrades (Lortie, 1975).

That teaching ought to be more than a semi-profession (Etzioni, 1969),

and that teachers must communicate,.cooperate and collaborate for that
goal to be achieved s(Lortie, 1964) has been a subject of serious
investigation for some time. The individual school as a social system
has been frequently identified as one potential ,source for the modifi-
cation of teacher behavior, sentiments and professional world views
which perpetuate the status of the profession (Bossert, 1979; Goodlad,
1975). If a characteristic of teachers' psychological world is indeed
as Lortie concluded, one of H....uncertainty about their own capacity to
be effective," (Lortie, 1975, p. 132) perhaps answers to reducing that
uncertainty lie in the design and operation of the individual school
(Metz, 1978). Alterations in the reward system which promotes individ-
ualism in the work arrangements which prohibit collegial ilteraction and
in the leadership structures which discourage teacher [Link] could
change the nature of the teaching experience in profound ways.

In this section of the report, collegial relationships are analyzed

as they were witnessed in two organizationally different middle schools.
At Middle School, teachers were arranged in interdisciplinary teams
where four or more teachers shared the same group of students and related
instructional responsibilities, the same part of the school building,
the same planning area, the same daily schedule, and the same resources
and supplies. The teachers at Junior High, however, had individual

71

86
teaching responsibilities distinguishable by the subject area, particular
levels of ability and grade level or levels taught. Formal membership
in their subject area's-department was a unit of common collegial assoc-
iation but did not provide for task-related daily interaction or sharing
nor was it designed to do so.

In addition, teachers' roles'and responsibilities in the two schools

varied as a result of the differences in organization. Participation
in decision-making in Middle School occurred through the same team unit
where team teachers had the opportunity to make decisions_collecti-ely
and refer their decisions to the administrators. Since the department's
realm of decision-making at the Junior High rarely stretched beyond
subject area curriculum concerns, decisions were not referred to the
collective minds of department members on a regular basis. Department
chairpersons did participate in decision-making with the administrators,
but the teachers were viewed as individual faculty members who had
opportunities to present their personal ideas and opinions rather than
the shared views of a common group.

On the surface, differences in the two schools have the potential

for producing collegial relationships of contrasting natures. And they
did. An account and analysis of how and why these differences existed
follow.

Middle School

An atmosphere of isolated and solitary labor may frequently depict

the professional lives of teachers; however, there are schools that appear
to defy tradition. At Middle School, life is filled with the companion-
ship, conversation, and cbmradery of fellow teachers. While each day
begins with the traditional stop in the faculty lounge for the singularly
performed tasks of signing-in, checking the mailbox, and perusing the
bulletins, this initial individualism is soon exchanged for an oasis
of teacher int Yaction and fellowship that colors the remainder of the
school day and representatively, teachers' professional school lives
in this Middle School.
i

The team planning room is perhaps the most valued and used place for'
teachers at the Middle School. It is a hub of collegial activity. Every
day four to seven team members congregate here for refreshments, a parent
conference, a student conference, a regular team meeting, supples, or a
visit kith team members throughout the school day. The decor of this
small space is a very solid indication of the team's collective identity.
This is shared territory fashioned for sharing and interaction.

Just outside the team planning yoom there is a,

display on the wall. There is a large sign which reads
"Courtesy of the Dynamos," and I learn later that "Dynamo"
is the team's logo. Underneath the sign there are posters
with each of the team teachers' pictures and a written
personal autobiography beneath each photo. Once inside
the planning room, it is easy to see that teacher contact
'would be inevitable as the small room is furnished with

72
 rectangular tables fashioned into one large table
with chairs facing inward.
On one wall there is a bulletin board with a
sign "D team Planning Room" and a calendar with dates
for team events and meetings. The opposite side of
the room is essentially a wall fabricated out of large
cabinets which contain "team supplies." Taped to the .

outside of these cabinets are envelopes labeled with

the team teachers' names. These are team member
memo mailboxes. On the second bulletin near the
entrance way there are notices, cartoons, teacher
birthday cards and school news posted. Above it hangs
a poster advertising_a film called, "Stir Crazy" with
two men in bird costumes captioned, "Two birds of a
feather." The two has been crossed out and the word
seven, for the number of team members, has been written
in to replace it. Finally, there is a refreshments
table with a coffee pot, coffee cups, coffee, tea
and hot cocoa. All of the planning room's arrangements
and decor have been [Link] of the team teachers'
effort.

Supporting the opportunity for interaction provided by the team

planning room-is the proximity of team members' classrooms. The four
teachers responsible for instruction in the main academic areas on the
team, are located in neighboring classrooms. Team members are continu-
ously moving in and out of the nearby planning room where important papers,
memos, messages and supplies are kept or are'witnessed :leaning in a
neighboring teacher's doorwayfor conversation. In either case, there
is an enormous amount of face to face contact among the team's teachers.

Spatial 'proximity and a common territory are further accented by a-

common daily schedule. While all teachers have an individual planning
period every other day, teachers on a team have a shared planning time
,
before and after the students' day as well as a shared lunch time. The
teachers find-themselves together in time as well as space.
,

As thejteachers' use of the icommon planning room spa and 'ma

revealed tife team's collective identity, so the teachers' use ofj shared
time reveals another dimension of teacher relationships. Descrii ing
the team's shared lunch time, one reading teacher explained: '

,
, Lunch timeis our big social time. As matter of fact
we even have special lunches, you know. Like about
once a month, we all bring in some things and eat
together. We get a lot accomplished at lunch time
talking about the kids. We don't necessarily sit there
with the intention of talking about the kids but when
you've just spent four hours with them, that's what you're
thinking about. So that's what we talk about.

Sharing the teaching responsibility for the same group af students

is the common task that contributes dramatically to teacher relationships

73
 at the Middle School. Since a sense of satisfaction in teaching is
probably derived from students, having the same students encourages a
team of teachers to become united in their efforts to produce satisfying
results. Even in the private worlds of their classrooms, the teachers
are neve)* fully separated from their colleagues, as the shared world
of the students connects them. As one team member described this
phenomenon:

After the,students leave, I usually sit there two minutes

and collect myself. Then we usually get together as a
team and there is a lot of communication about frustra-
tiOns and what's succeeding and what's not goingr at
that time...We talk about, you know, this is driving me
crazy, or I'm about to lose my mind and that is when the
team becomes very important. When a particular teacher
is having a bad day,you know, we really pull around
and lift their spirits'. There is always a lot of that
going on. There [Link] a lot of pats on the backs,
if yoDJve had a particularly good day and if something
was really successful.

A fellow team member's remarks provide clarification and support:

I just feel like there is almost no time here at

school, whenever we're not talking about something
that'll benefit the kids in some way. You know, it's
not that we plan it that way, it just happens that Way.
You know, that's where oilr concern is.

Common responsibility seems to yield a common focus. The teachers

are connected by the students they jointlY manage and teach and the
significance of this connection is unveiled in the litany layers of
, teacher relationships.
.
With teaching success or failure intricately
interwoven with that of the other team members, team teacher relation-
ships are colored by particular expec ations. A social studies teacher
explained:

Everybody in this school is aware of the fact that a team,

in order to do its job, has to work smoothly and cooperate
and learn to get along. As a result, some things just
happen spontaneously and other things we sort of plan.
At Christmas and other times we have special get tOgethers;
after school we get together socially and the team builds
that kind of relationship. We're very close. I care a
lot about my team members.

Valuing the collegial relationships within the team and working to create
and maintain them are expectations that govern teacher relationships
within the school.

Rewards that emerge out of the team interaction and fellowship often
focus on success with the students either in discipline, positive relation-
ships or successful instruction. Teachers help each other achieve these

74

89
 rewards within the team structure and so they are essentially shared
rewards. Referring to her relationships with students, one teacher
described it this way:

Because of the way we do talk aboui the kids and

share things that we find out, I feel like I know
all the kids well just by what their other teachers
and my team members have told me about them.

Another team member elaborated on it this way:

On the team, if I become aware of a problem, it is

very important for me to communicate with the other
members of my team about that student and the problem.
On our team, we're constantly invotyed in the process
of trying to help students and they're the same
students so we've got lots of help.

The expectation to communicate with fellow team members reaps that reward
of knowing the students well enough to feel, capable of helping them. As
expressed by a third teacher who describes how the team makes teaching
easier:

I would say,there are just certain things that the

kids know,like we're all on this team, we're all very
strict; we're very firm with the kids on certain things-
mainly behavior. We just don't allow them to behave
like animals and they know that. It just makes my
teaching a lot easier...We have a lot of counseling
that goes on in this team. And it just seems like
the kids find somebody on th e. team who they can talk
to, and for different kids it's a different teacher
and uhenever they need to talk to a teacher about some-
thing, the others always try toecover for that teacher
so that they can have tiMe to spend with this o e
student.

The planning and conducting of special activities which call upon

the varied talents and interests of the team's teachers are viewed
as team accomplishments and are a source of pride for those involved.
In the spring over lunch, a team member reviewed the year:

I've been thinking about all the neat things we've

done this year. We had the election. Let's see,
what else? Then we had the drug education unit,
and the tornado unit. We still have our third and
fourth field trips coming. And Camp Crystal of
course, another teacher pipes in.

The fact that these activities were made possible by the cooperation of
the team members contributes to the positive sentiments teachers have
towards collegial cooperation. As a new team member described the lack ,

of teacher communication at her former place of employment, she emphasized

the importance of teacher communication at Middle School. In her words:

75

90
 Teachers weren'c even allowed to sit in the lounge
in the morning. At that school, communication wasn't
valued at all. And I think that's the second most
irportant thing t)ere; of course, the kids are first,
then I would say communicating with the other teachers
is the second most important thing at this school, and
I like that.

The fact that the teachers on a team have shared rewards either in
improved student behavior, improved or enriched curriculum or improved
student relationships, as well as shared difficulties, may tend to reduce
the tendency towards professional individualism and isolation. Relation-
ships among the team members are characterized by support, understanding
and trust. There is even a "looking out for each other" theme which
captures this collective identity.

Life on a team further encourages collegial relations by requiring.

teacher participation in collective tasks and decision-making. Decisions
regarding team events, team rules, educational gobls for the team,
individual student plans and school policies are made by teachers with
other teachers on the team. Weekly team meetings, before and after
school, lunch hours and off times during the day are rich with decision-
making activity and talk.

Common decisions [Link] by common tasks to be performed. Team

members generally divide the labor according to individual teacher talents
and interests. 'The end of the school year's team awards assembly is a
case in point. During a team meeting held in preparation for the event,
the following occurred:

Teacher Alice passes out special award sheets for the Team
Hall of Fame awards to be given to students. Alice has
designed the special award slips and has prepared enough
copies for all of the team's teachers. Helen, the team
leader, and meeting conductor, says that Doroth (the
) phyOcal educa ion teacher on the team) will co duct a
I slide show whi h is a photographic collage of the entire
school year. his will be done at the Awards ASsembl.
Then Helen sa d, "We'll have to decide on awards and the
Team Hall of rame.0

Team decision making and task sharing precipitates the teachers into
the sharing of their ideas, feelings, priorities, and time. This, of
course, can and did produce tension from time to time when sentiments
were divided; however, it also assured that team members knew a great
deal about,the fellow teachers on the team. In the same [Link]
evidence of both the potential tension as well as wealth of interpersonal
knowledge is found:

Helen, the team leader says, "Team Hall of Fame. How

do you want to do this? You want to call out names
and then discuss each one?" Teacher Susan says, "Last
year we gave too many of them, and it didn't mean as much."
Helen responds, "Oh really, I didn't feel thatway."

76

91
 And Helen says after a pause, "You all are going to
have to say something." Seeing that Helen is frustrated,
teacher Philip says gently, "Helen, calm down. We're
thinking." Then teacher Dorothy adds, "O.K. we're
ready now." Helen says, "Well, I'll go ahead because
I've got a list I've already made. It's a mile long."
So she begins with her list of students, one name at
a time. She says, "Tim Post" and a team member follows,
"He tries very hard to help teachers and people." Other
team members chime in with "yes". They continued name
by name with comments from various teachers throughout.

In this decision-making session and the countless others that fill the
lives of these teachers, professional attitudes, beliefs and assumptions
surfAce or are directly confronted. In many cases, conversations are
extended into the personal worlds of teachers and so the realm of inter-
personal knowledge among colleagues continues to be expanded. Team
teachers know a great deal about the personal lives of their team members.
In one typical lunch hour, conversations shifted back and forth between
the two worlds of teachers: the professional and personal. Here's a
poignant excerpt:

It's fUnch hour, and the teachers are seated tOgether at

a round lounge table. Susan, says, "Philip, did you stay
up all night?" Philipy "I had a friend who had a problem.
You know how that goes." Susan responds, "I used to do that.
I just don't do that anymore. I can't." Helen brea4 in
with comments about the special Career Day activities that'
are going on that day, "The army and thedoctors teally
bothered me by not shbwing." Philip says, "The paramedics
took them out to the ambulance." Susan adds, "I think
the're doing a better job today than yesterday." The
conversation shifts again to personal life information and
Susan comments to Helen, "Yours (your stomach) has gotten
little, it really has." Helen says, "It's getting there,
thank you." Philip jokes, "Well, I'd like a closer
examination." Helen c'uokles.

The conversation progressed, and the topics included plans for the team's
Greek luricheon, Philip's former teaching experience with an activity on
Roman foods, reflections on the school year events, and a comment about a
reading conference in New Orleans which triggered Philip's sharing a
personal story about how he got drunk for the first time in New Orleans.
This sequence of conversational events is typical and demonstra,tes how
the professional and personal lives of the teachers were frequdetly
disclosed in tandem. Another key example is drawn from a social studies
teacher's interview on the team. He's describing the kinds of activities
teachers do together:

Well, we went to the Pizza and Brew last night and had a
good time. When we went to check out Camp Crystal,,we
carpooled out there, and we had a really deep philosophical
discussion ahout our goals in life, and it was a r'eally
good time. When we came back, we'felt closes and we

77

.1i
92
 gave each other a [Link] and went on our way: We
have dinners together. We have luncheons together.
We have parties. Alicia had a party. Anythi/hg else,
Helen? Helen says, "Nothing you would want to put
on tape."(laughs) Helen says, "We're friends as well
as teachers."

The administration works to promote teacher interaction. Tradition

has it that before each school year starts, and at Chris,tmas, the
princilial entertains the staff in a social setting. According to his
philosophy, "People who play together, work togkher." The principal
also instituted a T.G.I.F. gathering where teachers would spend a few
hours on Friday afternoon oliti cocktails in 4 local bar. This occurred
several times during the schdol year. When it did, it was easy to
observe that teams often went together. Hospitality is provided once a
month by each team again focusing on the team. Most importantly, the
administrative system used encourages team decisign-making and interaction.
The school is engineered by a steering committee comprised of administrators
and team leaders as well as representative teachers from special areas. ,

Decisions on school policy and procedures are made by this committee

which meets biweekly. Team leaders report to the team members who are
then engaged in decision-making. During several meetings of the steering
committee, the principal said, "Take this back and discuss it with your
teams." The expectation was that teachers ought to be involved and that
productive ideas and decisions could be generated by their involvement.

,The relationship establibhed between the principal and teachers in

some ways reflects theseexpectations. Dialogue is frequent, and teachers
are expected to be willing and able to express their ideas, feelings and
opinions. As the principal described his criteria for judging the overall
effectiveness of his staff, he highlighted,communicatidn. In his words:

Well, the major thing is communication skills becatise.I

don't think...a lot of other things are possible without
good communication skills. Teachers are all encouraged
to do well on their own, but most important they must
cooperate and get along well with other staff.

Teachers echo back the same priority and offer statements of validity.
A team leader describes her relationship with the principal in this wdy:

'About the same kind that I have with. teachers. You

kriow, we talk sometimes about the kids. We talk about
the organization of theechool, a lot of maintenance
type things, about what I aM allowed to do and not to
do. And We also talk about ourselves, too, you know.
I meet him as a person as well as a principal.

The principal's expectatiohs for teacher participation in larger

school affairs and authority are realize'd both formally and informally.
'The presence of -die team leadership group is a key to the decentralizes{
authority within the school. Indiyidual staff members are'likewise '

encouraged to make and execute plans for the whole school. The principal
d,escribes the formal system:

78

93
 On the individpal level, anybody can come and speak to
me or h team leader by themselves. But theie next
step is on a team basis which i§ seven or eight
teachers who get together, and they talk alput things,
aqd often decisions are made on a team levtl. Then
another step up ts the Prggram Improve5peCouncil
where the,team leaders or _any individual can come with
a concern that they,have, and it-can be expressed
there which has an umbrella effect ovqr the,entire
school, [Link] are a part of that too.
So everyone hears it directly or indirectly. That's
0
the main channels% ,

/'
This is t4anslated into a level orteacher involvement which is expressed
as a school norm. Variation in the type of participation is more acceOtable '

than is variety in the level of participation. The shared rewards of the

team, plus the expectation for involvement beyond the teacher's classroom,
loom large in determining the nature of teacher behavior and teacher
relationships. In particular, there is evidence of collegial resliett
which emanates from interactionS'. Team members are frequently soliciting .

ideas and advice fromone another. Visits to one another's classrooms

are viewed favorabiy and not as intrusions. Finally, when asked about
who they might invite to critiqueftheir teaching, the two focus teachers
whose lives have been observed in detail, bo4h reported, "a fellow team
mbmber or teAchar,"
/

Life'for the teachers at Middle School is not characterized by .

isolation and individualism. The school's organization and administratien

support and promote collegial interaction. The results hre observable ,
efforts on the part of teachers to watch out for one another in a number,
of ways, to participate in social act-rvities which encourage teacher
fellowship and to sustain the collective 4dentity and craft pride
associated with the team. There is a sense of knowing what's expected,
of personal authority and'control and of peer support and collegiality
that is created within the team's small interpersonal world.

Junior Hig'h .1

Teacher relationships at Junior High School were found to be of a

strikirfgly different nature from those at the Middle Sdhool. From the
start of a school day, until :ts finish, the teacher at the Junior High
is an individual staff member doing an individual job. Major responsi-
bilities, roles and tasks to be performed, as well as the organization
of time and space, are determined on the basis of the individual teacher.
.

This individUalistic conception of the teacher's role within the

school is Witnessed [Link] and varied dimensions of'teachers' lives.
While teachers have overlapping:lunch periods, a teacher's daily schedule
is viewed as an individual possession. Shared times are limited to'the
daily lunch period and available time before and after the instructional
day. Formal meetings, such as faculty,meetings, department meetings
and parent conferences do bring teachers together during these times..,
 When those functions are not occurring, however, teachers are found
workinualone. 'Since the meetings generally take place once a month
with &hared conferences at about that same frequency, the teacher at the
Junior High is more often found alone than with other teachers.

When teachers are together at the various meetings, they operate

on a turn-takiiig basis. The comMon pattern of taking turns regarding
tasks to be performed favors economy of time and nqrsonal energy over
collective input, participation or interaction. As teacher Bonnie
explained:

Well, at department meetings you definitely can

participate in decision-making or you can, say, in
the 6th grade area. Well, when they're going to so, .....z,
see'a film, you know. Who's going to,do what, when?
You would have input -- most decisions like this
would be at these meetings end whoever's instigating
the movie Will get it organized.
!

The decision to show the film was made by an individual supported by the
group, and the'respon(ibilities related were turned over to one teacher
as well. This,was rdpeated in 1 thore significant examp1 i. with regard to
the entire year's social studies curriculum. The same teacher explained
Ithat her involvement was limited:
\
Jane (one of three assigned to tlib curricujum committee)
had tgeen teaching world history foe W long time and so
sheisaid if you want me to, I'll set up a schedule for
us,1and we said all right, becausewe hada't been doing
that, and,definitely not with thii book, this ndw text-
V book. So she set up the schedple 'and we had input in 4
thrE'we could say that this isl.'not good, but until you
, go through it, you don't know What's good and what's bad.
So, I reallylthink a teacher is better off if she §ets
up 1 er own time schedule.
. T

This is a shared focus for [Link] in terms of their common

responsibi3iit to execute correctly the agreed upon curriculum; however,
there are few related shared tasks or decisions that emerge in the context
of the departMent's role in school affairs.'
.
.

The school's administration contributes to an individualistic teacher

orientation by operating in many respects with a similar relationship of
mutual isolation. When asked to talk about how decisions get made in the
school, the as!sistant principal proclaims cheerfully, "Henry (school
principal) sa* you'[Link] to do that, and it gets'done," and adds,
"We're kind of like the team management concept. Although Henry is in
charge, he will never, at least I don't think he will, make a decision
. without consulting us." Communication among the three adminisfrators is
further described like this:
,
.

q -
' We sit down and ash them (decisions) qut and talk apout
it-and give our iews. I look at things a certain way,
, n,4. i

95
 Mr. Hope looks at things a certain way, and Mr. Cole
looks at th'ngs a certain way. We sit down and put in
our input. e (the principal) will even go out and solicit
input from tachers.

Teacher input is solicited in a number of ways. The principal will comb

the halls stopping in to chat with several teachers about the decision in
question. On a 'more formal basis, the principal meets with a teacher,
steering committee 'made up of ,the department chairpersons. The meetings
are held about once a month, and the chairpersons generally take notes on
the information the principal \repOrts. This information is then reported
to the department's teacher members. The principal does not expect
teachers to meet with each other regularly for the discussion of decisions
to be made. Keeping the teachers informed and listening to concerns and
complaints as they are voiced is the main administrative operation.
Teachers do not meet regularly nor do they spend their common time on
discussions of job related issues and decisions. It is not expected nor
is it a necessary part of the school's administration.

Part of the reason Why teachers don't interact can be found in the
structure of the admi_nistration_as_just noted. The administration's
attitude toward-S-allective teacher activity yields another clue. Art the,
principal explained, "This school [Link] a lot of teachers who are
really good at what they do, but they like to do their ownthing, and
they don't like anybody to interfere." Supporting their sentiments he
says, "Take the teacherS alone and they're fine but toOther and there's
no telling." This fundamental mistrust of task-relatediteacher ihter-
action may be precisely why there is no organizational mechanism designed
for it.

Teacher leadership within the school highlights-working alone rattlpr

than together, Teachers do not expect to work,together. A curriculum
committee of three teachers designed to,prepare curriculum guides for
all 'areas, prepare for the school's evaluation and assist with organizing
available materials for teaching was scheduled to work together daily in
an area of the building. While these teachers did work together on certain
tasks, the majority of their tasks, it was believed, could best be handled
individually, as Jane explains:

We started off meeting the three of us on a regular basis

together each day, each third period. And then things
broke down so that we were, you know, Sandra was doing
some things with language arts and reading which really
Debbie and I weren't familiars couldn't do, you know,
as well and Debbie was working a lot with the Scienoe
Fair and the science curriculum. And then I started
doing, and we sort of all branched off. It-was just
easier then to kind of go our separate waYs. We've met
with Henry on a fairly regular basis.'

The pattern appears to be one of individuals operating as individuals,

together. Keeping company with other adult§ at school does not assure
that relationships will be nurtured, valued, and recogniZed. 'In fact,
the individual is essentially more important here thin relationships
between teachers, administrators or both. The key js getting the job
done, and labor is frequently divided up by individuals.

81,

,6
 The way in which parent conferences were conducted highlights this
dimension of school life. Most often an individual classroom teacher
would conduct parent conferences when a student was having trouble in
his/her classroom. These conferences were one on_one with teacher and
parent, ocCasionally involving the student as well. Frequently, parent
conferences would be arranged by the guidance department when all of a
child's teachers were to be included. These were conferences which
involved the county's school psychologist for the assessment and evaluation
of a child's difficulties in school. Having observed this second type of
conference, it was clear that the responsibility for the conference rested
with the guidance counselor. Each teacher's ideas were solicited with
little opportunity for dialogue among the teachers involved. Again, the
individual superceded the collective.

Lunch is a shared time and activity. In the teachers' lounge, teachers

gather daily for the singular purpose of eating lunch. Lounge conversa-
tions are more often social than job related and focus on topics of con-
wrsation which can be adequately discussed within the lunch period:
0
I take a seat at the'round table. Two math feachds
are talking about math materials. Math teacher (1)%
"Did you see the math materials? Weren't they neat."
Math teacher (2), "I'd like to buy some. Maybe we can
order them?" Math teacher (1), "Yeah." Two science
teachers are seated next to one another. The female
scfence teacher says, "Congratulations on your article
in the journal!" Male science teacher responds,
"Thanks, Debbie." The female science teacher addresses
the whole table, "I have a good recommendation for the
+5.
school calendar change next year. Let's have the
_teachers' work day directly after the holidays so teachers
could get organized before the kids return." Another
teacher says, "That's good so maybe we should all suggest
.it so it would be more highly considered."

During this saMe lunch hour the very next day, none of these topics Sgs
discussed, and very few of the topics discussed at lunch were everTdrried
over from one day to the next. A survey of lunch topics included recipes,
local news, whole school problems, discipline problems and schoolwide events.

This temporary quality of lounge talk seems to be satisfying to the

teachers. As the teacher Bonnie remarked about their relationships:

Well, I think since all sixth grade teachers must have

lunch at the same time, we usually hobnob as to problems.
We also share things that help. I think the relation-
ships of the 6th grade teachers is pretty nice. No
dog eatdog, no pandy stuff or if there is, I don't know
about it.

Perhaps as a consequence, teachers feel limited in their knowledge of

other teachers' school and personal lives. As teacher Jane remarked:

I am a teacher here, and I really don't know what

they do in foreign language, for example. The

82

6 1111.1111=11111..111111111111111.1111.
 foreign language teacher is part time
so that's partly Why, but that's, really
true in a lot of cases.

Teachers are particularly [Link] speak for one another regarding

educational beliefs and practices. When asked if other teachers shared
her educational beliefs, Bonnie,responded, "I don't know. I really
don't know about that; I can't tell." Echoing Bonnie, Jane said, "I'm
not sure. I imagine so?" Individual differences and variations are
expected. As theoprincipal explained when he was asked about the
existence of a staff philosophy. .!There are forty teachers and about
as many different philosophies." When asked about the qualities sought
in the teachers hired, the principal repeatedly referred to expertise
in the subject to be taught. Getting along well with fellow staff
members or the ability to cooperate and collaborate with other teachers
was not identified as needed teacher qualities. Consistent with the
other findings as described thus far, teaching effectiveness at Junior
High is not dependent on'teacher interaction or fellowship within the
school.

Opportunitis to share personal philosophies or ideologies are

rare. As noted earlier, regular daily teacher interaction is limited
to a brief lunch-time encounter. In addition, these meetings are
characterized by conversations that are temporary and not task-related.
Most importantly, very few decisions regarding the daily execution of
instruction depend on teacher interaction. Decisions in the school
are most often made by individuals and not groups. Classroom decisions
rest with the individual teacher, department decisions rest with the
depaftment chairperson, and administrative-decisions [Link] the
principal.

Teachers are not connected by common responsibilities or tasks

in common time and space in a way which promotes interaction. Moreover,
interaction is not a prerequisite for teaching success. In fact, it is
viewed as a necessary but time-consuming obligation. Consequently,
teacher relationships are not expected and nurtured. They may develop
as a fringe benefit. As teacher Jane reported,

I have a particular group of friends that there are;

a group of us that usually go out, just the girls,-
once a month right after payday. These relation-
ships have built up_over the years partly from out-
side of school. One is my neiglibbi-iiid one's ex-
husband works with my husband and we may go to the

_
same church with_some-others,
11

Tepchers take pride in th...ir students' attention to subject matter',

quiet and orderly classrooms and being liked by students, former and
current. While these rewards are not unlike those of the teachers at
the middle school, their achievement is not associated with collegial
interaction or teaeher fellowship. The rewards are viewed as outcomes
of personal expertise and good fortune in circumstances beyond teacher
control:

83
98
 Life for the teachers at the junior high school is characterized
by individualism. The school's organization and administration
support this individualistic teacher orientation. Teachers do not
[Link] with other teachers to be a major dimension of
their professional lives. They acknowledge that the responsibility
for teaching is an individual responsibility, and the successful
operation of a;school requires that each,member uphold his or her ,

responsibility.

SuMmaa [Link] Relatioriships. CoTleague relationships were

quite different in the two schoblS:. Teachers at the middle school
valued colleague relationships, expected support and assistance from
team members and acknowle4ged many of-their beliefs andTractices as
shared. 'The team memberi served as a kind of admiring audience of .
supportive peers. Connected by students they shared, team members
were intimately involved in'one another's success. shared team tasks -

and decisions and frequent teacher contacts produced a collectiye

identity basic to each individual's professional world view. Teachers
referred to their ideas, practices and beliefs as "ours," and used the
pronoun 'we" more often than "I" in describing themselves and their
work.

-
Colleague relationshi, ps at the junior high were altogether differ,
ent. Teachers not only had less cdritact with fellow teachers, the
contact they did have was brief and seldom task-related. Consequently,
teachers spent most of their school time alone, only sharing general
gripes and observations which could be subjects for brief conversations
never to be continued. Teachers-did have school friends, but these
friendships developed outside the school. They provided a support
system [Link] when they felt burdened; they seemed to serve as an
empathic rather than admiring audience. For the most part, the daily
teaching experience was one of isolation and individualism - an every
man for himself affair.

Life as a team member contributes to the middle s"chool teacher's

sense of efficacy. It provided frequent teacher Contact, opportunities
to discuss the students that teachers have in common, and it allows
experimentation and the testing of new ideas,. TO team provides its
teachers with comradery, support and friendship. Teachers view them-
selves as part of a collective which mitigates the burden of individual
failure while bolstering professional self-esteem. Terhaps most important,
the team is a decision-making unit. Teachers must make decisions
collectively and must continually share ideas, attitudes, beliefs, views
and feelings. It may be this continual dialogue among teachers that
promotes the teachers' view that their work is significant. Moreover,
the challenge of joint decision-making may provide a sense of ppwer and
control not found in the isolated teaching experience typical in the
junior high school.

Working in the junior high's structure provided little or no op-

. portunity for comradery or affiliation with a collective identity.
Teachers spent most of their time aldWe and shared very few dimensions

84

99
 *,

of school life with fellow colleagues. The burden of failure was

largely an individual matter. The range of decisions made by the depart-
ment was limited to that of curriculum, and teachers generally did not
discuss [reliefs and ideas at length. The department serviced efficiency
and did not encourage teacher interaction. Moreover, the department
was not seen as a unit involved [Link] decision-making. While
department chainpersons did meet from time to time with the administra-
tion, those meetings did not deal with school philosophy and policy.
The department chairpersons were spokespersons-for the,department's
curriculum 6oncerns,and there was seldom an opportunity for discussion
of other school,matters. Department membership did not require ex7
tensive involvement and participation. What-teachers held in common was
the curriculum,and individuals could execute the same curriculum with
little dialogue between fellow members. The tasks they performed could
best be done alone. This may account for the individualistic orientation
that preiails at the junior high and perhaps simultaneously reinforces
the focus on procedures over people.

85
100
 Thelorincipal. Teacher differences at the two sdhools were clearly
reflected in the attitudes and behaviors of the school principals. These
differences were particularly evident in the decision-making structures
they established and their perceptions of teachers.

The principal t the middle school described the outstanding teacher

as one who "cares about kids, can communicate effectively and is a good
role model for students." He expects his teachers to share the responsi-
bility of school decision-making and distributes decisions to the teams.
Teachers are viewed as "pr'Ofessionals" whose ideas are needed and valued
and whose roles and responsibilities move,into the larger school world.
Teachers had a semi-collaborative relationship with the principal who
was seen as a co-worker. This fraternal relationship left the principal
open to criticism, and the teachers lesS protected.

At the junior high, the principal described the outstanding teacher

as "one who is really knowledgeable about the subject matterto be taught
and really excited about teaching t, a good classroom manager and someone
who understands the middle school students." He expected teachers to be
prepared for their work in the classroom but limited decision-making to
that domain. Teacher opinion's and ideas were solicited from time to time,
but most important decisions were left to the principal and his administra-
tive staff. The principal's relationship with teachers was paternal. He
took a'protective stance attempting to make teaching easier, more pleasant,
and less stressful for his faculty. Hle demanded little from teachers
outside the classroom and viewed the majority of his faculty with a
fundamental uncertainty about their capabilities, particularly in sdhool
decision-making. Teachers were often underestimated but in return were
protected. Displayed in his office was a poster which read, "How can we
soar likeeagles when you've got to fly with a bunch of turkeys?"

Whether [Link] world views of teachers developed in the context

of the schools or prior to their employment is a question that can not
be answered by this study.1 Teachers did, hoWever, choose to stay in

1
Certainly teachers'background experience, life events, developmental
needs and personality must be taken into account. The teachers at the
middle school were younger than the teachers at the junior high. Their
former teaching experiences were in schools that were positive places
to work. The school's history was characterized by a stable administra-
tion, notoriety and the opening of a new school with a new, enthusiastic
staff. Teachers were involved in changes made throughout the years and
they saw the school as a product of their communal efforts.
Teachers at the junior high had spent the major part of their teaching
careers in the school with a history characterized by frequent administra-
tive changes, racial strife, upheaval and discipline problems. These
teachers did not feel involved in the shaping of the school. These
battles did not bring faculty together; they wore faculty out.
The fact that the teachers at the middle school have had the opportunity
to be involved in the planning and implementing of school changes may
account for some of their perceived sense, of personal confidence and
influence, whereas at the junior high teachers spent most of their years
adjusting to changes rather than particiloating in them.

.86
1Oj
their respective schools. Despite initi:t teacher differences, principal
perceptions of teachers probably contributed to the different attitudes
teachers held at the two schools. At the middle school the principal
believed his teachers were capable professionals and conveyed this
confidence to his faculty. [Link] other hand, the principal at the
junior high had questions about the capabilities of his teachers and
felt at times they hid to be treated "much like the students."

Multi-Age Grouping. Contrasting teacher emphasis on students in

the middle school and curriculum in the junior high may be more related
to multi-age grouping than to any other single difference. At the
middle school teachers had the same students for three years. They
viewed the three-year experience as the most satisfying part of their
job because:-Tt allowed them to see students grow and change over time.
In three years, growth is generally dramatic in all areas of development.
Perhaps teachers have a better chance of feeling exalted about their work
and maintain their focus on student development when they_teach youngsters
for an extended time and can witness this dramatic growth.

The middle school teachers:were very aware of the impact that the
extended three-year relationship with [Link] on their sense of
efficacy.

Interviewer: Is there anything in particular about the

school's organization that yotifeel is important?,

Teacher: Well, the most important thing is the mUlti-age

grouping. . td me that's the single most importantthing
.

at this school because, well, there are other ways you

can accomplish the same thing, but essentially you get
to have the same kids for the whole time that they're
in school. You don't have to spend the first two months
of the year getting to know 160 new kids, because 3/4
,of them you already know. And it really makes a
difference - you know their parents and everything.

Second teacher: I'd like to talk about teaching students

for three years. The big advantages are,first, it takes
a long time to find out what really makes some students click
and what really is going to 6e a successful technique work-
ing with them. A lot of times that takes you half a year,
,! sometimes even longer. By the time half a year is over,
you're going to have half a,year working with them and then
the next teacher has_to_gp through the same thing. There
really --i-s-no-communication between the 6th and 7th grade
teachers. She might say "Oh, boy, there are real problems
now," or usually negative things. Or you might off-hand-
edly say "I successfully did this or whatever." But
there is. no established use of communication between
teachers at different grade levels. So by having them
:for three years I may be able to find out what will be
successful and then institute it at least for two and a
half years. [Link] advantage that I see is when we

87

n0
 run into a problem in most schools with .a student
that just seems to frustrate you on every hand, you
write him off. If you get through six months or four
and a half months or whatever it is ard if you
haven't succeeded you say "Well, all I have is four and
a half to go," and ypu just slide through the rest of
the year. You can't do that here because you know
that-you've got tWo and a half years to face. Now,
maybe after a' year and a half I do the same thing.
I don't think that we've got the same inclination,
however. I think you have much more encouragement in
the three-year time span. Maybe after two and)a half
,years, if you haven't succeeded, you aren't going to
succeed anyway. But six months is really sometimes
all it takes to find out what's successful. Therefore,
you're encouraged to institute your program rather than .
write them off...

For the teachers at the junior high who only have students for one
year, student and teacher achievemeht are less obvious. Teachers focus
on short term results in curriculum mastery and test grades. Chances are
that the teachers only glean that sense of heroic pride when a student
returns years later for a visit. The entire staff at the middle school
took an interest in making school enjoyable for students, while the staff
at the junior high did not. No doubt, teachers' notions of students'
improvability account for this, in part. However, the multi-age grouping
and teacher-student guidance program in the middle school resulted in
teachers spending more time with students outside of the classroom. This
produced a focus on teacher-student relationship% and in those relation-
ships teachers were faced with students' honest feelings about school and
learning. Recognition that school wasn't much fun for most students
seemed to be a part of teachers' concerted effonts to make it otherwise.
The indifference of teachers in the junior high regarding their responsi-
bility for generating student enthusiasm could be explained by their
infrequent opportunities to schedule fun into the school day. There
were very few times during a school year when classes were suspended for
a special student event. This was not so at the middle school. In
additton, teachers did not have as much contact with students in a non-
academic setting. The teacher-student relationships were pre-empted by
academic demands, grades, and changing bells. Teachers may have been
able to avoid the real concerns and feelings of their students. This
difference in orientation could be due in part to teachers' role percept-
ion and their focus towards learning. Can and should learning be fun?
The junior high teachers did not seem to recognize themselves as motivators -
motivating students was not a deeply felt role.

Finally, the administration's attitudes about fun in school may also

help account for the lack of fun (i.e., ornamentation of halls and walls,
celebrations, ceremonies and field trips for all and other than for
rewards) in the junior high. Whereas the middle school's administration
supports teachers' efforts to produce fun and encouragesit as well,

414

88
103
it is generally carefully scrutinized in the junior ftigh. There is a
kind of fear of wild, unruly student behavior in the event of fun and
a prevailing notion that a rigid schedule keeps both students and
teachers in line.

Conclusion
-

'One function of qualitative research is to provide promising

hypotheses for further quantitative study. Another function of such
research is to investigate the human dynamics that-underlie quantitative
findings of statistical significance. The study reported here contributes
to both the above-mentioned functions. The findings lead us to hyRothesize
that school'organization, leadership, and ethos contribute to the mainten-
ance of high-efficacy attitudes among teachers. We believe this is
accomplished because teaming, multi-age grouping, and a shared, growth-
centered2 approach to education serve to lessen professional self-doubt
amohg teachers and to diminish the self-protective, low-efficacy ideologies
that accompany such doubts. In order to maintain high efficacy attitudes,
teachers need to see evidence that low SES students can learn and that
teachers are contributing to thaelearning.

This,hypothesis is bolstered by the comments of a middle,school

teacher in response to the question, "Row does your teaching situation,
that is, the organization . affect your capacity to achieve your°
. .

teaching goalg?"

Basically . . there is no way it hinders it. It only

.

furthers it. The AA helps tremendously in getting cloSI

and being able to teach some of the lessons I want to r
teach about being a total [Link]. The interdisciplinary
cooperation between team members helps us do things we
would otherwise be unable to do. The multi-age grouping
gives me a student for three years. I really get to
know him, can really help him, really influence his life.
You know, when you're passing through, you don't get the
same opliortunities. So, I can't think of any way that
[the school organization} has hindered ...it has only
.

furthered my teaching goals. I guess the main aspects

are interdisciplinary grouping, multi-age grouping and AA.

There is probably no one best school organization for the promotion

and maintenance of teacher efficacy. We hypothesize [Link] efficacy
scores will increase to the degree that the school organization provides
common teacher experiences and requires sustained faculty interchanges
that center on golving the [Link] of students and improving the
performance of teachers.

Q.
2
We refer here to all aspects of child growth: social, psychological and
4.0
cognitive.

89
104
 COO.

Chapter 4

Measurement of Teachers' Sense of Efficacy

Introduction

Our understanding of teachers sense of efficacy is dependent upon

the developmpnt of reliable and valid measures of the construct. However,
the-design of valid measures of personal beliefs is fraught with
difficult (Nunnally, 1978).

Our initial ueSe of the Iwo-item Rand teacher efficacy measure in

our study of the relationship of school organization and teacher efficacy
in two organizationally different middle schools (see Chapter 3) revealed
problems with the Rand measu're-of efficacy. While the middle school
had a more positive school climate than the junior high, measured by Brook-
over's scales of Teacher Expectations and Teacher-Student Commitment to
Improve, attitudes that ,are very similar to efficacy attitudes, only a
non-significant trend toward higher efficacy was found for the modern
middle school teachers .(F(1 46)=2.82, p<.10). Our major conclusion from
the middle school study was'that the total score based on the two items
used in the Rand studies was not,likely to be useful in small sample
studies of teaching, since the skewness and the limited variability
(M=6.88, SD=1.51) in,scores probably restricted the possibility of dis-
-covering relationships between teacher sense of efficacy and,other
relevant variables. Response distributipns for the total score of the
efficacy items for each school are presented in Table 19. ExaMinatioh of
this table reveals that 50% of the middle school teachers scored 8 or
above cOmpared to 30% of the junior high teachers,.and, in contrast, .32%
of the middle school teachers scored 6 or less compared to 55% of junior
high teachers. These data suggest that school differences in teachers'
sgnse of efficacy might have been detected by a more reliable (longer)
.
instrument.

Qualitative analyses of the classroom behavior of four teachers

scoring hiP on efficacy, and four low scoring teachers convinced us that
teacher sense of efficacy is associated with teacher behaviors that are
likely td affect student 'attitudes and achievement. Teachers with a low
.sense of efficacy made statements to students indicating they did not
expect [Link] to peeform well; they were more likely to ignore or
withhold assistance from students they felt were apathetic, unmotivated,
or unable. They wert also more likely to accept and praise incomplete
or inaccurate answers from students they considered of "low ability" than
were the high efficacy teachers. On the other hand, our classroom
observation made us very cautious and skeptical of the validity of a
self-report measure such as the Rand instrument, since one high scoring
--efficacy teacher wps, by all current behavioral criteria of effectiveness,
an ineffective teacher. She was unable to control her class and was given
to bitter outbursts of sarcasm and futility. .

90
105
 a

Table 19

Distribution of Response by School

on Two-Item Rand Efficacy Scale

Nr

Middle School Junior High

X f(X) P(X) .CP(X) f(X) P(X) CP(X)
Score Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Percent Cumulative
Percent Percent

3 0 0 0 1 5 5

4 1 7 ,
7 1 5 10

5 0 0 7 3 15 25

6 7 25 321 6 30 55

7 5 18 50 3 15 70

8 11 39 89 4 20 90

9 2 7 96 2 10' 100

10 1 4 TOO 0 0 100

91
 Concluding that teachers' sense of efficacy is likely to be related
to teachers' classroom behaviors yet concerned that a more sensitive
a instrument was needed, we decided to take a multi-method approach to
measurement of efficacy based,on theoretical as well as methodological 0
concerns. From a methodological standpoint, a multi-method approach
was con4Idered important because of the problems implicit in self-
report instrument -- especially the problem of social desirability bias
and the likelihood of an ego-Oefensiye response. Our theoretical
perspective for constructing multiple methods for assessing teaChers'
sense of efficacy was based on Albert Bandura's,(1977; 1978) recent
formulation of self-efficacy as the co4hitive mechanism which mediates
. behavior.. In Bandura's social learning theory, it-is assumed that an
individual's initiation of and persistence in a behavior is determined
by the person's sense of personal efficacy. ,According to this formula-
tion, however, self-efficacy is-hot a global construct similar to popular
notions of self-concept; it is rather a cognitive mechanism for processing
efficacy information, referring to a dynamic, multi-dimensional process,
resulting in situation-specific efficacy expectations.

Our conception of teachers' sense of efficacyrepestented in Ugure 5,

cOnsists of a hierarchically organized, multi-dimensionarmodel. The
dimension lOcated on the left of the model labeled "eacjiing efficacy"
refers to teachers: beliefs about the general relatidhship between
teaching and learning. To give a specific example of 'flow teachers might
come tp differ on this dimension: a teacher who is convinced by Arthur
Jensen's (1981) analysis of ability differences in students will tend to Wave
a low seise of teaching efficacy whileh teacher convinced of Benjamin
Bloom's (1978) position on student learning ability will have ,a high
sense of teaching efficacy. These expectation differences will be
refleCted in teachers' speci:[Link] for specific students in
specific situations. On the,opposite side of the model is."persbnal
efficacy," the teacher's general sense of effectiveness as,a teacher.;
Finallyrthe mosX spgcific level of Conceptualization, and, consequenpy,
the best predictor Of teacher behavior is the teachers' sens of "personal
teaching efficacy," representing an integration of personal E-fficacy and
teaching efficacy. It is important to keep these dimensions separate
conceptually, because it,is likely thai the most appropriate teacher
change strategy will depend on the origin [Link] sense of inefficacy.
A "teacher convinced of her own [Link] teach [Link] of her
students' ability to learn would require a different,intervention from a
teaCher-who- is convinced of her students' ability to learn; but doubtful
of her own competence as a teacher. In simple terms, persdnal teaching
efficacy is reflected in the teacher statement, "I can't motivatq these
kids. howey_erthe_statement_may be attributable- totbaaer--enste of.-
teaching efficacy, that is, the belief that "these kids can't be motivated "
or teacher sense of personal efficacy, that is, the belief that "I
( personally can't motivate."

092
z
107
miaarigarsorrasuairamaararMarrastassamdrirrerrolloarMageMmakINA
 Teaching Efficacy Personal Efficady

"These, kids can't be motfVated" cap't motivate"

4

Rand Efficacy 1

Personal Teaching Efficacy

can't Motivate these kids"

Rand EfficaCy 2

Figure 5. Teachers' Serise of Effitady:-.

. The Measurement Model

- 4
 Teaching Efficacy and Personal Teaching Efficacy:
Conceptually Distinct Dimensions

Tentative support for the conceptual distincti,pn between teaching

efficacy and personal teaching efficacy is evident in the correlations
between Rand Efficacy 1 and Rand Efficacy 2. The two Rand items have
been significantly correlated (p<.05) in only one of the five samples
ve-have-studte&--See-Table-20:--It is intefe-Sting to note that the
significant relationship (r=.36, p<.05) was obtained in the sample
of high school basic skill teachers. It seems reasonable to speculate
thatieaching students with a long history of school failure is likely
to increase the weight that teaching efficacy assumes in the personal
teaching efficacy of such teachers. Given the general lack of cor-
relation between the two items, our conceptualization of conceptually
distinct dimensions of teacher sense of efficacy seems warranted.

Additional4'support for the conceptual distinction between teaching

efficacy anti- personal teaching efficacy is provided by the significant
correlation obtained between two measures of teaching efficacy -- Rand
Efficacy 1 and the Btookover measure (see Appendix C) of Teacher
Expectations and Teacher-Student Commitment to Improve (r=-.30, p<.04;
the signis negative because a low score on the Brookover measure
indicates a strong belief in students' ability to learn) and the non-
significant correlation between the Brookover measure and Rand
Efficacy 2 (r=-.12, n.s.), the measure of personal teaching efficacy.

Alternative Approaches to Measurement of Efficacy

In an effort to developjflore useful measures of efficacy, we

explored several approaches:

(1) an expanded Rand measure

(2) a self-report measure of personal teaching efficacy

(3) a stress measute designed to serve as a-proxy for efficacy

Webb Efficacy Scale

The intent of the expanded Rand measure (see Appendix D), hereafter
referred to as the Webb Efficacy Scale after itt author, was threefold:

(1) to maintain the narrow conceptualization of sense

of efficacy utilized in the Rand studies, that is,
an estimation of the teacher's belief that s/he
can influence student learning despite difficult
circumstances.

(2) to increase the measlire's reliability by developing

a longer instrument, and

Id%

9'Lt 109
 .o

Table 2 0

Correlation [Link] Efficacy 1 with

Rand Efficacy 2 in Six Samples

' Sample

Middle School Teachers (N=48) .26 .07

High School 'Basic Skills Teachers (N=37) .36 .05

Elementary Teachers (N=45) .15 .32

_Middle School Teachers (N=45) .05 .75

High School Teachers (N=62) .03 .81

Undergraduate Teacher Education Majors (N=61) .20, .13

95
11 0
 (3) to reduce the problem of the social desirability bias
by using a forced-choice format with items matched
for social desirability (Edwards, 1970; Zavala, 1965).

The results of our analyses of the Webb EffiCacy Scale are somewhat
discouraging from a psychometric perspective. The first probltm_we
encountged was teachers' resistance to ,hoosing between the item
alternatives. To determine if there were certain items tfiat teachers
were particularly resistant to answering, we tabulated all the items
omitted by our respondents. Table 21 presents these data. While some
items were omitted more often than others, the problemLoccurs across
all items. In each of our samples over 10% of our respondents failed
to answer at least one of the seven'ittms. The second problem lies
In thg lack of internal consistency of the scale. In three samples of
teachers, the KR-20 reliability estimate has ranged from .33 to .51. -
While this problem may be due, in part, to the need for a longer question-
naAre, given the dichotomous nature of the items (Nunnally, 1978), the
factorial complexity of the instrument appears similar to the Rand items
in confounding the 'teaching efficacy' and 'personal teaching efficacy'
dimensions. This can be seen in correlations between the Webb items
and the two Rand items (Table 22). The two Webb items that seem to
represent the personal teaching efficacy dimension (items 3 and 7) are
significantly correlated with Rand Efficacy 2, the personal teaching
efficacy measure. The lack of correlation between the Webb items
devised to measure 'teaching efficacy,' and Rand Efficacy 1, the teaching
efficacy item,and the low intercorrelations among the Webb items suggest
that our effort to develop an internally consistent measure of teaching
efficacy was unsuccessful. The Brookover measure remains the best
instrument currently available in terms of internal consistency for
the measurement of teaching efficacy.

EersonalTta g icacy Vignettes

A self-report measure of personal teaching efficacy was constructed

to represent a broader conceptualization of efficacy. The Rand questions
focus on the teachers' belief in his/her ability to 'get through' to
students despite motivational or environmental obstacles. Teachers'
sense of efficacy could be defined in the broader sense to encompass
teachers' confidence in their ability to carry out all the responsibilities
of teaching. To determine if this more comprehensive conceptualization of
efficacy is useful, a 50-item questionnaire (see Appendix E) was constructed
on the basis of teachers' responses obtained from a "Teaching Incidents
Essay" and a "Role Perception" item from our initial middle school study.
(See page 38 of this report.) The dimensions of the teacher's role that
we derived from teachers' responses to these items were the following:
academic instruction, affective instruction, discipline, motivation,
socialization of students, planning, evaluation, and work with parents.
Most of the incidents we constructed were based on teachers' actual
responses to the Teaching Incidents Essay which asked them to describe
their most and least effective teaching experience. We were hopeful
that situational vignettes would elicit more teacher variability, in

96
 Table 21

Webb Efficacy Items Omitted by Teachers

Sample Webb Items

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

High School Bastic

Skill Teachers (N=38) 1 2 3 1 3 0 1

7 teachers omitted
at least one item

Middle School
Teachers (N=64) 1 3 3 .3 4 1 3
9 teachers omitted
at least one item

C.

97

112
 ,
,

Tabl e 22

Correlations of Webb Efficacy Items with Rand Efficacy 1 and 2

We

(N=98)
-

Webb Items Rand Efficacy 1 Rand Efficacy 2

r P r P

1. Every child is reachable .04 .67 .16 .09

2. Heterogenous classes best .22 .03 .18 .07

,

3. . I'm best with low motivated students .02 .87 .37 .0001

4. Develop low ability students'

academic skills -.28* .005 .12 .23

5. Keep tow motivated students

in school .15 .15 .16 .10

6. Low ability students will graduate .14 .15 .05 .59

7. I feel confideht about making a

, difference with students. .24 .01 .28 .004

N.

..

*This item had a-mean of 1.15 and a standard deviation of .36 (the lowest
mean and standard deviation of any item). The negative correlation is
probably due to random error attributable to the limited variance
obtained for thjs item.

f
98 ,I. 1 3

VIIIMailisMad.011/1.0.I.M1111IfialmagilabIlli/01.1.1.INIMONIMININ111.11111111.1Miallilig
that they provide a concrete referent that teachers have probably con-
fronted in some form in their teaching experience and are inherently
difficult so that a teacher need not feel pressure to report that each
of these situations could be handled expertly. An example of the
Efficacy-Vignettes is presented below:

Because of repeated failure, one of your students confides

to-you-that-she has-given up-tnd will-Rtend school only
until she can find a way to drop out. How effective
would you be in persuading her that she can be success-
ful in school?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
extremely extremely
ineffective effective

Hypothesizing that personal teaching efficacy would be comprised of

the various teacher role dimensions that we had identified, we expected
to ftnd a factorially complex structure in this instrument. The internal
consistency of the instrument was so high., na..95, as to cast doubt on
this assumption; however, the high internal consistency obtained with
this instrumeHt may simply be an artifact Of a social desirability or
ego defensiveness bias embedded'in the self-report nature of this
instrument rather than an indication of the unidimensionality of personal/
teaching efficacy. Also, as Cronbach (1951) noted, alpha is an index
of common factor concentration among items, not necessarily an indicant
of single factor concentration. This question needs further research.

Given the internal consistency of the 50 vignettes, we decided to

reduce the number of vignettes to 15 (see Appendix F), selecting those
items with a high correlation with the total vignette score and a
comparatively low mean and large variance (since item scores on this
instrument, like the Rand, were skewed to the left). With the reduction
in the number of items we still maintained an internal consistency
estimate ranging from .83 to .8,6 in three administrations of the
ihstrument. The lack of any significant correlations between Rand
Efficacy 1 and the 15 vignette ttems contrasted with 7 significant
correlations with Rand Efficacy 2 suggeststhat, as intended, the efficacy
vignettes are representative of the dimension of personal teaching efficacy
rather than teaching efficacy (see Table 23).

Teacher Eificacy: A Norm orSelf-Referenced Construct?*

Nunnally (1978) argued that individuals can respond more accurately

when asked to make a comparative judgment, since most people are not
accustomed to making absolute judgments in daily life. Thus, a rating
scale using a norm-referenced or comparative format, with responses
ranging from "much less effective than most teachers" (1) through "about
as effective as other teachers" (4) to "much more effective than most
teachers" (7), should result in a more valid efficacy rating than the
self-referenced format we used in the initial design of thP efficacy

* The authors are grateful to Dianne Buhr who designed and carried out the ,

data collection and analysis of this study.

99

114
 Table 23

Correlations of Efficacy Vignette Items With Rand Efficacy 1 and.2

(N=105)

Vignette Rand Efficacy 1 Rand Efftcacy 2

1. Discipline .16 .07

2. Work with parents .09 .20 .03

.3. Planning .07 .15

.4. Socialization -.03 .25 .008

5. Discipline -.007 .13

.6. Motivation -.10 .23 .02

7. Motivation .10 .14

8. Motivation .03 .21 .03

9. Planning -.03 .26 .007

10. Motivation .01 .29 .002

11. Socialization .08 .12

12. Motivation .05 .22 .02

13. Evaluation .08 .04

14. Planning .06, .11

.15. Evaluation .18 .02

Total Vignette Score .10 .28 .005

100
vignette instrument. It was expected that the vignette form using
this rating scale would correlate more highly with the criterion
Rand items than a form using the absolute or self-referenced response
mode.

.Because the vignette measure is a self-report instrument, it is

likely to be subject to social desirability bias. According to Nunnally
(1978), much of the variance on self-inventory measures can be
explained by social desirability; that is, a person' tendency_to say_
good rather than bad things about him or herself. In d pilot study
using the self-referenced approach to the vignette instrument,
a correlatiOn of .46 (ix.05) was obtained between the vignette score
and a measure of social desirability (the Marlowe-Crowne). The use of a
norm or comparative approach to efficacy should aid individuals to judge
their own effectiveness more accurately, reducing the influence of
social desirability. Lt was expected, therefore, that the vignette form
using this format would not show a significant correlaiion with a measure
of social desirability.

Twenty-five items with a high correlation with the total vignette

score were selected from the original 50-item measure. The vignette
measure consisted of these items. Two forms of the vignette meas'ure
were prepared, identical except that the self-referenced approach was
used on one form while the norm-referenced approach was used on the
second form. Forty-six graduate students with at least one year of
full-time teaching experience who were attending education classes at
the University of Florida completed one of the vignette measures. The
two forms were_randomly distributed within classes of subjects. In
addition to the vighette_measure, the two Rand ipms and the Marlowe-
Crowne Scale of Social Dpsiratl-tty were administered.

Means for the self- and norm,referenced miatures_were not significant-

ly different at the .05 level. Inteftial consistency was-high for both
the self- (r =.95) and norm-referenced (r =.94) instruments. However,
the norm-refgrenced approach was significantly correlated with the total
efficacy score as measured by the Rand items .(-=.43, p<.05), while the
self-referenced vignettes were not significantly correlated with either
Rand item or with the total score for the Rand items (r=-.16, p<.05).

The correlation between the Marlowe-Crowne Scale of Social Desir-

ability and the self-referenced vignettes was significant (r=.46, p<.05),
while the correlation between the Marlowe-Crowne and the norm-referenced
vignettes was not significant (r=.25, p<.05).

Teachers appear to conceive of their efficacy in terms of a norm

rather than self-referenced construct, since the nom-reference vignettes
correlated significantly with the criterion of the Rand items while the
self-referenced vignettes showed no significant correlation, Also,
social- desirability bias was a significant factor inthe Else of the
self-referenced vignettes but not with the norm-referenced vignettes.

These findings suggest that teachers evaluate their effectiveness

in terms of their performance in comparison to the performance of other

101

a
lAimammirl.1110...11i1....111.101.101110.1111.10111.1111011111110111.1111111111
 teachers. Research has indicated that teachers hav_e-very-little
information regarding the performance of other teachers, beyond the tales
carried by students and those told in the teachers' lounge. Thus, they
are likely to base their own self-evaluation on a rather limited and
biased perception of the effectiveness of others. This practice may
.contribute to -the fragile-and-uncertain sense...of _competence character-
istic of many teachers. Effective approaches to increasing teachers'
sense of efficacy may involve providing teachers with opportunities to
share with other tcachers their feelings about their effectiveness and
to observe each other's teaching practices. A cooperative approach
among teachers to work together to develop their efficacy may be help-
ful in aiding teachers to overcome problems of low sense of efficacy.

Stress and Efficacy

Recognizing the resphse bias problems inherent in asking teachers

to estimate their effectiveness, we also, explored the possibility that
a measure of stress might be used as a proxy for efficacy, since an
admission of stress should be less threatening than an admission of
ineffectiveness. For each efficacy item, we wrote a corresponding
stress item, for example:

You have a student who never hands in assignments on time,

seldom gets to class before the bell rings and inevitably
forgets to bring books or pencil to class. You have .
discussed this matter with his parents but they don't
seem to understand the importance of school achtevement.
How effective would you be in motivating this student
to get to work?

1 2 3 4 5 6 '7

- extremely extremely
ineffective effective

How stressful would this situation be for you?

A
1 2 3 ,t 5 , 6 7
not at all moderately extremely
stressful stressful stressful

Correlations between the fifty efficacy vignettes and the stress items
ranged from (-.05 to -.82) with an average correlation of -.39. Thus,
the stress items, while having a moderate relationship to the efficaby
items, do not appear to warrant use of a stress measure as a proxy for
efficacy.

N\ Another possible use of the stress items is as a weighting index.

N Perhaps a more powerful measure of efficacy could be created if more
eight were assigned to efficacy vignettes that teachers generally reported-
as eing more stressful than others.

102

117
Efficacy and Sense of Control

According to the authors of the original Rand efficacy scale (Armor

et al, 1976; Berman et al, 1977), the theoretical basis for the instrument
was derived from Rotter's (1966) social learning theory. To examine the
relationship between the Rand efficacy measure, the generalized_lo.cus_af
control measure developed by Rotter (1966) and a teacher-specific locus
of control scale, the [Link], developed by Rose and Medway (1981),
sixty-four high school teachers from A large urban high school completed
a questionnaire, including the Rand &fficacy items, the Rotter Internal-
External (I-E) Scale (see Appendix G), the Teacher' Locus of Control (TLC)
scale (see Appendix H).

Instruments. The Rotter I-E Scale (see Appendix G)is a 23-item,

forced choice measure of one's general belief in the extent to whicb he
or she contrbls reinforcements received (Rotter, 1966). The TLC scale
(see Appendix H) is a 28-iten measure of the teacher's perceptions of
control in the classroom. Fourteen items (I+) describe positive or
success situations, and fourteen items (I-) describe negative or failure
situations. The authors reported a moderate relationship (r=.33, p<.04)
between the negative and positive items and recommend separate scores for
the two subscales.

Results. The correlations among the Rand, Rotter and TLC measUres
are reported in Table 24. Neither of the Rand efficacy itedis correlated
significantly with the Rotter scale, but personal teaching efficacy, Rand
Efficacy 2, was significantly correlated with both I+ (r=:31, p<.05) and
I- (r=.36, p<.01). Simdlar to results reported by Medway and Rose (1981),
[Link] that I+ was significantly correlated with the I-E scale (r=-.28,
p<.05), while,I- was not significantly correlated with the I-E scale
(r=-.07). The results of,this study suggest that teachers' belief, in
their ability to affqct student learning,'at least among experienced
teachers, is distinct from their generalized belief in thier sense of
control over the reinforcements they receive. While thjs finding could
be an artifact,of the psychometric limitations of the single item measure
of teacher efficacy, if valid, it suggests that efforts to increase
teachers' sense of efficacy should focus on the syecific teacher efficacy
belief rather than on the generalized belief in personal efficacy, measured
-by the I-E scale.

Stability of'Teacher Efficacy

The stability of teachers' sense of efficacy, as measured by the Rand

efficacy items, was investigated by asking the basic skills high school
teachers to respond to the efficacy items again one year after completing
the original efficacy questionnaire. Thirtyrtwo of the original 38 teachers
returned the questionnaire. The test-retest reliability coefficient for
Rand Efficacy 1 was .31, p<.08, .54, pt001 for Rand Efficacy 2 and .53,
p<.602 for the tofalRana Efficacy,score.

Twenty-one teachers enrolled in a graduate class in the College of

Education at the University of Florida completed the Rand Efficacy items,

103
1 8.
 1.

Intercorrelation Matrix for Sens of Control Scales

(N=64)

EF 1 EF 2 Rotter I+ I-

EF 1 v

EF 2 .03

Rotter -.05 -.13

I+ .03 .31a -.28a
b
I- .00 .36 -.07 .42c

a
p<.05
b
p<.01
c
p4.005
,
v,

,..

,
1
_

,
104
119
 the Webb Efficacy stale and the 15-item Personal Teaching Efficacy
Vignettes measure twice with a six-week interval between administrations
of the instruments. The test-retest reliability coefficient for the
Rand Efficacy score was .44, p<.07, for Webb Efficacy, .68, p<.004,
an'd for the Personal Teaching Efficacy Vignettes, .57, p<.02.

Conclusion

The Rand efficacy items remain our best predictors of achievement.

(See Chapter 5 for edetailed reporting of these data.) However,
Nunnally (1978) warned that constructing an instrument on the basis of
item correlations with a criterion is Inappropriate, if the purpose of
the instrument is to contribute to [Link] of human attributes.
Since teachers' sense of efficacy is an important teacher characteristic
affecting teacher-student relations, instruments are needed that provide
a clarity of conception regarding the nature of the variable thus,
enabling us to investigate methods for influencing the factors that
constitute teachers' sense of efficacy.

We cannot overstate the difficulty of themeasurement problem. In

describing his work with measurement of self-efficaoy, Bandura (1977)
recommended that situation-specific measurement will produce the most
powerful predictions of behavior. [Link] has chosen to base his
theoretical formulations on experimental work conducted within a narrowly
defined domain, that is, snake phobia, in which outcomes are easily
defined, that is, the subject either approaches or avoids the snake, his
measurement strategies are not easily transferred to the domain of teacher
effectiveness in which goals are vaguely defined at best, outcomes are
admittedly difficult to determine (Jackson, 1968; Lortie, 1975) and
dependent on the interaction of the teacher with a variety of individuals
rather than solely under the control of the teacher. Concluding from
his efforts at measurement and theory building in the domain of personal
conceptions, Rotter (1979) also eiphasized the importance of situation-
specific measures but warned of the 4nherent difficulties of the task,
especially of devising conceptually and empirically distinct measures,
°not .heavily weighted with social desirability variance.

We have only begun to identify the problems involved in measurement

of efficacy. We hope that our experignces and the model we have proposed
will be helpful to researchers in developing future measures.
 CHAPTER 5

A Process-Product Study of
'Teat her s-'SenseofEffitacy

Introduction

In order to affect student achievement, teachers''sense of efficacy

must be reflected in specific behaviors in the classroom. To explore the
relationships existing between teachers' sense of efficacy, teacher-
student interaction in the classroom, and student achievement, a classroom
observation study was conducted in four high schools. Basic skills
mathematics and communications classrooms [Link]'for this study,
because we expected that of all teaching situations we could choose to
study, teachers' sense of efficacy would be most likely to have an impact
on teacher behavior in these classrooms. Students were placed in basic
skills classes because of low scores (below the thirtieth percentile) on
the annual Metropolitan Achievement Test. Students Were selected for
special remediation because they had failed or were expected to fail the
state competency test administered to All eleventh graders in the state.
Doubting their ability to teach students with problems, teachers with a
low sense of efficacysfaced with an entire class of students having a
history of school failure would be likely to demonstrate their sense of°
inadequacy in their interactions with the class. Thus, to maximize the
likelihood of observing behavioral correlates of teachers' sense of
efficacy, we conducted .our observational study on high school basic skills
classes.

Subjects

Forty-eight basic skills teachers (mathematics and communications

teachers in four high schools in a southeastern university community)
participated in the study. The ?sample consisted of 28 white female, 16
white male, 1 black male, and 3rblack female teachers. The teachers had
an average of 10 years experience, with the range of experience extending
from 1 to 35 years, with the median being 8 years of experience. One basic
skills class of each teacher was observed at least twice, And most were
observed three times during a two-month period in the winter of 1980-81.
Since the curriculum of the classes was similar across grades, to the extent
that in several classes students of different grade levels were combined,
observations were conducted in ninth,'tenth, and eleventh grade classes.
Major portions of the data were available for 45 teachers, although that
number varied somewhat from analysis to analysis, due to missing data.

-Process-Product Measures.,

Student Achievement

Student achievement was ,deasured by the Reading, Language, and

Mathematics subtests of the Metropolitan Achievement Test administered
in the spring of 1980 arid 1981.

106i
1 al
 (
Teacher Attitudes

Teachers completed a questionnaire,(See Appendix I ) that included'

the two Rand efficacy questions, eleven of the efficacy vignette items,
the Webb efficacy questionnaire, two items regarding the stress that
the teachert experienced in teaching basic skills classes and the level
of stress they experienced in teaching in general, and a question regardr
ing the degree of responsibility they felt for their students' learning.

Classroom Observation Measures

The Climate andCcntrol System (CCS). The Climate and Control SystAlm
(CCS)is a 1980 revision (Soar & Soar, 1980) of the Florida Climate and
Control System'(Soar, Soar & Ragosta, 1971). The instrument provides a
record of the climate and conteol asfiects of the classr,00m, by noting the
classroom organization, the teacher's control strategies, the pupils'
response to the teacher's contl-ol, and, in turn, the teocher's respOnse
to pupils' reactions to their control ttrategies. In addition, climate
is measured in terms of the exOession of bothIcsitive and negative
affect of teachers and pupil's.

The CCS instrument consists of two coding sheets. (See Appendix J).
The matrix on thetop half of the first page is used to record interactive
sequt..:..c:s between pupils and teacher in terms of the three contexts: ,

teacher initiation and pupil response, and two types of follow-up, eitheP,
by teacher or pupil initiation. The-bottom half of the first page is
used to record information about the teacher's, organization of the class-
room, for example, the type of groupings and the degree to which'students
are engaged in thd classroom tasks. The second page of the CCS instrument
is designed to measure the expression of affect on the part [Link] the
teacher and the pupilt,. in addition, the instrument distinguishes .

[Link] and positive and verbal and non-verbal affect.

The Teacher PracticsObservation Record (TPOR). The Teacher Practices

Observation Record (TPOR) .was designed by Brown (1968) to analyze the
instructional, methods utilized by the teacher in the clastroom. The,.
TPOR is comprised of sixty:two items describing teacher behavior (See
Appendix K.); half of the items reflect a progressive or experimeptal
approach to instruction, as represented by the philosophy of John Dewey,
while half of the items reflect a traditional or "direct instruction"
approath to the classroom. The types of obseryations included in thee
TPOR are the, nature of the classroom situation, the nature'of the
problems the teacher presents to students, the processes the teacher
uses in developing student ideas, the teacher's use of subjEct matter,
the teacher's evaluation and_motivation strategies,'and the x<tent to
[Link] teacher differentiates instruction and evaluation to meet
individual student needs:

Research for Better Schools Engagement Rate Form. A practical and

simple procedure for determining:student engagement rate developed by
Research forSetter Schools (RBS) (Htlitt & Rim, 1980) was adapted to
estimate student time-on-task in t basic skills classrooms. .0n the

107

'122
engagement rate form (AiSpendix L ), the observer noted the number of
students engaged and unengaged, according to the categories described
in Table 25. According to RBS directions, approximately 15 observations
should befeCcieded during a class period at time intervals ranging from
one to three minutes. Since our, previous observations in middle school
classrooms led us to the hypothesis that teachers' sense of efficacy
is related to teachers' use of the entire class period for instruction,
we were mbSt-Thterested'in the engagement rate at the'beginning and
end of class periods. Consequently, observers were instructed to
complete the engagement rate form at the end,of the first five minutes
of the class period and 'five minutes before the end of the period and
then at intervals, occurring following codings of a set of TPOR and CCS
observatiOns. Generally, this procedure resulted in five engagement
rate observations per class period:

Observational [Link] PrOcedUres

Observations were carried out by five obServers who were each

ti-ained in the use of the instruments during an intensive two month
training period by Robert a)31RutI Soar. Each observer began each
classroom visit by compleiing a data sheet (See Appendix M.) indicating
the number of students pyesent in the class and other classroom identifying
information. After ob erving for five minutes, the observer noted the
engagement behavior o the class on the RBS instrument, then spent three
minutes coding the teacher's verbal tehavior on the CCS form, and two
minutei diperving the teacher's non-verbal behavior; this was followed
by recorVng of the affective climate of the classroom oh the CCS instru-'
ment. Saseqbently, the obierver noted the teacher and student,behavior
for a five minute period and then completed the TPOR observation form.
Then the observer noted the engagement rate again, completing the same
sequence of observations_untilsfive minutes prior to the end of the '
period when thekstudent en.5agement rate was noted for the Tast time and
the observatimperiod ended. .The [Link] atyleast,three
sets of observations foe aimdst all VassrooM Wits. Three pre- and
three post- visitsoere sought for eacH teachdt-i though this goal was
not met for all 'teachers due to,scheduling difficulties.

Analysis of qcess-Produc t Measures

Classroom Environment Fac ors

In an earlierstudy, the Soar,: (Soar & Soar, 1978) reduced the

observation data obtained from the CCS and the TPOR 0 factor analysis
to a set of factors representing,a paradigm of the classroom environment
for learning. The paradigm delineates four independebt dimensions of
classroom behavior: (1) Emotional climate, (2) 'Teacher management
of pupil behavior, (3) Teacher management of learning tasks, and
(4) Teacher management of thinking processes. (See Figure 6). In
addition to the compelling rational argumeNt that teacher behaviors
do ndt occur in isolation but rather in clusters that support or moderate
each other, the'use of factor scores is preferable to individual items
because of the low reliability of individual observation items and the
reduction in the large number, of relationships that [Link] -rested
(Soar & Soar, 1978).

108
 Table 25

Definitions for Categories Used on Engagement Rate Form

Engaged Categories

Mathematics: Student is involved in or attending to instruction in

arithmetic, numbers, computation, measurement, geometrY, word problems,
or counting

Reading/Language Artsf Student is involved in or attending to

instruction in oral/silent reading, decoding, comprehension,
handwriting, spelling, speaking or, listening activities, literature,
grammar, composition

Unengaged Categories

Management/Transition (M): Daily, routine classrdom activities or

preparatory or "in-between" activities (e.g., distributing, setting
up, or gathering equipment, supplie or furniture; taking roll;
cleaning up; putting on or taking off coats; standing in line;
getting a drink'or washing hands in room; putting headings on
papers; nonacademic directions; waiting for next activity to
begin; waiting for teacher's help; turning through pages in book)

Socializing (S): Two or more persons who are interacting socially

(e.g., talking, whispering, laughing, wrestling, hitting, note
passing, walking together)

Discipline (D): Adult is reprimanding a student, a student is,being

punished or student is watching other student being scolded (e.g.,
one student is being scolded and whole class is listening, head i

down on desk for punishment)

Unoccupied/Observing_ (U): Student-is sjtting or standing alone,

wandering about with no evident purpose-Or goal, watching other
pepple or unassigned activities, or playing with materials.

Out of Room (0): Student temporarily out of room (e.g., bathroom,

errand, nurse, office)
4

.0ther Assigna

Student assigned to suUject other than reading/language arts [Link]

(e.g., social studies, science, art, music, free time activities,
games, snack)

Pullout Assigned

Student(s) regularly assigned out of classroom (e.g., Title I,

remedial reading, instrumental music, adaptive physical,education,
chorus,- bilingual instruction, etc.)

109
124
 IThe Environment for Learning

Emotional Climate' Teacher Managemend

4

of Pupil of Learning Iof Thinking I

Behavior Tasks Processes

Teacher Pupil Teacher Pupil

Pdpir Pupil Pupil
Free Free Free

4 Established Current Established Current Established Current

Structure Interaction Structure Interaction Structure Anteraction
< >

Pupil Pupil Pupil

Not Free Not Free Not Free

Figure 6

A Paradigm of the Environment for learning

125
126
 Although the internal consistency of the measures was lower than in
Soar and Soar's earlier study, the results were considered as being
-generally supportive. The correlations of items with-the measures of
which they were part were .50 or greater for 59% of the items; .30 or .

greater for 75% of the items. Correlations were strongest for measures
of effect expression (84% were .50 or greater), weaker for the remaining
measures. The [Link] measures were developed on self-contained
elementary school classrooms, therefore, the low correlations for some of
the items were not surprising since the behaviors were not likely to occur
at the secondary levelfor example, "Teacher touches, pats." Other
low correlations seemed reasonable because the classes were remedial,
reducing the likelihood that higher level thinking activities would be
encouraged.. The item correlations with the paradigm factors are
presented in Tables 26, 27, 28, and 29.

Re14a15414.ty7of-PrbOess-Measures

Reliability of the process measures was estimated using intraclass

correlation treating both teacher variabilityfrom occasion to occasion
and differences between observers as error--the most stringent estimate
of reliability. The intraclass correlation coefficient was used as the
computing procedure since it is sensitive to differences in average
amounts of a given behavior recorded by different observers, in
contrast to product-moment correlation which is not (Soar & Soar, 1982).

Thaintraclass correlation coefficient is,estimated from the sums

of squares from standari analysis of variance Computing procedures
(Algina, 1978; Bartko, 1976; Rowley, 1976; Soar & Soar, 1982). Since
the intraclass correlation reflects differences due to occasions as well
as differences due to observers, it is expected to be much lower than
the traditional observer agreement statistic, which represents only
observer differences. In fact, Soar and Soar (1982) reported:

It is not unusual to find reliabilities on the order of

.5 to .6; indeed, in a study of ours a measure with a
reliability of .38 was one of the moSt powerful in terms
of accounting for pupil gain. (p. 31)

The intraclasscarielation_coefficients for the process-product

paradigmof learning factor scores are presented in Table 30. The low
correlations are probably attributable in large measure to the great
similarity in teaching strategies across teachers in the basic skills
,classes and the infrequency of occureence of some behaviors, like
pupil negative affect and guided discovery.

Process-Product Analysis

Class means for the student achievement data appear in Tables 31,
32, and 33. Analyses of the process-product relationships were
calculated with the class as the unit of analysis. Means and standard
deviations for the mathematics teachers' normalized attitude measures
and their students' Metropolitan scores are presented in Table 34.
tial-carralations between-teacher-attitude_and_classroom process
variables and students' Metropolitan mathematics test scores were
computed, holding spring 1980 scores constant. The results of this
analysis are presented in Table 35.

111
127
 Tebl e-26

Item Correlations with Soars' Classroom

Environment For Learning Paradigm
Factor Scores

Emotional Climate

Instrument Item Correlation

Teacher Negative affect (verbal and nonverbal)

CCS Says "stop it", etc. .65

CCS Frowns .71
CCS Uses sharp tone .72
CCS ,
Shows disgust .68
CC! Points, shakes finger. .64
CCS Waits for child (negative) .68
CU Rejects child .51
CCS Criticizes, blames, warns .79

Teacher Positive Affect (verbal and nonverbaJ)

CCS Smiles, laughs, nods .70

CCS Waits for child (posftive) .34
CCS Listens carefully to child .56
CCS Pats, hugs child .18
CCS Is enthusiastic .52
CCS Warm, congenial :74
CCS Praises child .54
CCS Agrees with child .64
CCS Gives individual attention .39
CCS Develops "we" feeling .54

Pupil Negative Affect

CCS Teases .'7

CCS Picks at child .40
CCS Makes disparaging remark .77
CCS Uncooperative, resistant .80
CCS Commands or demands .57
CCS Laughs (negative) .67
CCS Tattles .57
CCS Horseplay .59
CCS Interferes, threatens .64
CCS Makes face, frowns .69
CCS Finds fault .78
CCS Says "no", etc. .61

112 128
 Table 26 Continued
-
Instrument Item Correlation
-
Pupil Positive Affect

CCS Sounds friendly .69

CCS Offers to share, cooperate .77
CCS Is enthusiastic (verbal) .59
CCS Helps another .57
CCS Enthusiastic (non-verbal) .63
s. CCS Melpful, shares .54
CCS Chboses another .29
CCS Pouts, withdraws -.35
4

>

113
0
129
 Table 27

Item Correlations with Soars' Classroom

Environment ;:or Learning Paradigm
Factor Scores

Management of Behavior

Instrument Item Correlation

Teacher Strong Codtrol

CCS Gives orders, commands (co1.1)* .39

CCS Gives orders, commands (co1.3) .62
CCS Gives orders, commands (co1.5) .49
CCS Glares,Jrowns Cco1.3Y .58
CCS Glares, frowns (co1.5) .45
CCS Imposes external disciplinary control
onT .72
CCS ,Scolds, punishes (co1.3) .49
CCS Scolds, punishes (co1.5) .37
CCS Interrupts, cuts off (co1.3) .51
CCS Interrupts, cuts off (co1.5) .06
CCS Directs without reason (co1.1) .24
CCS Direccs without reason (co1.3) V.58
CCS Directs without reason (co1.5) .34
TPOR Discourages or prevents P from expressing
self freely .54
TPOR Passes judgment on P's behavior or work .54
TPOR Withholds judgement on P's behavior
or work -.30
TPOR Encourages P to express self freelg -.24
TPOR Encourages self discipline on part of P -.30

Teacher Gentle to Moderate Control

CCS Praises (co1.2) .56

CCS Praises (co1.4) .60
CCS Praises (co1.6) .31
CCS Touches, Pats (co1.4) .15
CCS Suggests,.guides (co1.2) .32
CCS Suggests, guides (co1.4) .29
CCS Suggests, guides (co1.6) _ .16
CCS Directs with reason (co1.2) .30
CCS Directs with reason (co1.4) .45'
TPOR , Passes judgment on P's behavior or work .., .46
CCS Questions, states behavior rule (co1.2) .22
CCS Questions, states behavior rule (co1.4) .38
TPOR Discourages or prevents P from expressing
Self-freely* 11,
.40

* Column numbers indicate the column of the CCS interactive matrix in

which the item was coded.

114
130
 \
Table 27 continued

Instrument Item \\Correlation

,
Pupil Disorder vs, Order'

CCS Frequently socializes .91

CCS Aimless wandering .85
CCS Reports rule to another .51
CCS Occasionally socializes -,,.20
CCS Almost never socializes -.68

Pupil Follows Routine with Little Supervision

V

CCS Follows routine without reminder .74

CCS Works, plays with little supervision .74
CCS Reports rule to another .37

,, ,

i.

..
 Table 28

Item Correlations with Soars' ClassrooM

Environment for Learning Paradigm
Factor Scores -

Management of Learning Tasks,

Instrument Item Correlation

Teacher Central and Directed vs Pupil

Central and ActiVe

TPOR T occupies center of attention .67

TPOR T providesip with detailed facts,and
information .57
CCS T central .73
CCS Total group with teacher .73
CCS Small group with teacher -.01
TPOR T approaches subject matter in direct,
business-like way .48
TPOR T makes some thing as a thing center
of P's attention .07
-TPOR T has P sliend [Link], watching,
listening ,.72
TPOR T organizes learning around P's own
problem -.36
TPOR - T has P make his own collection and-
analysis of subject matter
CCS Pupil central -.08
CCS Pupil task related movement -.53
TPOR T makes doing something center of P's
attention . -.23

Differentiated Activities.

CCS Seatwork without the teacher .48

TPOR T has different Psworking at different
tasks .0
'ccs "T attends simultaneous'activities -.15
CCS P speaks aloud without permission .05
TPOR \joins or participates in P's activities -.02
CCS P\71imited choice .35
CCS Free\groups .51
CCS- T attends P closely . .37
CCS P --free\choice : t
.46
TPOR T has P Oarticipate actively .11
TPOR T makes a kide range of information
materiAl av, ai,lable ,24
T relies heaviy on textbook as source
%,\
of informatio -.24
CCS Seatwork wit/teacher -.60
TPOR T holds all,Ps reslopcnsible for certain
material/tote lam\ ed -.66
 4_ T.a.0 e

Item Correlations with Soars' Classroom

Environment for Learning Paradigm
Factor Scores

Management of Thinking

Instrument Item Correlation

Teacher Guided Discovery Backed up by Facts

TPOR- T involves-P-An=uncertaln or-4ncomplete

situation .56
TPOR I asks P to judge comparative value of
answers or suggestions .70
TPOR T asks P to support answers or opinion
[Link] .67
TPORL T helps P discover and correct factual
. errors and inaccuracies .37
TPOR T encourages p to put his ideas to a test .57
r .TPOR T asks P to evaluate his own work .58
TPOR T leads-P to Q or problpm which "stumps" him .36
TPOR T questions misconceptions, faulty logic,
unwarranted conclusions .40
TPOR T'has P decided when Q has been answered
satisfactorily .61
TPOR T motivates P with intrinsic value of ideas
or activities .60
TPOR T permits P'to suggest additional or
alternative answers .53

Teacher Narrow, One-Answer Interaction

TPOR T expects P to come up with answer T has in

mind .76
TPOR T immediately reinforces P's answer as "right"
or "wrong" qp
.59
TPOR T accepts only one answer as being correct, .77
, TPOR T. prevents situations which cause.P doubt
;
or perplexity .59
TPOR T accepts only answers or suggestions
. closely related to topic .61
TPOR T evaluates work of all by a set standard .40
TPOR T stops P-from going ahead with plan which
T knows will fail .74
TPOR T asks Q that P can answer only if he
studied the lesson .., .63
TPOk T expects p t6-"know" rather than guess
answer_taA .74
TPOR T asks another p to give answer if one P
fails to answer quickly .49
TPOR T emphasizes idealized, reassuring, or "pretty"
aspects of topic .
.02

117
. 133
 .0
,

s
Table 29 Continued

Instrument Item I ......4. , Correlation

,
r
Guess or Hypothesize (no evaluation)

TPOR T asks Q that is not readily answerable

by study of lesson .54
TPOR T permits P to suggest aciditional or
altelnative answers . .70
TPOR T encourages P to guess or hypothesize
about unknown or untested .36 .

TPOR c
T emphasizes idealized, eassuring, qr
"pretty" aspects of a topic .17
,TPOR T entertains even "wild" or farfetched
, suggestions .13
'TPOR T emphasized realistic, djsconcerting, or
"ugly" aspects of topic .42
TPOR T steers P away from hard Q or problem .18
TPOR T motivates with intrinsic value of ideas
[Link] .
.42
TPOR T expects P to "know" rather than to guess
answer to Q -.65
TPOR cT asks Q that P can answer only if he
0 studied the lesson -.43
TPOR ,
T accepts only one answer as being correct .69

..
1,4

C.7

...
118
,
,
 Table 30
_ intracias_s__ Correlation Esiimates of
Reliability of Classroom Process Factor Measures

MSB MSW MSB-MSW (MSB-MSW)/MSB

TNA :017 .010 .007 .41**

TPA .019 .014 .005 .26
PNA .011 .010 .001 .09
PPA .010 .008 .008 .50***
STRCONT .005 .003 .002 .40**
MODCONT .0044 .0048 :00
--PDISORDR- .04 .02 :02. . .50***
PROUTINE . .043 .038 .005 .12
TCENT . .023 .010 .013 .57***
DIFFACT .010 , .007 .003 .30*
GUIDDISC .0065 .0066 -.00
-NROANS .032 .022 .010 .31*
GUESSHYP .0094 .0057 .0037 .39**
IARATE 1.23 .65 .58 . .47***

* .05
** .01
*** .001

Definitions of Abbreviations
.
o
TNA Teacher Negative Affect
.TPA Teacher Positive Affect
PNA . Pupil Negative Affect
PPA Pupil Pos,itive Affect
STRCONT TeaCherrStrong Control
MODCONT Teacher Moderate Control
,
PDISORDR Pupil Disorder vs Control
'. PROUTINE Pupil Follows Routine with' Ottle Supervision
TCENT Teacher Central and Directed vs Pupil Central and Active
DIFFACT Differentiated Activities
GUIDDISC 'Guided) Discovery Backed up by Facts
. NROANS. Narrow, one-answen Interaction
"GUESSHYP Guess or Hypothesize (no evaluation)
IARATE Interesl-Attention Ratin?
:
,

... .

119
135
 Tabl e 31

Metropolitaa_Mathematip_______
Means for Bdsic Skills
Mathematics Clesses

Teacher Spring, 1980 Spring 1981

2 702.333 . 719.000
64).769 694.007
9 . 651.750 .686.500
11' I 651:125 682.000
13 676.688 t- ,697.625
15 610%.B33 , 643:000
16 654;645 .698.000,
19 685.182 740.636
20 648.444 704.222.
25 658.444. 718.1)1
26 663.500 677.875
33 645.778 684.333
36 681.417 727.583N
37 670.182 704.545
39 666.500 704.000
41 677.714 701.643
645:833 670.333
46 681.857 713.857
47 671.917 743.583
48 r.663.857 727.571
 Table 32

Metropolitan Language Test

Means'for Basic Skills
Communication Classes

. .
. e
V ,

Tedcher .% p
% ipring, 1980 Spring, 1981
....
:

1 . 558.667 , 624,500,
10 . 635,222 641.444
18 631.125 .
. 668.875
21 7$24.400 4 616.500
,

23 i.
-,'. /647.250 640.778
..1

27 e, 609.385 655 462

28 r 630:083 '. 622.667
_ 32 6651125 665.125
, .

40 - 662.200 , 669.100
43 t, 658.750 681.625
. 45 5 .
650.889 677.111
it . .

f
 Table 33
:

Metropolitan Reading Test

Means for Basic Skills
Communication Classes

Teacher Spring, 1980 Spring, 1981

0.

1 637.500 553.167
10. , 684.667 711.556
18 689.375 -661-875
21 685.636 682.800
23 ,
681.000 688.333
27 655.923 671.385
28 656.417 680.333
32 681.250 721.375
40 707.100 712.000
43 705.125 708.938
45 684.500 695.667

G .......
-.......

122 138
 Table 34

Means and Standard Deviations for Normalized Teacher Attitude,

Classroom Process Variables and Metropolitan Mathematics
Achievement Test Scores for Basic Skills Mathematics Classrooms

Description Mean . Std. Dev.

Teachers' sense of responsibility 21 49.81 8.36

Rand Efficacy 1 22 49.86 7.98
.Rand Efficacy 2 22 49.27 7.40
Stress in teaching basic skills 22 49.91 8.86
Stress-in--teaching 22 ----49-.59- 8.29
Efficacy Vignettes 22 49.77 9.57,
Webb Efficacy 22 49.77 9.53
Teach& negative affect 27 50.73 5.75-!._
Teacher positive affect 27 49.00 4.36
Pupil negative affect 27 50.65 5.01
Pupil positive affect 27 '49.50 3.78
Teacher strong control 27 51.27 3.14
Teacher moderate ,control 27 49.58 2.54
Pupil disorder 27 49.42 4.37
Pupil follows routine 27 50.97 5.65'
Teacher central & directed- 27 5033 3.91
Differentiated activities 27 49.69 2.26
Teacher guided discussion 27 49.99 2.24
Teacher narrow, one-answer 27 :52.02 4.99
Teacher encourages guess, hypothesis 27 48.43 .2.21
Interest-attention 27 49.93 7.68
Mathemaics-pretest 19 664.15 18.82
Mathematics posttest 19 706.21 24.64.

ocs

123

139
 Table 35

Partial Correlations of Teachee Attitude and

Classroom Process Variables and
Student MetropoTitan-WhefatiZs-Athievement

Description

Teacher_sense_of-responsibility for student achievement -.21- .51

Teacher sense of e'Fficacy'l .78 .003
Teacher sense of efficacy 2 .006 .98
Teacher stress in teaching basic skills -.03 .92
Teacher stress in teaching -.18 .57
Teacher sense of efficacy (Vignettes) -.27 .39
Teacher sense of efficacy (Webb) .50 .10
Teacher positive affect .10 .70
Pupil negative affect -.52 .03
Pupil positive affect .17 .51
Teacher strong control. -.66 .004
Teacher moderate control -.20 .43
Pupil disorder -.26 -.-31
Pupil follows routine -.24 . .36
Teacher central and directed .03 .91
Differentiated acpvities -.12 .65
Guided discovery .44 .08
Aarbwoneanswer-interaction -.13 .62'
Guess or hypothesize -.02 .93
Interest-attention .32 .21
Engagement rate .45 .07

124
140
 Significant relationships with students' mathematics achieyement
were obtained for Rand Efficacy 1 (r=.78, 25.003), teacher negative
affect (r=-.60, 25.01), pupil negative affect (r=.52, p<.03), and
teachers' use of strong control (r=-.66, 25.004T. Interesting trends
emerged for the Webb Efficacy measure (r=.50, 25.10), the engagement
rate measure (r=.45, 25.07), and guided discovery (r=.44, 25.08).

To examine the unique contributions of the Rand and Webb efficacy

measures, teacher strong control and pupil negative affect to students'
Metropolitan mathematics achievement, a stepwise multiple regression
analysis was computed. To control for entering ability, the students'
Metropolitan mathematics achievement scores were first regressed on
th6ir previous year's test scores; the' remaining variables were then
entered in single steps determined by the respective contribution of
each variable to reducing unexplained variance. Two steps in the
multiple regression were completed before the additional predictor
variables were deemed insignificant (25.05). Table 36 reports the
results of the analysis for the significant [Link].
Students' scores on the spring 1980 Metropolitan accounted for 64% of
the variation in their 1981 MAT mathematics scores (F=45.09, 1)5.01).
Teachers' scores on the Rand Efficacy 1 increased the ammint of variation
accounted for to 88%, a sizable contribution (F=18.33, 2501). None of
the remaining variables, Rand Efficacy 2, Webb Efficacy teachers' strong
control, and pupils' negative affect, signifiCantly improved the pre-
diction of students' MAT mathematics scores. The b=weights (standard-
ized regression coefficients) indicate that a one-point :increase in
the pretest score° would yield a .91-point increase in the posttest
performance, and each one-point increase in teachers' Rand Efficacy 1
scores would add a 1.297point increase in students' achievement scores.

Means and standard deviations for the communication teachers'

normalized attitude measures and their students', Metropolitan language
and reading achievement scores are presented in Table 37.

Partial correlations between teacher attitude, classroom process

variables and students' Metropolitan language test scores were computed,
holding spring 1980 scores constant. The results appear in Table 38.
Significant relationships were obtained between Metropolitan,language
scores and Rand Efficacy 2 (r=.83, 25.02) apd pupil classroom routine
(r=-.68, 1)5.03) and a trend toward significance emerged for Rand
5fficacy T (r=.71, 25.07) and Metropolitan language scores.

A stepwise multiple regression analysis was computed to examine

the unique contributions of the Rand and Webb efficacy measures,
teacher strong control, and pupil negative affect to students'
Metropolitan language achievement. In the initial step, the students'
1981 Metropolitan language test scores were regressed on their previous
year's test scores; the remaining variables were then entered in single
steps determined by the respective contribution cf each variable to ,4,0
reducing unexplained variance. Two steps in the multiple regression
analysis were completed before the additional predictors were found to
be insignificant (1)5.05). Table 39 reports the results of the analysis
for the significanYpredictor variables.

125
1 411
 Table 36

Multiple Regression Analysis

of 1981 Metropolitan Mathematics Test Achievement

2 2
Variable R R Change b Beta

1980 Metropolitan .80 .80 .64 .64 .91 .77 45.09.*

Mathematics Test

Rand Efficacy 1 .94 .94 .83 .24 1.29 .49 18.33*

*p<.01

126
 Table 37

Means and Standard Deviations for Normalized Teacher Attitude,

Classroom Process Variables, and Metropolitan Reading and
Language Achievement Test Scores for
Basic Skills Communication Teachers

Description N Mean Std. Dev.

Teachers' sense of responsibility 13 50.46 7.98

Rand Efficacy 1 14 49.64 8.51
Rand Efficacy 2 14 49.86 9;13
Stress° in teaching basic skills 14 49.79 9.18
Stress in teaching 14 50.29 7.96
Efficacy Vignettes 14 49.50 9.78
Webb Efficacy 14 49.29 9.12
Teacher negative affect 18 52..62 5.99
Teacher positive affect 18 51.26 4.53
Pupil negative affect 18 52.58 4.74
Pupil positive affect 18 51.18 4.74
Teacher strong control 18 50.19 3.13
Teacher moderate control 18 51.86 1;99
-Pupil disorder 18 53:94 6,39
Pupil follows routine 18 50.52 6.29
Teacher central and directed 18 50.24 3.71
Differentiated activities 18 50.76 2.96
Teacher guided discussion 18 50.16 2.53
Teacher'narrow, one-answer 18 49.37 4.72
Teacher encourages guess, hypothesis 18 51.75 2.68
Interest-attention 18 45.50 10.12
Reading Pretest 11 673.10 20.40
Reading posttest 11 682.66 18.11
Language pretest 11 623.10 28.62
Language posttest 11 647.95 23.62
 Table 38

Partial Correlations_of Teacher_Attitude and

Classroom Process Variables and
Student Metropolitan Language Achievement Test

Description

Teacher sense of responsibility for student achievement -.11 .84

Teacher sense of efficacy 1 - .71 .07
TeaCher sense of efficacy 2 .83 .02
Teacher stress in teaching basic skills -.34 .46
Teacher stress in teaching -.29 .53
Teacher sense of efficacy (Vignettes) .44 .32
Teacher sense of efficacy (Webb) .58 .17
Teacher positive affect .41 :24
Pupil negative affect -.29 .41
Pupil positive affect -.41 .23
Teacher strong control -.33 .34
Teacher moderate control -.03 .94
Pupil disorder -.39 .26
Pupil follows routine -.68 .03
Teacher central and directed .29 .42
Differentiated activities -.03 .93
-Guided discovery .12 .73
Narrow, one-answer interaction .14 .71
Guess [Link] -.08 .83
Interest-attentibn -.06 .87
Engagement rate .11 .76

128

144
 Table 39

Multiple Regression Analysis

of 1981 Metropolitan Language Achievement Test

2 2
Varlable- R Change b- Beta

1980 Metropolitan .60 .60 .36 .36 .86 ,1.37 23,10*

.Language Arts Test

Rand Efficacy 2 .005 .91 .82 .46 2.18 1.63 13.13* .

* p<.01

129

145
 *

Students' scores on the spring 1980 Metropolitan language test

accounted for 36% of the variation in the 1981 MAT language sCbTes
(F=23.10, E .01). Rand sense of efficacy 2 increased the amount of
variance accounted for 'by 46% to 82% (F=13.13, E<.01). The remai ing
variables did not increase significantly the amount of variance ex .kained.

/ The b-wdights indicate that a one-point increase in the students\

previous achievement test scores would yield a .86-point increase in
their 1980 scores, and a one-point-increase in teachers' sense of
efficacy would yield a 2.18-point increase in Metropolitan language
achievement scores.

Partial correlations calculated for teacher attitude, classroom

process variables and Metropolitan reading test scores, controlling for
spring 1980 test scores, are presented in Table 40. A significant
negative relationship was obtained between teachers' use of narrow, one-
answer questions and students' reading scores (r=.69, E<.03).

These results suggest that basic skills teachers' Rar4 Efficacy

scores appear to have an important relationship to student.: achievement
test scores, though the relationship seems to vary depending on subject
matter. The lack of relationships Obtained between efficacy measures
and reading achievement supports the subject specific effect of teachers'
efficacy because the basic skills communication classes were not intended
to teach reading but rather basic language sktlls,

Teacher Attitude and Classroom Process Factors

The means_and standard deviations of teacher attitude and classroom

process variables are presented in Table 41. To examine the relationships
between teachers' attitudes and the environment for learning paradigm
factors, an intercorrelation matrix was computed. (See Table 42.) The
number of relations of the attitude measures with classroom process
was disappointingly small--no greater than expected by chance. The
relations were in the expected direction, however. Teachers who felt
greater responsibility for pupil achievement had less pupil negative affect
(a high score on responsibility indicated a low sense of responsibility).
Teachers who felt more stress in teaching basic skills used greater amounts
of [Link], r=.33, E<.05. Teachers who felt more stress in
teaching in general used more varied activities, r=.46, p<.01. Teachers
who .felt more effective (Webb Efficacy) used less negative affect, r=-.35,
E<.05, and less guided discovery, r=-.36, E<:05. While not large enough
to be significant given the small sample size, an interesting trend is
evident,between Rand Efficacy 1 and teachers' use of harsh modes of control
(r=-.26) and student disorder (r=-.22). Also too small to reach statistical
significance, a relationship may be indicated between Rand Efficacy 2 and
and teachers' positive emotional climate (r=.23). There was an indication
of a possible negative relationship between teachers' sense of efficacy
measured by the vignettes and negative emotional climate (r=-.30, E<.08).

Relationships among the Enmironment for Learning Paradigm Factors

Intercorrelations between the environment for learning paradigm

factors yield information regarding the independence of these factors,

130
146
 Table 40

Partial Correlations of Teacher Attitude and

C/assroom Process Variables and Student Reading Achievement*

Description

Teacher sense of responsibility for student achievement .28 .60

Teacher sense of efficacy 1 -.14 .76
Teacher sense of efficacy 2 .
-.40 .37.
Teacher stress in teaching basic skills -.06 .90
Teacher stress in teaching .09 .85
Teacher sense of efficacy (Vignettes) -.33 .46
Teacher sense of efficacy (Webb) -.29, .53
Teacher positive affect -.12 .74
Pupil negative affect .20 .58
Pupil positive affect .29 .41
Teacher stron6 control -.08 .83
Teacher moderate control -.38 .28
Pupil,disorder .06 .86
Pupil follows routine .10 .78
Teacher central and directed -.34 .33
Differentiated activities 41 .56
Guided discovery .08 .84
NarrL'Aq---one=answer-interaction-- -.69 .03
Guess or hypothesize .17 :64
Interest-attention -.12 .73
Engagement rate -.15 .67

* .Spring 1980 Metropolitan reading scores were held constant.

131
147
mlimaillimellimMielemlell.11M11.111111011111.11101.111M111iNg11101111111J
 Table 41
Means and Standard Deviations of ,

Teacher Attitudes and Classroom Process Variables

Description N Mean Std. Dev.

. .,

Teachers' sense of responsibility 34 1.97 .80

Rand Efficacy 1 36 3.25 .97
-Rand-Effitacy 2- 36 3-.-33 .1717-
Stress in teaching basic skills '36 2.64 1.25
Stress in teaching 36 2.47 .74
Efficacy Vignettes 36 4.64 .78
Webb Eff,icacy 36 1.48 .16
y
Teacher negative affect 45 51.49 5.85
Teacher positive affect ..
45 49.90 4.52
Pupil negative affect 45 51.42 4.94
Pupil positive affect ( 45 50.17 4.22
Teacher strung control' 45 50.84 3.14
Teacher moderate control 45 50.49 ' 2.57
,
Pupil disorder '45 51.23 5.66
Pupil follows routine 45 50.79 5.85
Teacher central & directed 5--- 50.30 3.79
Differentiated activities ---"L 50.12 2.59
,
Teacher guided discussion 45 50.06 1.33
i Teacher narrow, one-answer 45 50.96 5.01 .

-rather encourages guess, hypothesis 45 . -4976*

Interest-kttention, 45 48.16 8.90
.

132
 111111 111. WM/ 111111111F--

o.

Table. 42 .

Correlations Between Teacher Attitudes and

Behaviors Based on a Paradigm of the Classroom Atmosphere for Learn'ing

.1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Responsibility 1

Efficacy 1 2 -30 --
.37a 33a
Efficacy 2 3
Stress 1 4 02 -33a -27 --
b
Stress 2 5 02 .-13 -15, 60 --
Vignette 6 -33 -10, 36" 01 01
Webb- 7 -29 35" 17 -24 -21 19
Student Endagement Pe 8 -04 -04 -04 14 -07 14 -09

Emotional Climate:
T Neg .9 18 -05 -07 -13 -10 -h. -35a -27 --
T Pos 10 01 06 23 08 -05 19 06 01 -22
a d c
P Neg 11 35 02 09 -15" 13 -10 -08 -57 68 -03, .
P Pos 12 23 -02 -13 -21 -21 -16 -18 -12 -04, 48" 08

Behavior:
d
T Strong control 13. 28 -26 02 02 -09 -01 -04 *-27 72 -13 62 -09 --
a a
T G to Mod Control' 14 20 -17 -21 33 26 02 -06 07 23 32 18 11 27
d a d a
P Disorder vs Order 15 19 -22 04 -12 28 -14- -12 -64 31 16 62 31 18 14 --
P Follow Routine 16 -22 -01 06 17 08 -01 04 -04-12 21 -13, -04 -23 -09 '-01

Learning Task:
a a b d
T Central & Directed 17 28 00 -08 07 -03 -04 -14 33 23 -01 13 02 36 40 -16 -57 -7A
b a b
Diff. Activities 18 -34 07 03 18 46 14 -11 -32 -28 24 -10 16 -31 -15 32 26 40"
Thinking:
T Guided Disc 19 06-15- 07-02-7.111- 12 ---36
a_ 08=11 a 29 .10 28 --=37
b
05-06 --09 d 28-d --
T Narrow, One ans, 20 32 -08 13 -05 -19 21 -01 14 17 09 14 ,17 .39b, 38" -12 -20 61, -51k 11 --A
T Enc Guess, Hyp 21 -22 06 -03 11 18 -05 -18 -09A -14 2Q -12, 05 -46" -00 2BA 13 -37" 39: 11 =62" --
Interest-Attention 22 -02 -17 -09 27 -05 21 -15, 76" 25 -07 -48" -20 -19 16 40" 11 11 -36" -11 ,19 -18

a 4 05
b<.01
Note: Decimals ha've been omitted
c<.001
d<.0001

150
149
as proposed by-Soar & Soar (1978).

Teachers!, negative emotional climate was strongly associated with

negative pupil.-climate (r=068, p<.01), teachers' use of strong control
(r=.72, p<01-4, moderately issociated With pupil disorder (r=.31, p<.05)
and negatively,associated with teachers use of guided discovery (r=-.31,
p<405). Teache6' positive emotional climate was related to pupil
positive climate (r=.48, p<.01) and teachers"gentle to moderate control
(r=.32, p<405),

Pupils' negative affecfwas positively relAed to teachers' use of

.strong contrql tactics (r=.62, p<.0001) and pupil disorder (r=.62, p<.0001),
and negatively_related to teachers' use of guided discovery techniques
(r=-.30, p<405)' and students' interest-attention rating (r=-.48, p<.001).
Pupils' positive affect was related to :pupil disorder (r=.31, p<.05).,

TeaChers' use of strong control was negat:vely associated with

teachers' use of differentiated activities (r=-,3q, p<.05), guided
discovery (r=437, p<.01), and encouragement of hypotheses testing
(r=-.46, p<401.). Teachers' strong control was positively'associated with
teacher directed learning (r=.36, p<.05) and the use of narrow, one-
answer questidA (r=.39, p<401). Teachers' use of gentle to moderate
control was associated with teacher-directed learning (r=.40, p<.01)
and use of narrOw, one-answer questions (r=.38, p<.01).
7,*

Pupil disorder was related to teichers' use of differentiated

activities (rF,32, p<.01) and negatively associated with pupil interest
and attention (r=-.70, p<.0001). Pupils following-of a set routine
was [Link] to teacher directed learning (r=-.57, p<.0001).
Teacher directed learning was negdtively associated with the use of
differentiated_activities (r=-.60, p<.0001) and teachers' encouraging
of hypothesis testing (r=-.37, p<.05), and ppsitive,ly related to the,
use of narrowone-answer questions (r=.61, p<.0001).

The teachers' use of differentiated activities was negatively

related to the use of narrow, one-answer questions (r=-.51, p<.001)
and studentsvinterest-attention rate (r=-.36, p<,05) and positively
related to the encouragement of hypothesis testing (r=.39, p<.01).
Teachers' use of narrow, one-answer questions was negatively related
to encouragement of hypothesizing (r=-.62, p<.0001).

Examination of the strength of the intercorrelations between factor

scores provides support for the relative independence of the emotional
climate, behavior, and learning task dimensions of the Soars' classroom
environment for learning paradigm; however, there were significant
intercorrelations between the emotional climate factors and teacher
control of behavior factors. The relationship between these two
dimensions of classroom environment is understandable because teacher
behaviors that comprise strong control are likely to be instigated by
distressing student behaviors and accompanied by strong, negative
feelings in both teachers and students.

The dimensi4s of teacher management of learning tasks and thinking

appear to be reltted, suggesting that in the basic skills classrooms,
the teachers' decisions about the type of learning tasks had important

134 151
implicatiOns for the processes of thinking; teacher directed learning was
associated with the use of narrow, one-answer questions and a reluctance
to encourage guessing and hypothesis testing, while the use of differen-
tiated activities was associated [Link] of narrow-one-answer
questions, encouragement of guessing and hypothesis testing, and a
reduction in students' interest and attention.

In sum, the paradigm factor intercorrelations reveal a number of

trends that have implications for future research .and practice in basic
skills classrooms. The emotional climate of teacher and student was
related; negative teacher affect was associated with negative pupil
affect,and positive pupil affect was related to positive teacher affect.
While the causal direction of this relationship cannot be determined from
the correlational data obtained in this study, it is likely that the
relationship is reciprocal -- negative teacher behaviors increase negative
student behaviors and vice-versa. Experimental research is needed to
determine if the teacher can reduce students' negative affect, by avoid-
ance of negative affect relating to students.

I In these basic skills classrooms, teachers' use of differentiated

activities was positively related to teachers' experience of stress
and negatively related to students' interest-attention rate. These
relationships suggest that teachers' use of differentiated activities
has a negative impact on their own personal satisfaction as well as on
student motivation. Given the importance of these two factors to teaching
effectiveness, serious consideration of the advantages and disadvantages
of assigning different activities to different students is warranted.

An Empirical Search for Behavioral Correlates of Teachers' Sense of Efficacy

The failure to find significant relationships between teachers' sense'

of efficacy and the learning paradigm factors scores may be due to the
restriction in variance in both the attitude and the behaviors of the
basic skills teachers; however, the trends reflected in the correlations
between the various efficacy measures and teacher behavior suggest that
sense of efficacy may be somewhat related to teachers maintenance of a
positive emotional climate and teachers' avoidance of harsh modes of
behavior control.

Since all the process data obtained from the CCS and TPOR observations
were not represented in the paradigm factor scores, correlations between
all the process items and the two Rand Efficacy items were calculated
to search for potentially informative relationships. Caution must be
exercised, however, in interpreting these relationships. A total of
766 correlations were obtained; a number cf spurious relationships can
be expected due to chance variation and the low reliability of individual
observation items. Correlations of Rand Efficacy 1 and the classroom
process variables with significance levels equal to or less than .10
are presented in Table 43, and the entire set of correlations of Rand
Efficacy 1 and the classroom process variables appear in Appendix N.

Like the factor scores, consideration of the set of classroom process

items having an association with Rand Efficacy 1 suggests that teachers'
use of strong control techniques has a negative relationship to teachers'

135i
1 52
 Table 43

Correlations of Rand Efficacy 1

with Classroom Process Variables
(significance level, p<.10)

Item

TPOR.

12 T makes P center of attention -.41 .01

13 T makes some thing center of P's attention -.45 :007
114 T involves P in uncertain situation .33 .05
132 T has P makes his own analysis of subject matter -.29 .09
142 T withholds judgment on P's behavior or work .33 .05

CCS

B16 T gives, promises, reward .28 .10

819 'T praises, general, individual .30 .08
A5 T sounds defensive .29 .09
A6 T yells -.29 .09
All P teases .29 .09
A76 P agreeable, cooperative -.31 .07
M51 T states behavioral rule -.29 .09
M60 T directs with reason (follow-up) .30 .08
M64 T directs without reason -.36 .03
M80 T reminds, prods (follow-up) -.34 .04
M116 I-scolds; punishes (follow-up) -.29 .09
M120 T nods, smiles, gives facial feedback .41 .02
M129 T uses body English, waits .
-.37 .03

136

153
 sense of efficacy (viz, correlations with A6, T yel's, r=-.29, 2<.09;
4
1151, T states behavioral rule, r=-.29, 2<09; M64, T directs without reason,
r=.=.36, 2.<.03; 1180, T reminds, prods, r=-.34 2<04; 11116, T scolds,
punishes, r=-.29,2<.09). In addition, a number of the relationships
can be interpreted to suggest that the high efficacy teacher has a positive,
supportive style (B16, T gives, promises, rewards, r=.28,25.10; B19, T
praises, general, individual, r=.30,2<.08; M60, T directs with reason, r=.30,
p.08; M120, T nods, smiles, gTves facial feedback, r=.41,25.02) that permits
open communication with students (All, P teases, r=.2-9,25.09; A76, P
agreeable, cooperalive, r=-.31, 21..07) and involvement of students' in
decision-making (114, T involves P in uncertain situation, r=.33, E<.05;
142, T withholds judgment on P's behavior or work, r=.33, 2<.05).

Correlations of Rand Efficacy 2 and the classroom process variables

with'significance levels equal to or less than .10 are presented in Table
44, and the entire set of correlations of Rand Efficacy 2 and the class-
room process variables appear in, Appendix 0. Examination of Table 44
provides further support for the conclusion that the high efficacy teacher
promotes development of a secure, accepting classroom atmosphere (B44, P
shows fear, r=-.32, p<.06; A39, P i§ left out, r=-.40, o<.01; M113, T scolds,
punishes, r=7.41, 2.<701; M135, T touches, pats 15, r=.35: p<.06) that is
supportive of student initiative (B42, P seeks assTirance;-r=.38, p<.03;
B45, P shows apathy, r=-.44, 2<.007; A10, P says, "No, I Wan't, dfc.,
r=.28, 2<.10; A14, P [Link] or demands, r=.29, p<.08; M4, T complies
with P request (1. initiated interaction), r=.30, p<.08; M7, T complies
with P request (P initiated interaction), T=.32,-5<.06; m26., T suggests,
guides, r=-.36, 2.<.03; M29, T gives feedba-ek, cif-ds reason, r=-.41, p<.02)
and focused on meeting the needs of all students (B13, T attnds P aosely,
r=.33, 2<.05; A39, P is left out, r=-.40, p<.01; A44, T gives individual
attention, r=.32, 2<.06; M21, T aiks for 0-status, r=.35, p<.04).

Conclusion

The prOfile of the high efficacy teacher that [Link] the

pattern of correlations between the Rand items and the classroom process
items resembles the effective junior high teacher described by Evertson,
Anderson, Anderson, and Brophy (1980):

Generally, the more successful teachers were rated (by

students and observers) as being more task oriented,
affectionate, enthusiastic, oriented to students'
personal needs, competent, confident, and academically
effective (p. 461.

The relationship of acceptance of student ideas to effective teaching

of low ability students was noted in the Evertson et al.(1980) aunior
High Study:

In general, the teachers of lower ability classes who

were more academically successful seemed to encourage
their students to express themselves, even to the extent
of tolerating relatively high rates of called-out questions
and comments. These teachers also tended to be friendlier;
accepting more social contacts from their students and
being more tolerant of personal requests. (p. 58)

137

154
 Table 44

Correlations of Rand Efficacy 2

with Classroom Process Variables
(significance level, p<.10)

I tem P.

TPOR

13 T makes some thing center of P's atiention -.36 .03

CCS

83 Total group with T -.32 .06

84 Small group with T .29 .09
813 T attends P closely .33 .05 .

815 T attends simultaneous activity -.60 .0002

825 Seatwork without T .29 .09
840 T gives reason, direction -.36 .03
B42 P seeks reassurance .38 .03
844 P shows fear -.32 .06
845 P shows apathy ,
.-.44 .007
A10 P says, "No," I won't, etc. .28 .10
A14 P commands or demands .29 .08
A37 P pushes or pulls, holds° -.33 .05
A39 13 is left out -.40 .01
A44 T gives individual attention .32 .06
A58 P praises another -.30 .08
M4 T complies with P request (I initiated) .30 .08
M7 T complies with P request (P initiated) .32 .06
M21 T asks for P status .35 .04
M26 T suggests; guides -.36 .03
M29 T gives feedback, cites reason -.41 .02
M52 T gives behavioral rule .30 .08
14113 T scolds, punishes -.41 .01
11135 T touches, pats P .33 .06
M173 T glares, frowns .30 .08

138

155
 ^

CHAPTER 6

Strategies for Improving Teachers' Sense

of Efficacy

Implicit in the often cited dictum, "If you want to understand some-
thing, try to change it," (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, p. 6) is they assumption
that efforts to change a phenomenon are likely to result in Outcomes
that can illuminate'critical relationships and interdependencies. Aware
of the power of "transforming experiments" to contribute to significant
social change as well as theoretical clarification of consteucts,
Bronfenbrenner (1976) recommended that experimental changes be deliberate-
ly introduced into social systems. Applying Bronfenbrenner's rationale
to our study of teachers' sense of efficacy, we conductedja small scale
pilot effort to increase teachers' sense of efficacy. 04e objective was
to explore various approaches to attitude change in ordee to elucidate
factors influencing teachers' sense of efficacy.

In recent years, a number of advocates of the process-prOduct

approach to teacher effectiveneSs have found that teacher behaviors can
be changed by workshops and training materials that demonstrate the
teaching behaviors associated with increased student achieVement (Anderson,
Evertson, & Brophy, 1979; Good & Grouws, 1979; StalliOgs, Needels, &
Stayrook, 1979). In contrast, other researchers have/insisted that
direct efforts to change behaviors are not likely to/havelong-term
effectiveness. After an attempt to train teachers tO use "origin
teaching styles,'" Cohen, Emrich, and deCharms (1976/77) concluded that
it is not enough tc train teachers to knowwhat to do; teachers must
want to change and must be instructed iR how to change if behavior
change efforts are to be effective. Fenstermacher (1978) pointed out
that teachers' subjectively reasonable beliefs will maintain their
behaviors despite objectively reasonable evidence to the contrary,
unless strong evidence is provided to challenge their beliefs, and he
contended that research must address the question of why teachers engage
in the behaviors they do, if a significant and lasting change in teacher
behaviors is the objective.

The basic assumption underlying this [Link] that teachers' sense

of efficacy is a major determinant of student academic achievement.
Derived from this assumption is the prediction that teachers' sense of
efficacy is a mediator of specific teacher behaviors that contribute to
student achievement. Thus, the question of how to influence teacher
behavior change is integral to an understanding of the role of teachers'
sense of efficacy in affecting student achievement. The issue of
whether to focus on change of specific teacher behaviors or to attempt
to influence teacher attitude change directly has not been adequately
resolved in the research literature, although recent studies of cogni-
tive behavior modification (Meichenbaum, 1977) and attribution retraining
(Fowler & Peterson, 1981; Schunk, 1981) suggest that a combination of
attitude and behavior change is likely to be more effective than either
attitude or behavior change alone.

1 39

156
 *To provide snme evidence on the question of effectiVe behavior
changq, three approaches to cnange of teacher behavior were compared:

(1) a process-product approach to teacher change, based on

materials developed by Grouws and Good (1979);

(2) an attitude change approach, based on McClelland and

and deCharms' motivation change projects (McClelland,
1978), and

(3) an integrated, process-product, attitude change approach,

combining the materials from workshops 1 and 2.

Subjects

Forty-eight teachers of basic skills in mathematics and communications

from four high schools participated in the study of teacher behavior change.
The sample consisted of 28 white female, 16 white male, 1 black male, and
3 black female teachers. The teachers had an average of 10 years experience,
with a range of experience extending from 1 to 35 years, with the median
being 8 years of experience. In light of the problems encountered in
introducing more than one treatment in a single school, three high schools,
similar in size and racial and social class distributions, were selected,and
a different treatment was presented to the basic skills teachers in each of
of the three schools; the basic skills teachers at a fourth school were
included for observation as a control group receiving no training or
materials.

Procedures_

To compare the relative effectiveness of the three different approaches

to teacher change, three workshops and sets of training materials were
developed. The first workshop was based on the experimental paradigm
developed from process-product research (Anderson, Evertson, & Brophy,
1979; Good & Grouws, 1979; Stallings, Needels, & Stayrook,.1979).
Specifically, the materials used were designed by Grouws and Good (1979)
and adapted for use with high school basic mathematics and communication
skills classes. The workshop included a didactic presentation of process-
product research findings and a small-group discussion of strategies for
application of the research findings with mathematics and communications
skills teachers meeting in separate groups. Teachers were then provided
with training materials and encouraged to study them and apply the
principles and behaviors in their classrooms. The second workshop was
based on the motivation change strategy developed by McClelland (1965)
and utilized effectively by Alschuler, Tabor, and McIntyre (1971) and
deCharms (1968; 1976) in training programs with students and teachers.
Four specific components comprise the McClelland motivational change
program: (1). conceptualization of the attitude, (2) self-study in
relation to the attitude, (3) planning and goal setting, and (4) group
support (McClelland, 1965). Ih the second workshop we attempted to
incorporate,McClelland's four components into a program to increase

140

157
 efficacy. Teachers were asked to engage in a self-analysis of their own
sense of efficacy by writing .spries in response to two thematic apper-
ception-type stimuli, "A teacher talking with a parent" and "A teacher
talking with a student." (See,Appendix P ). The teachers then scored
°their stories for sense of efficacy, according to a system derived
empirically from the responses to the TAT-type stimuli obtained from
our sample of high and low efficacy middle school teachers. (See pages 446-
448. ) After scoring their stories, we discussed ways in which their
sense of efficacy was likely to affect their interactions with students.
Behavioral examples used in this,discussion were drawn from our observa-
tions in the classrooms of the htgh and low efficacy middle school
teachers. The teachers were provided with trainiig materials (See
Appendix Q.) and encouraged to study them and apply the ideas in their
work with students.

For the third workshop to theextent that time with teachers per-
mitted, we combined the presentations from the previou.5 two workshops.
We also provided them with copies Of the training materials from both
workshops. \

Because of time constraints, each workshop was limited to a two-hour

presentation at each of the three schools. Materials were left with
teachers in the hope that they would stimulate further interest and
thought and, ultimately, behavior change. The experimental paradigm
employed by the process-product teacher effectiveness researchers
suggests that a brief presentation accompanied by a set of training
materials can be effective in producing behavior change. At each work-
shop we emphasized our interest and willlingness to provide whatever
support and assistance the teachers mfght consider helpful, and we
encouraged them to become involved in Our work as co-researchers rather
than as subjects. To assess the effectiveness of the workshop and
materials, teachers were observed on .at least two occasions approximately
six weeks prior to and following the workshops. The criterion measure
was the rating of student attention to task on the Soars' Classroom
Climate and Control Systematic Observation Schedule.

Results
,
,

The means arid stan'dard deviations of the CCS student attention

rating for the basic skills teachers who participated in one of the
three programs and the control group teacl?ers are presented in Table 45.
Comparison of the differen:es among the school means using one7way
analysis of variance revealed no significant differences among the four
groups of basic skills teacners, F(1, 27)=k.27, 2?.05.
1

Discussion \

Considerable controversy exists regarding the most effective

strategy for effecting change in teachers' classroom behavior. Koehler
(1981) outlined four major chang strategies

(1) Change teacher by changing t eir behaviors;

(2) Change teachers by changing the school and/or system

organizational structure;

141
 Table 45

Means and Standard Deviations for Each School

on the CCS Student Attention Rating

School Group Mean Standard Deviation

School 1 Efficacy 4.06 .50

,

School 2 Process-Product 3.90 .60

School 3 Efficacy/Process-
Product 3.40 2.34

School 4 Control 3.69 .50

142
159
 (3) Change teachers by giving them an understanding of
their decision-making processes, their language and
the consequences of these; altering their theories
and/or belief systems;

(4) Change teachers by changing the schools, that is,

both teachers and students.

The first strategy, change teachers by affecting their behavior,

is supported by recent experimental studies based on teacher effective-
ness, process-product research (Evertson, Stallings, Needels, & Stayrook,
1979). Efforts to affect teacher behavior by providing assistance through
workshops and training materials have demonstrated effectiveness in
increasing students' achievement scores, though results have not been
completely consistent (Gage & Coladarci, 1980) nor has the long-term
effectiveness of such training efforts been examined. The direct behavior
change strategy has a theoretical basis in behaviorism; that is, it is
assumed that the positive effects associated with behavior change will
maintain the behaviors.

The guiding assumption of research carried out within the structural

perspective is that structural features of the teaching environment, in
large part, determine teacher behaviors. Consequently, change in teacher
behavior is contingent on change in the structural elements of the school
or system that influence the roles, activities, and relationships that
teachers assume. For example, the size of classes and the number of
classes and preparations that teachers are assigned place significant
constraints on the type of activities the teacher is able to implement in
the classroom.

Strategy three, typical of ethnomethodological and decision-making

research (Shavelson & Stern, 1981),is based on the assumption that teachers'
behaviors are governed by their thinking and decision-making processes;
consequently, change efforts must be directed to the teachers' information
processes and belief systems. This strategy is supported conceptually
by Fenstermacher (1978) who argued that efforts to influence teacher
behavior change without confronting their supportive belief systems are
likely to be ineffectual.

Strategy four derives from the "Effective Schools" research that

indicates that a systems approach to change provides the social support
necessary to sustain individual commitment and development.

According to Koehler, the Effective Schools research suggests that

strategy four has the greatest potential for success. The results of the
change efforts of,the Teacher Efficacy Study provide tentative support for
Koehler's contention in that our efforts to change teacher behavior
(strategy 1) and teachers' belief systems (strategy 3) seem to have had
minimal impact on teacher and student behavior. A number of explanations
are possible to account for our failure to finc support for the three
training approaches attempted in our study, the most prominent ones being
the minimal amount of contact time we had with teachers and the timing
of the posttest observations of the treatment groups in late spring when
"deterioration" in student behavior has been demonstrated to occur
(Evertson & Veldman, 1981). Our intuitive assessment of the teachers'

143

160
reactions to these workshops is that the process-product workshop was
perceived as the'most useful on the part of the teachers. We conclude
this primarily because the mathematics teachers asked us to repeat the
process-product workshoR for them during the early weeks of the following
fall semester. However, we are pessiml\stic about the potential for
strategies one and three to have a pervasive and long-term effect Pecause
they fail to provide a supportive environment for maintenance of change.

Teachers in the school that participated in the strategy one, behavior

change, workshop were very outspoken about their reluctance to adopt many
of the procedures recommended in the workshops, because of the lack of
administrative support for their efforts and their excessively heavy
teaching loads. They were especially resistan to the idea of group
meetings designed to coordinate their curficulum goals and strategies,
despite a strong consensus that such an effort was desperately needed.
Considered from the orientation of teachers' sense of efficacy, we suspect
that thisreaction is due in [Link] to the teachers' belief that the
students enrolled in thier basic skills classes are unlikely to benefit
substanttally from an improved curriculum.

The total school level commitment that characterizes Koehler's

strategy four was evident in the climate of the middle schools in our
study and seems essential for long-term maintenance of,change. The
middle school teachers expressed higher job satisfaction, had higher
expectations for student success, and a trend toward a higher sense of
efficacy than the junior high teachers. These findings support the
current focus on the total school climate as the medium for creating
effective schools. As Koehler suggested, the opportunity for teachers
and adthinistration to talk professionally about teaching may be an
important contributor to teacher effectiveness and may be due, in lArge
part, to [Link] and social supports provided by the school's
overall climate of commitment enhanced, in the case of our middle school,
by its team organization and participative decision-making.

Analyzing our findings according to 5ronfenbrenner's assumption

that change efforts illuminate critical relationships, we conclude that
effective change efforts require a climate of commitment to change. In
the context of ecological theory, system-wide articulation and support
are essential for enduring change.

In conclusion, results of our behavior change effort suggest that

the most successful approach to teacher change would require a coordination
of all four strategies described by Koehler. Teachers can benefit from
workshops that outline effective teaching behaviors (strategy one) if they
are provided with organizational structures that insure adequate planning
and teaching time, and administrative support (strategy two), and provided
they confront and overcome personal beliefs and group norms that militate
against effective teaching,behaviors (strategy three) and, most important,
provided they occur in a total school atmosphere that is committed to
change and the pursuit of academic excellence (strategy four).

144
 CHAPTER 7

Efficacy and the Teacher's Role: An Analysis

of Ethnographic Interview Data

Introduction

The study of teacher efficacy demands a social-psychological

investigation of how teachers define their work, the forces that
impinge on their definition and the meaning structures that undergtrd
and legitimate their professional life. Teacher efficacy, as defined
for the purposes of this study, refers to a teacher's stated assessment
of the educability of students from poor home environments and\of the
teacher's personal ability to facilitate learning in such children.
Efficacy attitudes were measured by two Likert items:

1. When it Comes right down to it, a teacher really Can't do

much because a student's motivation and performance depends
on his or her home environment.

1)Strongly 2)Agree 3)Neither agree 4)Disagree 5)Strongly

agree nor disagree disagree

2. If I really try hard, I can get through to even the moSt

difficult or unmotivated student.

* 1)Strongly 2)Disagree 3)Netther agree 4)Agree 5)Strongly

disagree nor disagree agree

These and other efficacy measures are discussed in detail'in Chapter 4

of this report.

High efficacy scores reflect a teacher's confidence that students

from poor homes can be taught and that the teacher has the professional
skills to help such students learn. Low efficacy scores reflect, a
teacher's suspicion that such children cannot learn and,that the teacher
cannot help them overcome their learning problems. We will refer to
teachers with high efficacy scores as possessing a high sense of efficacy
or being "high efficacy teachers." We will refer to teachers wittp'low
efficacy scores as having a low sense of efficacy or being "low efficacy
teachers."

Forty high school, basic skills teachers, five junior high English
and social studies teachers,and five middle school English and social
studies teachers took part in this phase of the efficacy study. High
school teachers came from three schools, two of which served a small city

Numbers on this item have been reversed from the way thcy appeared on
the questionnaire in order to reflect how the items were scored.

145
population,' and one was located in a rural community.2 The junior high
and middle schools were located in a small city.3 All sthools were
integrated and served powlations of poverty students ranging from a low
of 15 percent of the student body to a high of 49 percent (see Table 40 .

All teachers completed a lengthy questionnaire and allowed observers f'pm

the research team in their, classrooms. Twenty three high school teac rs.
and ten middle and junior high school teachers agreed to be interview1.
Typically interviews took place in the tedther's classroom, after school,
or during a free period, [Link] for approximately 5,0 minutes:

Observational data gathered in the classrooms of low and high

efficacy teachers suggested that efficacy,attitudes were related to how
teachers defined and adjusted to their professional roles. Some teachers
defined their professional competency in terms of their ability to reach
and teach all students, including the "slowest kids in the class." Others
believed themselves to be excellent teachers even though they ignored many
students who were learning little or nothing in their cla%ses. In order
to better understand the relationship between efficacy and tne role
expectations of teachers we undertook a role analysis of teachers in fhe
five schools we studied. This chapter reports the findipgs of our role
analysis and discusses its significance for the question§ of efficacy.

This chapter is divided into nine sections. In ae,first section,

Role Analysis, we discuss the sociological concepts of roie and profes-
sional socialization. Section II sets forth the methodology employed in
this study, Section III, The Context of Teaching, presents data and
reviews literature suggesting that the social-psychological milieu of
teaching is characterized by professional uncertainty and personal doubt.
The fourth section, Teacher Role Expectations, deals with the three domains
of the teaching role; classroom management, relationships with students,
and instruction. Each of the three domains is discussed under a separate
heading. The fifth section, the Role Expectations Checklist, summarizes
the components ofsthe teaching role. -

In Section VI, Peer Pressure, we discuss the effects peer sanctions

have on teacher behavior and prescriptions of professional competence.
Section VII,Vulnerability and Impression Management, is divided into,three
subsections. The first discusses teacher efforts to present a positive
impression to colleagues and the second di'scusses the limits teachers c
place on impression management. A third subsection shows how peer
pressure within many schools promotes teacher conformity to faculty role
expectations and discourages collaboration and change.

Section VIII, Teaching Poverty Students, is also divided into four

subsections. The introduction discusses the distrilption of gfficacy
scores in our sample, while the second subsection discusses the threbt
low-achieving, poverty students pose to the professional self-esteem of

1
Population 81,371
2
Population 1,826
3Population 81,371

146

- 163 it
 116

Tailie 45

Racial dompdsition and Percentage of

.
Poverty Students in Participating Schools

f"

School Students Free or Reduced

Lunch
Total Black White

1 1403 100 362 25.8 1041 74.2 227 16.2

2 1137 100 519 '45.6 618 54:9 549 49.3.

3 669 100 249 37.2 420 62,8 298 43.2

4 1621 100 364 22.5 1257 77.5 244 15,1

Middle
School 971 100 327 33.7" 644 66.3 455 46.9

Junior 945 100 342 36.2 603 63.8 418 44.2

High

147

164
teachers. It is suggested that high efficacy teachers deal with these
competency threats differently than do low efficacy teachers. The
second sub-section discusses the tendency of lnw efficacy teachers to
attribute student failure to the students themselves. In the third
sub-section it is shown that high efficacy teachers recognize the
problem facing low-achieving students and see it as the teacher's
responsibility to help such students overcome these difficulties.
Section IX reviews the findings presented in this chapter.

Section I

Role Analysis

Every work place presents a social-psychological milieu that the

novice is expected to learn and absorb. This milieu includes more or
less explicit role definitions for each position (status) within an
organization,. The social science literature contains many highly
technical definitions of the term, role. We need not explore the
intricacies of that literature here. For our purpose it will suffice
to define role as that pattern of behavior and expressed beliefs status
holders are expected to display on the job and sometimes off the job,
as well. The proce,s by which novices learn their assigned job roles is
called professional socialization.

The socialization process need not and, in fact, usually is not

the result of deliberate programs of training or indoctrination.
Individuals can learn what is expected of them by merely experiencing
the social-psychological milieu of the work place. This is not to
suggest that socialization is an irresistible process. Individuals can
and do resist the,pressures either through overt action, compromise, or
subtle subversion. However, an individual's resistance is set against
social-psychological forces that exist in the work itself. Individuals
feel the pressure:of these forces while in the very process of active
resistance or compromise. In that sense roles can be understood as
social facts which cannot be simply willed out of existence
(Durkheim, 1966).

Adjusting to the expectations of the work situation is usually a

semi-conscious process. As individuals conform to the expectations of
others, they simultaneously develop an occupational self image
Compatible with the role demand of their jobs.

Establishing an occupational self image is complicated by a number

of factors. First, some role demands are subtle and are not explicitly
part of the occupational rules or prevailing ideology of the profession.
For example, teachers may learn that it is "bad form" to advertise one's
classroom accomplishments in the teachers' 16unge because other teachers
may become resentful at having to match such achievements.

148

1 (3 5
1111S.OIMIIMMINIMIIMINI1111
 Second, role demands are not always stable and may shift as changes
occur in the work setting. A change in the administration of a school or
a change in class assignments may alter the teacher's role in significant
ways. Adjusting to these shifts can be unsettling.

Third, role demands are sometimes ambiguous or even contradictory.

For example, the teaching profession includes teachers who are "hard-nosed"
and others who are "soft-hearted." Coming to terms with such behavior
options is a part of the ongoing socialization process.

The fact that teachers in training had higher efficacy scores than
experienced teachers led us to believe that there was something in the
social-pvchological milieu of schools that decreased the efficacy
attitudes of many, but not all, teachers. Variability in efficacy scores
among teachers, though not great, was large enough to suggest that pro-
fessional expedtations of the teacher's role do not include a specific
set [Link] beliefs.4_ That is to say, it is acceptable among the
teachers we studied to express doubts concerning the educability of low-
achieving poverty students and to express uncertainty regarding their
personal ability to help such students learn. We decided to study teacher
roles because we suspected teacher efficacy to be related to the process
by which teachers a(:just to the role'expectations of their profession.

Section 11

Methodology

Ethnpgraphic interviews were conducted with five middle school

teachers, five junior high school teachers and 23 basic skills teachers
from three Separate high schools.5 The basic skills teachers taught from
one to six dcmpensatory education classes in arithmetic or communications
skills. Students were assigned to such classes if they failed one or more
portions of the Florida Basic Skills exam administered in the 10th grade.
Ninth grade students with low Metropolitan [Link] Test scores were
also assignedto basic skills classes.6
\
Interviews were conducted in private, during free periods of the
school day or after school and lasted from 30 minutes to two hours. The
average interview took about 50 minutes. Most were finished in one sitting

4
For a discussion pf the effiCacy scores ofbexperienced teachers and teachers
in training, see page 311of this report.

5 \

For a discussion of the differences between middle schools and junior high
schools, see page 26 of this report.

6
Ninth graders whose 'Metropolitan Achievement Test scores were one standard
deviation below the mean of ninth grade students in Florida were assigned
to Basic Skills classes.

149

166
toward the end of our classroom observation period. However, scheduling .

problems made it nceessary to conduct three interviews in two sessions of

30 minutes each.

Similar open-ended questions were asked of all teachers, though the

questions asked of middle and junior high school teachers differed somewhat
from those asked of high school teachers. A list of the interview questions
asked of both groups is included in Appendix R . Questions centered on
definitions of the teacher role; educational objectives; the rewards of
teaching; classroom Aifficulties; perceptions of low-achieving, low SES
students; and relations with students, peers, and administrators. Inter-
views were detailed and conversational. We often asked questions about
specific occurrences we had observed in the teacher's classroom. We
followed leads provided by respondents, probed to clarify the meaning'of
what was being said, tested ideas, and checked to see if views expressed
by a few teachers were shared by their colleagues.

Interviews were generally recorded. In three cases when teachers

asked not to be interviewed or the tape recorder failed, extensive notes
were taken in longhand. Small tape recorders and long-playing tapes were
utilized to minimize the tape recorder's intrusion into the interview
process. Interviews were conducted in the teachers' classrooms or other
school locations that offered privacy. Interviews were transcribed from
tapes or notes into manuscripts of 10 to 40 pages.

We interviewed all the middle and junior high school teachers in

whose classrooms we observed. However, we only interviewed those high
school teachers who volunteered to meet with us during the last weeks of
the school year. Our classroom observations in four high schools led us
to suspect [Link] teachers we interviewed were generally representative
of the school faculty. However, one group appeared to be under-represented.
Three highly anxious, though experienced, teachers who were assigned a
heavy load of basic skills classes declined our interview request.

Interviewers paid close attention to what respondents had to say

and frequently probed for further information or clarity. A conscious
attempt was made to minimize formality and to make the interview process
as friendly and conversational as possible. Interviewers tried nqt to
assume that they understood the taken-for-granted, commonsense understand-
ings of the teachers they interviewed. For example, if a teacher referred
to a class as "illiterate," the interviewer encouraged the teacher to
explain what he or she meant by that term. When a teacher said she
thought that poverty students would "do all right in life," the interview-
er asked for the meaning of that phrase. On at least two occasions
interview probing disturbed the equilibrium of the interview, and the
teachers appeared annoyed and somewhat more guarded with their answers.
On such occasions interviewers changed the topic and took it up again
only after a new rapport had been established.

Teachers were told prior to the interviews that the research team
was interested in finding out what it was like to teach in their school
and in their classrooms. High school teachers were told that the research-
ers were especially interested in knowing what it was like teaching basic
skills to compensatory education students. All teachers were assured that

150

146 7
 their anonymity would be respected. An effort has been made in this
chapter and elsewhere in this report to protect the anonymity of the
teachers who participated in this research.

Interview data were analyzed using methods detailed in James

Spradley's The Ethnographic Interview. Particular attention was paid
to data that bore on the question of the teacher's professional role,
peer relationships, presentations of self, and perceptions of teachers'
. relationships with poverty students.

Section III

The Context of Teaching: Isolation and Doubt

Research literature states and our own research confirms that

teaching is an isolated profession. The physical structure of,the
typical school places teachers within assigned classrooms. There they
are responsible for the orcanization and presentation of specific bodies
of knowledge, for specified groups of students, during specified periods
of the day. Typically, there is little opportunity for peer [Link],
and the school does not need such interaction in order to run smoothly.
Though the faculty shares responsibility for educating the student body,
teachers carry out this responsibility sequentially rather than communally
(Dreeben, 1970; Jackson, 1968; Lortie, 1975; McPherson, 1972; Metz, 1978;
Powell, 1980).

Isolation from peers deprives teachers of the opportunity to see

bthers'at work and to develop a shared technical culture (Dreeben, 1970,
pp. 85, 99; Lortie, 1975, pp. 55-81). The apparent absence of profession-
ally sanctioned goals and scientifically verified techniques leaves every
teacher free to make his or her own classroom decisions7 and ultimately
to calculate his or her own professional competence. Yet teaching provides
a few day to day (or year to year) assurances that a teacher's decisions
have been wise and effective and that students are making progress

7
Dan C. Lortie, School Teacher: A Sociological Study (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1975), p. 81. "People in other fields of work also ftave
occasions to doubt their professional efficacy and the value of the service
they offer. In fields where people perceive their knowledge (and their
ignorance) as jointly shared, the individual burden is reduced. A person
can take comfort from his compliance with normal expectations within the
occupation; he can feel he did everything possible within 'the state of
the art.' (Physicians so argue when they are,charged with malpractice.)
Then the individual can cope with unpleasant outcomes by sharing the weight
of his failure and guilt; his inadequacy is part of the larger malignancy
of the field. Teachers derive little consolation from this source; an
individualistic conception of practice exacerbates the burden of failure."

151

168
 a

academically, socially, or psychologically.8 As a consequence, teachers

are vulnerable to self doubt. The teachers we interviewed expressed their
uncertainties in many ways:

It's not that those students are bad. They are not
discipline problems, but I feel. ..they are not
interested in coming to school, and I am not doing
a good job teaching them. I have not interested
them to the point that they want to learn. I really
feel like the class for them has been a waste.

I gave a test at the end of the school year in which

I reviewed material we had gone over since the fall.
Most of my students didn't,do very well. I felt as
if (I were running) a diploma factory.

For a while I though I'd quit teaching.. [Link] felt

kind of useless because I was going through long
periods of time thinking that I wasn't doing any
good for anybody.

With my brightest kids, the door is open and they

can go to college. But with that middle group I
have to ask, "What the hell am I teaching for?"
They're not smart enough to go to college. And
because of their color and their rural background
they're not going to get good jobs. So what the
hell are they in high school for?

I sometimes [worry] about whether I'm getting the

point across, maybe I should have presented [the
material] another way, are the kids listening, do
they care about this material as much as I do?

I don't know that what I'm teaching will make any

difference. It doesn't do my students a whole lot
of good. It makes me sad to see some of my students
léavevand Pthink, "Oh, boy, what's going to happen
to you?" I. . feel they need the basics. But I
.

wish I had something else to offer them. The problem

is that we're not teaching them anything they can use
later on.

.
8
Mary Metz, Classrooms and Corridors (Berkeley, CA: University of Cali-
fornia Press,1978), pp. 19-20. "Teachers have no way of checking on their
students' memory of material even a year later, much less when they come
to need it in the vicissitudes of adult life. Much learning is intended
not as an end in itself but as a basis for developing broad capacities. It
is expected that one develops a more logical mind from learning algebra or
gains creativity from writing free-form poetry. But how can one assess
such capacities reliably, let alone trace their origin? Ifeducation is
supposed to in part strengthen the character or richness of personality,
the problem of measurement defies description."

152
 A first-year teacher contemplated leaving the profession because,
as she put it,

I don't think I've done a great deal of good. When

they had to take a test [at the end of the year] they
didn't do much better than they did at the beginning.
That was when it really hit me. I tried to give a ,

review assignment that would get them ready for the

semester test. But they acted as if they had never
seen the material before. And I just sat there and
thought, "There has got to be a better way to teach."

We asked an enrichment teacher how he could tell if he had met

his objective at the end of a class. He answered: "I don't know. I
really don't. In fact, I really don't know. I suppose. . .I use my own
subjective judgement." The same teacher reported that he had trouble with
"boys who want to push. . the ones [who want to] see how much they can
get away with." We asked what he could do to help such students, and his
answer revealed the depth of his helplessness. "I don't know. I really
don't," He said, "I don't have one answer for that. I guess we try to
give them things they want to do, hoping that being interested will make
them do better."

Another teacher worried that she had lost the knack of teaching
and that other teachers were losing it as well.

I've been fairly successful up until the past two years.

But these last few years have been frustrating.. It
bothers me that a lot of teachers come in to school and
after [Link] while are just as jaded as the rest of us.
You'd think that their enthusiasm would stick at least
for two or three years. But it doesn't. That's not the
way it was when I started teaching. I had six or seven
years when I was involved in ll kinds of activities. I
had my greatest fun in working with the kids after school.
But now things are just the opposite. I get as far away
from school as I can. It's totally different now. It's
very sad to me. It used to be that there was a lot of
loyalty among kids. It's different now. So Pp doing
some changing of my goals. I'd like to work in some
capacity wfth students but not in the clawoom. I've
been walking into the same classroom, facing the same
kinds of students, and getting the same kinds of results
too long. That's why I need a change.

No teachers we interviewed were convinced that they had failed

as teachers; everyone reported successes in which they took pride and from
which they drew hope. All teachers had a collection of accomplishments
and skills with which they could battle the uncertainties that pervade
their profession.
 I think I'm bright and I think the students pick up
on that. I think I'm pretty good at. . .helping
them get what I want them to get.

I can relate to the kids and most of the time I get

acros- what I want to get across. [Of course] with
my basic skills classes. .even the smallest break-
.

through is terrific.

I'm sort of proud of the record I had this year [in

my compensatory education classes]. These classes
started out with nobody passing the [State Assess-
ment] test last year. [But this ye'ar] 87 percent
of my first period class and 53 percent of my 'second
period class passed the test. So with these resull:ts
I'm satisfied with my procedures and I think the kids
are, too. . .

[It is rewarding] to see a student graduate. .,

.

get married, and get a job. The other day I was

walking down the street and a girl came up to me and
I didn't even recognize her. She has completed four
years of [college]' and was getting a job starting at
$17,500, and it made me feel good.

I know one thing, I'm really not scared. .I think

.

I've accomplished a lot and I think the students

have learned a lot. . .

Maybe someone else could have succeeded [with my worse

class this year], but I feel I haven't. But I think
I did better than a lot of teachers would have done.
I can name three teachers right here at this school
who would have gone home crying at the end of the day.

I care about my students. I don't feel that I'm going

to work when I get up in the morning. That's the
truth. I swear to the Lord above. Now I get
frustrated. I experience burnout from time to time, but
I enjoy teaching.
,
I was raised in a family of teachers. I guess I have
teaching in my blood. And I have had a lot of positive
feedback. . .Reople ha;le told me that I'm a good
teacher. I think I'm better than average teacher. I

really don't doubt my abilities very often. I do get

discouraged on occasion.

The above comments of accomplishments and pride illustrate that most

teachers find satisfaction in their work but that achievements are hard to
come by and difficult to docum'ent. Even in these self-congratulatory
comments we find some hints of uncertainty and evidence of the fragile nature

1 54

71
of satisfaction. In basic skills classes teachers must be satisfied with
"even the smallest breakthrough" or with only 53 percent of a high school
class passing an elemental state assessment test, One teacher asserfed
that she has "accomplished a lot" but did not discuss the nature [Link]
accomplishments. Another teacher took pride in the fact that people had
congratulated him for being a "good teacher" but did not know how these
people arrived ac that conclusion. Other teachers rested their profess-
ional pride on even more subjective criteria. They reported that they were
"not scared," and that they looked forward to work in the morning. These
findings are codipatible with the work of Philip Jackson who has reported
that teachers do "not often turn to objective measures of achievement for
evidence of [their] effectiveness and as a source of professional satis-
faction."

The theme of uncertainty that ran through our teacher interviews

does not suggest that most teachers see themselves as professional failures.
The theme merely points out that a majority of teachers have doubts about
their competence which they can usually hold at bay but can rarely pysh
completely out of their consciousness. To convince themselves and their
several audiences of their competence is a difficult and perpetual task.
Doubt lurks on the peripheries ofQevery teacher's professional life-world.
Questions that can never be conclusively answered keep returning to the
teacher's mind. Why did so many students fail the mid-term exam? Am I
doing enough? What will become of the low-achieving students in my class?
How can I be sure that students are learning and if they are, how can I be
sure that what they are learning will help them later on? Such questions
are worrisome and threaten the rewards the teacher finds in the profession.
As Dan Lortie has put it:

Endemic uncertainties complicate the teaching craft

and hamper the earning of psychic rewards. Intangi-
bility and complexity impose a toll; built-in difficul-
ties include assessing performance, balancing demands
and reTationships, and managing the self under provo-
cation. In each [Link] technical culture [of the
profession] falls short of resolving the issue; it is
most unlikely that so many teachers would experience
difficulty if effective solutions were at hand.
Although an individual teacher may escape some of the
problems we have discussed, it is highly improbable
that anyone can avoid them all. Some kind of uncer-
tainty usually accompanies classroom teaching (1975,
p. 159).

We agree with Lortie that the "outside observer is again and again
impressed by the lack of specific attention to these matters in teacher
training, the literature on teaching, and the talk of school administrators."
(1975, p. 159). As we shall see later in this chapter, the uncertainties
which Lortie claims to be endemic to the teaching profession are closely
related to the issue of efficacy and hamper many teachers' ability to help
low-achieving students.

155

172
 The public nature of the teacher's work and the pervasive nature of
teacher uncertainty 'led our research team to believe that the teachers we
interviewed had founi some means for at least minimally protecting them-
selves from internal and external threats to their professional self-esteem.
We suspected that these protective devices would be found in the profession-
al role expectations teachers held for themselves and their colleagues. We
turn now to the issue of role expectations.

Section IV

Teacher Role Expectations

We'investigated teacher role expectations by asking if there were

any poor teachers in the school and, if there were, how the respondents
knew that these teachers were not doing an adequate job. The answers
teachers gave provide an image of what teachers should not be doing. We
compared this negative image against teachers' descriptions of good teach-
ing. We found that respondents shared remarkably consistent expectations
of what teachers should be and do. The role expectations of teachers fell
into three domains: classroom management, relationships with students and
instruction.9

Classroom Management

Teachers are expected to control students' classroom behavior. Those

who are unable to do so are defined by colleagues as being poor teachers.
Teachers told us:
>

If a classroom is really loud and out of control, I consider

that a sign of bad teaching. I don't mind an active class-
room. But a really out of control classroom means bad tedching.

We had a teacher here once whose students misbehaved terribly.

If my students behaved like that, I wouldn't be able to get
up in the morning. His room had no windows and when he wasn't
looking, the'students would slip over and turn off the lights.
The room would be thrown into total darkness. So the teacher
started bringing a flashlight to school so he could find the
light switch. Before long students found a way to slip the
batteries out of the flashlight and then they turned the
classroom lights off again. The teacher would have to grope
around'in the dark,looking for the light switch. I couldn't
face that, I couldn't go to school every day. I don't know
how he did it.

Now I'm not saying that my classes are perfect. But you can
tell when somebody's classes are out of control. That's a big

9 For reasons of conceptual clarity these domains will be discussed

separately. However, it must be kept in mind that the domains are
intricately interrelated.

156

.173
 4.]

part of being a good teacher. If you can't have the kids'

attention, you can't do anything.

How do I know I'm a good teacher? I don't know, I just feel

I'm a good teacher. I don't have many discipline problems
at all, and I think that's the basis for good tent-ling. If ,

you can't discipline, mydear, you can just hang it up.

Poor discipline is a sign of poor teaching.

It's not a sign of good discipline when a student walks out

of a class or confronts a teacher. Those are signs of poor
teaching.

The same point is made by a school administrator. When we asked

him to name the least effective teachers in his school, he responded:

Ah-h-h4 gee, that's a hard one to answer. I bet no one likes

that question.. I don't know if Jane Doe is really effective.
. . would add that any faculty members that are having
classroom management problems, you know, problems controlling
the class, they are not asl,effective as,they should be.

Any teacher who fails to maintain order in the classroom will be

judged negatively by his or her fellow teachers and school administrators.
While class control is a ubiquitous requirement, no prescriptions were
offered by teachers on how control is to be maintained. However, teachers
did say it was important that discipline be maintained without incurring
the wrath or ill will of students. As one teacher put ibt:

Students think I'm a mean tyrant but I think they generally

like me. It seems to me that there is somethihg wrong if
day after dAy students talk about a teacher in highly
negative terms. You can be mean and strict without being
hated [Link].

The emphasis of most teachers is on results, not methods. Teachers

can be "mean" as long as students don't come to hate them in the process.
Widespread student disapproval, however, is a sign of poor teaching.

Relationships With Students

Teachers are expected to display a genuine concern for their students.

During one interview a teacher complimented a colleague by saying, "She
keeps her classes in order. .and I think she plans well and is concerned
.

with students." A middle school teacher stated:

There are teachers who are out for the self, who take the
easiest way to get things done. But a good teacher works
a lot for the kids. .That's their main objective.
. [Good
teachers are] always caring for students. They put students
first. Even though a lot of conditions are bad at this school
and there are a lot of things we don't like, good teachers
block those things out when it comes to making decisions about
students.

157

1 74
 It was a universal postulate among the people we interviewed that
good teachers like children and desire to help them. As one teacher
put it, "I reallyenjoy kids. I think you have to, to be a good teacher."
Another teacher said, "I feel teaching is an innate thing. You have it
or you don't. If you care about people. ..you need to help them as much
as you can." A third teacher commented, "I know I get too involved [with
students]. But I just feel being involved is the most important thing.
That's what makes a good teacher."

While concern for students is a widely accepted prerequisite for

good teaching, teachers disagree on how that concern is best demonstrated.
One [Link] complained that a colleague did not maintain
formal enough relationships with her students.

I could hardly be in her presence. She is silly and gushes

and makes° what I think are crass, stupid jokes. I don't
think that is becoming to a professional person. She brings
herself down [to the students' level] and is more like a
peer with students than a professional. I think she's trying
to ingratiate herself. [She wants to] be one of the kids,
one of the gang.

Other teachers are not so sure formality is needed in the class-

room. They believe thatteachers can show concern for students by
establishing a less formal relationship with the class.

There are teachers who turn me off by their completely,

business-like approach. . .I keep my mouth shut because
I figure that's their method of teaching and who am I
to judge them? I privately think they are poor teachers.
I don't like those tRachers who constantly sit behind
the'de'sk.. .I like to get involved with the kids. I

think a teacher who does,n't get involved isn't teaching.

Another teacher said:

I. .find it hard to approve of the very, very strict

.

frowning type. We'have a couple of those. Nothing is

ever funny [for them] and there is no relaxation at all.
I think we should all -ealize that students have,six
teachers to please. . :and that isn't easy/for them.

While teachers 'disagree on just how intimate their relationships

should be with students, there is a general consensus that extremes in
either direction are undesirable. Teachers should not be aloof or
unconcerned about the problems their students face. Neither should
teachers become so intimately invOlved with their students that they
become indistinguishable from the classes they, teach.

We asked teachers what reputation they thoughtthey had among

students and colleagues. The answers teachers gave showed that they worked
to maintain a balance between their obligation to teach and discipline

158
 students and their obligation to like and care for the young people
they teach.

Question: How do you think your students would describe you

if they were being honest?

Answer: Oh, gosh, they probably would say, "She's O.K."

or "She's nice but she grades hard. When she
decides to get tough, boy. . ."

Question: And what about other teachers? How would thet

describe you?

Answer: I think they would say I'm very professional.

Another teacher indicated that his students think he is "very

stern and strict and hard. I make them work. I'm guessing that those
are the bad things they would say. As for the good things, I think they
think I'm crazy and kind of weird. Some of the students like that."
Whbn we asked a middle school teacher how her students would describe her,
she responded, "They would call me a bitch, no doubt about it." However,
later in the interview she said, "I got extremely close to a lot of my
eighth-grade students this year. They come and tell me their problems.
I never had that kind of thing happen before. I had kept my distance from
students. I won't give the kids my home phone number. I won't go that far.
But I'm closer than I used to be with students."

Another teacher told us:

My [Link] say I'm nice, r think they would say

that I care about them and that I put up with a lot from
them. I don't think they would say that I was mean or
anything like that. As for being effective, I think they
would feel I always tried to teach them something and that
I cared about them enough to do that. Fellow teachers
would say that I'm an overachiever, a person who vorks
very hard.

One respondent said that he was confident o# his abtlities as a

teacher because, lq feel comfortable in the classroom,and I'm vthlf
structured. . .Ma6, of my students respond, and I have a good relation-
ship with [most ofIthem]. The kids like me, and I like them'. We're
2. riot pals, but we have mutual respect."
--

While teachers want to have caring relationships with thetr students,

some worry that they will lose control of their classes if,these relation-
ships become too close. They believe that they must be harsh and perhaps
a bit remote fro0 students in order to maintain discipline and keep
students on tasA: One high school teacher explained: ,

I'm the type of person who likes to make everybody happy.

I don't like to be mean. That's just someping you learn

159

176
 over the years. You have to be mean, and students
will finally come around. My intern is having a
hard time with that now. He wants to be &nice guy.
He says, "I can't be mean." I told him, "Well,
forget that!" We've had a lot of conversations/about
it. He's just a nice person,and he has never been
mean to anybody, ever. I advised him, "Be mean (the,
, teacher laughs). And he says, "O.K., Um goi g home
and take some mean pills tonight.!' 'But he h s changed
his perceptionsL-luckfly it has been'during is intern-
/i
ship rather than during his first year of teaching. I

thiiik I've helped him see that'you can't work for

people to like you directly. [If you are firm] you
get the same result,and it's a lot easier and quicker.
. ,...
'Jr

Instruction

It is universally expected that teachers should know their subject

matter and be able to get academic material across to students. A high
school math teacher explained what it takes to be [Link] teacher in his
field.

First of all, you h ve to be very.,sure of your math

knowledge. ,I've rked with some [out of field]
teachers,who have ad to ask me how to Od fractions.
They are assigned to teach math classe$, but they
don't have the k owledge to do it. You've got ta be
perfectly sure o your math aid then you've got to
know what to ex ect of students. Yoti!ve got to know
all the skills' nd how much students need to know.
I don't think meone who is not in the field can do
that though ere are some whO.. .really have done
wonders.

The argumen being made in the above quote is that teachers must know
their subject matter so well that they need not think about it while teach-
ing. They can turn their full attention to the perceptions of their pupils.
Though teachers expect their colleegues to be knowledgeable, few teachers
have the opportunity to assess the subject matter mastery of their peers.
They seldom see,their colleagues teach and coffee room discussions seldom
turn to academic matters. ;Therefore, the assessment of A colleague's teach-
ing skills must be based on indirect and imperfect evidence. For example,
one math teacher complained:

There have been instances when students said that

, they learned to solve a problem in a certain way,
and that way was totally wrong. So I dy't think
their last teacher was competent.
41,

Without direct knowledge of what colleagues know or how they teach

their tlasses, the role expectations for instruction must emphasize other,
more publicly observable behaviors. For example, teachers are expected to
 ,

be organized and to show that they have planned ahead for their classes.
A teacher explains:

We have some very 'good teachers. They are organized,

like the gal who was just in here. She is well
organized and is typing [material for her classes]
now so she 'will be ready for next week. She knows ,

what she's doing, so she will succeed with her classes.

I think Success has to dd with organization. . .and,
planning ahead.

Another teacher said that he knew he was good at this job because,
"I've always been able to organize myself/and others pretty well. I love
doing it." A middle school teacher commented, "Aside from getting along
with students, I have the ability to plan, which I thoroughly enjoy."

Teachers are expected to get students to do their work and, if

they are really'skilled, to help students enjoy the work they do. Many
teachers would agree with the comments of an English teacher who said:

I feel that if you can get students to do work

outside the classroom, then you'Ve got to be a.
good teacher. Most of the time students do
their work in tlass. But if I hear-students
talking about a project or doing something and
handing it in, then I'm sure they have a good
teacher who is taking his or her job seriously.
a

Getting students to be interested in their work is a difficult task.

To accomplish it teachers say they must plan ahead, be organized, be
interesting, siliiplify material, show their concern for students, and do
other things as well:

You need a system of organization and the ability

to simplify material you already think is simple.
You also need to find creative Ways to draw the
students' attention.

I think I cam get my point across. I can ;elate

to kids and I can handle them. I usually interest
them, though there are time when I can't.

What are my strong points as a teacher? For one

thing, I think I know my subject matter well, and
I try to keep devising ways to get it across, and
I try to be understanding,perhaps I'm not as firm
as some. ..other people are, but I try to make my
subject interesting.

I know I'm a good teacher because I know my material.

I know how to teach reading. I know the skills
involved in teaching. I also know how to explain -Oh
majority of the,skills to students in a way they can

161

178
 understand. I can get down on their level and
explain it in a way that makes sense to them.

Part of beingia good teacher is getting kids to

-care. Some teachers can help kids [do that]. ..So
many of our kids don't care [about school] and
you have to get. . .across to them. You have to
get them-to care about something.

We had a teacher here who assigned her llth and

12th grade claSses a novel'to read. It took the
whole semester. Now I didn't read that book
until I wAs. 25 years old, but if I had read it
in high school, I sure wouldn't have found it

Students would iit-fri-thj-e,and reid that book

for the whole class. When they were done they
would write in their jodrnals what they haa read
that day. It was just busy work to keep student:sr'
out of the teacher's hair. __---
____----
I think-smile-teachers are missing the boat

.altogether. I ,don't think they believe they're

doing a bad job. I think they honestly believe
they're doing what other teachers do.. But they
need to be told that other teachers come into
the classroom to teach. I'm not saying you
can't have fun with yodr kids. I love the kids,
and I love to have fun with them once in a while,
but I'm [Link] to teach. I'm not being paid
to be their psychologist. I'm not being paid to
be their mother. I'm not being paid to be their
friend,by any means. I am their friend because
that's the. way I am, and I do mother them because
that's my nature. But first and always I'm the
teacher and that's what I'm being [Link] do.

To sum up, teachers exPect colleagues to know their subject matter,

to plan ahead and present their material in an organized fashion, to
simplify material so that students can understand it, and to make the
subject matter interesting so students will want to learn it. They are
supposed to assign work and to see that students do it, but assignments
are supposed to be worth doing and should not be busy work designed merely
to keep students quiet. Teachers should have positive relationships with
their students but the desire to be popular or friendly should not surpass
the higher priorites of classroom management and instruction.

Faction V
-

The Role Expectations-CheckItst

It has been asserted throughout these pages that teaching is an

uncertain profession. Evidence of this uncertainty was found in the comments

102 '

179
of the teachers we interviewed (see pages 151-156) and within the research
literature (Dreeben, 1970; qackson, 1968; Lortie, 1975; McPherson, 1972;
Metz, 1978; and Powell, 1989). Teachers enjoy no technical culture, and
the profession provides few,reliable and communally respected measures of
teacher competence. As a result no teacher can know with assurance that
he or she is doing a good job. Because teaching is done outside the view
of colleagues, teachers aredeprived of a consensus confirmation of their
professional abilities. Thus, uncertainty is an occupational hazard of
the profession with which-every teacher must learn to live. The informal
role expectations of colleagues provide a checklist of competency criteria
that teachers can use to gauge their abilities and quiet their uncertainties
These criteria are broad enough to provide most teachers with a sense of
professional competence. According to the checklist criteria, good
teachers are those who:
^ .[Link].*
1. Maintain order the classroom.'
2. Have few confrontations with students.
3. ,Do not incur the'hostility or ill will of students.
4. Maintain relationships with pupils that are neither
aloof nor "unprofessionally" intimate.
5. Care about students, enjoy teaching them, and are
concerned about their welfare.
6. Assign tasks that students can do and will do.
7. Know their subject matter.
8. Plan ahead, are well organized, and hard working.
9. Present lessons in a clear and interesting fashion.

The uncertainties of teaching are partially assuaged by the

establishment of role expectations which serve a normative function in the
school. These norms are generic and call for a general outcome in the
teaching enterprise rather than specific teaching behaviors. They promote
no particular philosophy of education, value structure, or educational goal,
save perhaps the avoidance of conflict within the social system of the school.

The role expectations checklist does not bind teachers into a

professional unit organized around essentially similar values and a common
body of technical knowledge. It functions only to somewhat lessen teachers'
competency uncertainties. Teachers can check their performance against the
role expectations checklist and receive assurance that despite their myriad
doubts they are nevertheless doing what is expected of them. The checklist
also serves to diminish conflicts among school,teachers, to promote an
attitude of conformity, and, as we shall see, to discourage educational
change.

Section VI

Peer Pressure: Tales Told Around the School

Teachers know that the role expectations checklist is not solely

self-administered. Other teachers'are making judgments about the compe-
tence of their colleagues, and these judgments are also based on checklist
criteria. We asked teachers the following questions and received answers
such as these:

163

180
Teacher A

Question: Do teachers make judgments about the ampetence

of thetr fellow teachers?

Answer: Unfortunately, yes. They talk.

Question: What kind of evidence do they use to make

these judgments?

Answer: Generally what students say. Not just one

student but what a ltt of students say. If
something is said over and over again, we pay
attention-,to-itv---We-pay-attentiortrtol-the -- -
discipline methods used. If we walk by a
classroom and see students swinging from the
ceiling, we know something is wrong. [We
pay attention to] the materials. .teachers
.

use [and] the tests and work sheets they hand

out.

There are teachers I don't think are doing a

very good job, and other teachers feel the
saMe way. Now [we] haven't sat in their
classrooms but we know what's going on. We
know from what kids say how much time [students]
spend doing nothing.

Teacher B

Question: Do you know of teachers who are not very good

in the classroom?

Answer: (The teacher is talking softly) Yes.

Question: How can you tell they're not very good?

Answer: (Again, softly and after a long pause) Well, I

guess from students, though they don't always
know that they've got a bad teacher. But you
hear students describing what they did in class
[Link] hear other teachers_and_you_can-tefl -that-
thera are-problems%-t-J-Oess I can tell when a
teacher generates enthusiasm because you can see
it in their students.

Teacher C

Question: How do you know [Link] and bad teachers?

Answer: I think it's reputation more than anything. We

hear from the kids. Kids say, "This teacher
isn't pushing me." Or they say, "We're getting

164

181
 away with murder in this teacher's class.
The teacher doesn't care what I do." I
guess it is mostly reputation; which'in a
sense isn't fair. But it is possibly a
very accurate picture of what goesson in
a classroom.

Teacher

Question: How do you know who the good and bad teachers
are in your school?

.01.0. Answer: I know the most about the [Link] work

around me. I can tell a lot just from walking
by when the doors are open. I can tell what's
going on in the room across the way anti next
door, so I know what kind of teachers they are.

Teacher E

Question: Do teachers have opinions about the ability of

their fellow teachers? And, if so, how do they
come to those conclusions?

Answer: I think we all have opinions based on informal

observations. We pass by someone's room and
observe what's going on. Sometimes they'll
tell you about their evaluations of a student
and you can compare that evaluation against
your, own evaluation of the student in your
class. And there's a lot of gossip, too. Kids
will tell you about other teachers, and they'll
tell you about the attitude the teacher expresses.
They may say that so-an-so makes them' work hard,
but they like her and the class is fun.

Teacher F
_

Questioru You -told-me that teachers have opinions about one

another's coMpetence. Yet teachers here appear to
have very little contact. Where do teachers get
the information for their opinions?

Answer: WelT, I would say some of it is teacher lounge

gossip, but there is some truth in it. They know
the teachers who order the stacks of three or four
films at a time,and they don't consider Ishowing
films routinely)to be good teaching. And teachers
judge the personal behavior quirks of other teachers,
They'll make judgments if a teacher is always
complaining,or they'll evaluate the way a teacher
is dressed.

165

182
 Information starts getting around. You walk
by somebody's room and you see the movie
projector going. We learn that a teacher
is dragging students through a long and
irrelevant novel,and we start thinking that's
not good teaching. So it's not a matter of
attacking the teaching methods teachers use
but rather a matter of questioning their
judgment. We had a teacher here who sold soap
and cosmetics during class time. She'd leave
classes of young students and call in juniors &

- and seniors who were wanderingthe halls. we°

She'd give them a sales pitch. You have-I-Eat
kind of person,and you have the teacher who
overreacts to some little thing.

One teacher spilled a bottJe of ink and went

crazy. And you form an opinion from that kind
of behavior, though it's not. . .necessarily
twhing-related. You begin to think, if
a person is a screwball outside the classroom,
it's got to have a carry-over effect inside
the classroom. Whether it does or not I
really can't say. But we lump those things
together to form an opinion about a person's
teaching based on their personality.

Teacher G

Question: How do you know who's good and who's noi?

Answer: From the comments of students. Students may

tell me, "Oh, he never shows for class
until_ .20_minutesafter-the period begins."
-Or they may say, "He'll just talk for five
or ten minutes and then give the students
an assignment and go to work at his desk
ana never circulate around the room. He
allows the students to disturb the class
continually and never does anything about it."
Or they may say, "She allows stadents to cheat
extensively on tests." Students may pass their
papers around and the teacher doesn't even
notice that it's going on. There's a
fantastic amount of cheating [in some classes].
These kinds of thingsthat you hear from
students [tell you who is good and who is not].
And I know that they're not telling me something
that is not true because I don't even bring it
up.

166
 Once in a while I get a student
who took
Algebra I and then comes to
I had one student me forAlgebra II.
who came in at the beginning
of the year. I gave him a"few
simple questions
out of Algebra I, and he didn't
I said, "What are you doing in know any of it.
Algebra II? You
don't know anything
about,Algebra I. What kind
of grade did you get in Algebra
I?" He said
he got a 8+. I said, "B+?
Who did you have?"
And he told me. I said, "Wow!
I can't believe it. How could That's fantastic.
you get a B+ when
you don't know anything
about Algebra I? You
___------------can'tszilVeeirerrthe simplest equation." 'I
gave him 2X + 8 = 16 and he didn't
even know
how to solve that.
Anyway, that teacher is no
longer here, but that's the may -I find
So I'm sure that happenswith out.
me. Students
might not have Med what I did [in
class],
and they might say scmething to other
or the administrattion. teachers

Teacher H

Question: If a teacileris having

trouble, how can they get
help? Would anybody tell
them what's wrong?
Answer: I really believe
someone should tell them. I
believe that the principal,
_ assistant_principal..,_
____Gr_thedepartmentchalTWOAWci-Od tell them.
Question: What kind of help might the
chairperson of this
department be able to give a teacher
who is having
trouble?

Answer: I'm not sure. but they might

say, "Let me explain
to you how handle this problem." But that kind
of help isn't around.
When teachers are having
trouble the rest of us generally
ignore it.
Question: Are you saying that there
is no legitimate way
that a teacher can offer help to
someone who
is having trouble in the classroom?

Answer: It would be great if we could

help. Really. If
I was blowing it I wouTd really
want to know. I
would want to know it in a nice
to get help. way,and I'd want
I mean I want to improve and
other people. But it's almost so do
impossible.
Question: So you can't talk about
another teacher's teaching?
Answer: We do among ourselves, at least I've
heard it.

167

4
184
 Question: But doesn't that occur when Teacher A talks
to Teacher B aboUt the problems Teacher C
is having? They don't tall: to C directly,
do'they?

Answer: No, we don't talk to C. No, no, no. I might

help in a roundabout way. If I find an article
that I think is interesting, I'll xerox it and
share it with the whole department.

Question: So you tell something through the whole

department that you really intend for an
audience of one. And in doing that you avoid
a direct confrontation with a particular teacher.
Is tljat what you're saying?

Answer: Yes, yes. You can't come in as a relative

newcOmer and tell teachers who haVe been
teaching in the area for ten years What they
should be doing. I mean you can't. \you
cannot do it as a coworker.

The teac'.'ers we interviewed thought they had sufficient information

to judge the competence of their peers. They were aware, sometimes keenly
aware, that their'colleagues were judging them. This awareness introduced
a new level of uncertainty into the lives of the teachers in this study.
A few teachers in every school were judged by their peers to be incompetent.
This judgment was public' in the sense that it was discussed openly among,
faculty members. But it was private in the sense that negative judgments\
were seldom, if ever, shared with the teachers being judged. Poor teachers\
did not know their colleagues' evaluation of their work and as a result,
no teacher could be sure that their peers respected their performance.
We asked teachers, "Do poor teachers know they're doing a poor job?" Here
are some typical responses:

Teacher 1

,I'm glad you brought that up. I really don't think so.
We've got one teacher in our depaftment--no names, of
course--who is not a good teacher by my standards, or by
the standards of other department members, or by the
administrators' standards. But she really doesn't know
it. I think she sincerely doeS not know that she is not
a good teacher.

Teacher 2

Question: Do poor teachers know they are doing a poor job?

Answer: Let's hope so. Everybody else knows they're poor.

Question: Do you have any reason to think they know?

Answer: No.

168.;
 Question: Do you or your fellow teachers ever give
them any indication that they are doing
a poor job?

Answer: No. Well, administrators might tell them.

Question: Are the administrators here likely tO give

riegative messages to teachers?

Answer: No. But the faculty knows who the poor teachers
are. It's so blatant, so open, so obvious that
we can't help but see it.

Question: Do teachers try and help fellow teachers who

are having trouble?

nswer: No. If they ask me, I will help them. But I

don't want to say anything on:my own. I

wouldn't criticize or judge them etther. It's

not my place. All I know is that they are
poor teachers.

Teacher 3

Question: Do you think it's important to a teacher that

he or she be well thought of by other teachers?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Do teachers have to be careful about what they

say and do in order to protect their reputation?

Answer: Yes. But I don't think that the bad ones know
they're being judged negatively. We don't make
our crittcisms public. We don't go out and tell
other people what we think of them. Everybody
else knows it, but the person doesn't know it.
He'll go on doing what he's doing because he's
so stupid.

Question: So bad teachers don't get told that they have

problems?

Answer: Not unless there's a confrontation of some sort.

Certainly not in a Constructive or positive way.

Teacher 4

Question: Do poor teachers know they're poor teachers?

AnsWer: I ddn't think so. f,don't know, maybe I'm a

bad teacher and don't know it. (The teacher
laughs)

169

186
 Question: Who tells a bad teacher he's doing a bad job?

Answer: The dePartment chairman may. I certainly wouldn't.

Question: And you wouldn't because. . . ?

Answer: Because it's not my place. It 's not my place

to make a judgment.

The role expectation checklist relieVed teachers of self doubt, at

least to the degree that all teachers Ve tnterviewed'stated wtth apparent
assurance that they were "good tlachers." They were able to make such
statements because they believed they met the checklist criteria of compe-
tence. However, the teachers were aware that their peers were also evalu-
ating their performance. This introduc d a new level of uncertainty into
their professional lives because the teachers could never know for sure ,

that they were being given good marks by their colleagues. Like Puritans
who could never know for certain if God had predestined them to go to
Heaven, the teachers we studied could never be sure of the judgments of
their peers. Teachers dealt with this uncertainty in different ways.
Most, as we shall see, monitored their behavior carefully and tried not
to do anything that would offend their peers or invite a negative evalu-
ation of their work. Peer judgment promoted conformity. A few were
offended by the pressure to conform and tried, as best they could, to
ignore it. For example, one teacher felt strongly that the judgment
process destroyed a faculty's sense of community. His opinions are worth
quotinc in full.

Question: Do your peers [Link]'re a good teacher?

Answer: I don't know, I don't ask them.

Question: Do you know if they are good teachers?

Answer: No.

Question: Do you make judgments about their competence?

Answer: (emphatically) No,

Question: Really?

Answer: ''That's the truth, I don't do things like that.

Question: You don't make any professional judgments about

what other teachers are doing?

Answer: No, that's not my job here.

Question: Do you think other teachers make judgments about

you?

Answer: Ah, I don't know. (the teacher laughs) I guess

it depends on the individual.

170
 4..0

Question: Do you care?

Answer: No.

Question: The opinions of your peers are not important to

you?

Answer: No. I do what I feel is the best job I can

possibly do and that's it.

Ques-t-ion:71Dopoorteachers7:know-ttierT.67gW7t-dadh-enT--''

Answer: (the teacher groans and pauses) I don't know.

I honestly don't know. If they are doing the best
job they can do, I guess that's all you can ask out
of them. So I don't know.

Question: Do teachers get support from, [Link]? Do

they get confirMation from them that they're
going a good job? .

Answer: I wouldn't want that kind of support.

Question: Why not?

Answer: Well, that's saying I'm better than somebody olse.

I just don't believe in that kind of thing;'as a
person I don't believe in it. It just doesn't sit
well with me. We can't go around saying here are
the good ones over here,and here are the mediocre
ones over here,and here are the poor ones over
here. If that was incorporated [Link] school
systlm,there would [Link] fighting among the
teacheft themselves.

Now I think we have a good faqulty here at this

school. Everyone gets along pretty well. You
always say "hi" to a teacher you see in the morning.
Every time you cross someone's pkth they say "hi."
But if we begin to stratify people into good and
bad teachers, that wouldn't produce a good learning
situation for students.

Question: So you're saying you don't want teachers making

judgments about other teachers?

Answer: That's right. I don't want them to make a judgment.

And the only way I can make sure they don't make a
judgment is if I don't make a judgment.

Desgite the example this teacher tried to set for others, it did not
appear that he was able to dissuade his colleagues from judging one another's

171
MS
competence. In the final analysis, Ahis'teacher's only option was to boycott
judgmental activities and to ignore, as best he could:the fact that judgments
were being made about him.10 When we asked if he thought this example would
influence the behavior of others, he responded, "Well, I'm not sure. They may
make judgments atyway. But [at least] I can live with myself. What's
important to me is the attitude of my students, and again, the opinion I have
of myself."

Stion VII

VulffenbiTityl-arid Impressi&I 1aRiiiiT17:---raikirig a 66.6d-gii)e

The Need to Make a Good Impression

As the above responses indicate, teachers make judgments about one e/

another's competence and those judgments,are based largely on second-hand
information from students and quick-glimpse observations of colleagues'
classrOoms. Of course, some checklist criteria ure more visible to colleagues
than other criteria. The faculty is likely, to know when a teacher is having
classroom management problems, confrontations with youngsters, or is general-
ly disliked by students (see criteria 1 throug4 4 on the Role Expectations
Checklist). Colleagues are less likely to discover that a teacher's
commitment to students is low or diminishing, that the number or quality
of assignments is declining, that planning is being done superficially or
lessons taught poorly. These latter problems, while discoverable, are more
easily hidden. And, indeed, teachers have a stake in hiding such problems
if they value their professional reputation in the school.

Teachers are perpetually vulnerable to the negative evaluations of

their colleagues. Every teacher must come to terms with that fact of
professional life. Different teachers temper their vulnerability in differ-
ent ways. We do not believe that teachers,am- unique in their desire to
make a positive impression on their colleagues (Goffman, 1959). However,
we do believe that the conditions of teaching in most schools 04(de
educators with so little evidence of their professional achievemen that
they are uniquely vulnerable to self-doubt. We agree with Lortie that
"teaching demands. ..the capacity to work for protracted periods without
sure knowledge that one is having any positive effect on stubents. Some
[teacheN] find it difficult to maintain their self-esteem." (Lortie,
1975, p 144). The uncertainties of which Lortie speaks are heightened

10
We should note that we took great care when asking questions about poor
teaching to inform respondents that we were not interested in identifying
poor teachers by name. Occasionally teachers mentioned the names of
colleagues they thought were particularly oleaed. It became clear in the
course of interviews that this teacher was well thought of by his peers. We
mention this lest a,reader be tempted to 'think that this teacher's objection
to peer evaluation was explained by his having a poor reputation in the school.
This was clearly hot the case.

172
.189
because these teachers are [Link] their colleagues yet are contin6-
ally being judged by those around them.

Teachers who employ impression management techniques are understandably

reluctdnt to talk about the methods they use to impress their colleagues.
Admitting that one is working to impress others is to tarnish the very image
of self-assurance that the teacher is trying to project. However, a few
teachers werewillitig to talk about the pressures they were under and how ri
tiley dealt with those pressures. Other teachers,,, though reluctant to discuss
their own7efforts at impression management, were willing to talk about the
issue abstractly or to talk about the practices of unnamed colleagues. One
particularly open teachee told us that she was careril about what she did in
class because she feared what students would tell other [Link] her
performance. She said that she had to be "mere cautious" in the classroom
because 'other teachers "can tell and awful lot about what's going on"
by ligtening 6 stufients.

I don't want anybody -(saying) something bad about

what happened in mly class. I think 'that tEat one
thing [Link] on' my toes more than anything else:
more,than the principal walking in-or sticking his'
head inside the'door; more than the assistant prin-
cipal or -anybody elsecdMing_i.n_l_think tha,[Link]
meon my toes. . .because I hear eslot pf wild stories.
You really hear some strange things. Ybu hear an
awful lot about what's4oing on in (othet) classrooms. -

I don't think I'm in a position to make a judgment

about what somebody else is doing. , .but I think
you get an idea about how effective somebody iS
(by listening to what their students say).

Teachers employ impress4on'Management techniques in an effort to

influence the ideas that others have about them. TeacEers seldom;see one
Another's classroom performance. Therefore, impression management 'entails
acting as if one is a competent classroom teacher when in the presence of
colleagues. Teachers advertise their accomplishments, temper theit failures,
and conceal their self-doubts. They try to present an image that says, "I
[Link] I'm doing, andI-Lin conffdent that I'm doing it well." They
conspicuously conform to the role expectationsof theit colleagues and,
conceal minor acts of deyiance. As one teacher put"it, teachers learn to
"talk a good game." The same teaclier went on to make what we think is a
sionificant point. Impression management is not necessarily an act of
cynical showmanship designed to,fool others into believing what the actor
knows is not true. Teachers tend to be their own most attentive'audience.
The "talk a good game" because they generally believe what they are saying tkr

and they want others to believe it too. Thus, teachers do not necessarily
fabricate stories that are untrue, they simply make an effort to display
their accomplishments and to cast themselves in a favorable light. One
teacher, more sympathetic than cynical, discussed the games teachers play
to bolster their self-esteem.

-173
190
 Question: What about the teachers who don't realize
they're poor teachers? Can you tell Me
about them?

Answer: Well, that's pretty sad. I don't know

whether they really think they're good
teachers or not. They talk a good game
but that doesn't mean that they are really
(unaware) of their limitations.

Question: Do a lot of teachers talk a good game?

That is, do teachers generally pretend to
be more expert than they are?

Answer: Well, I guess it has to do with their self-

esteem. You know, when other people think
badly of you, it's hardto keep your self-
image. People are conOerned about what
other people think.

Question: What are you saying, that teachers heed

to alk a good game so that other teachers
will think well of them?

Answer: Yes, I think so.. It's a matter of pride,

I suppose.

Question: Do all teachers do that? Do they generally

exaggerate their accomplishments?

Answer: Pretty much so, I guess!. (They do that)

,
during informal discussions in the teachers'
. louhge.

The role expectations checklist provides the topics dealt with in most
impression management discussions. TeaOhers find ways to demonstrate that
they are working hard, that they are organized, that they are planning ahead,
that they care about students, and that they are getting their pupils to
work. According to one interviewee, "teachers let it be knownthat they
require a certain amount of Work from their students. And they let it be
known that they are tough graders and all of that."

Teachers are continually on display,and their competence is being judged

at evsry moment by students, colleagues, and administrators. Successful
impression management is possible only when teachers are in control of the
events that affect the image they project to others. A teacher's image is
probably most vulnerable when a colleague or administratcw comes into the
classroom to observe. Uhder such conditions, the teacher can not be sure
that students will behave. Poor student behavior is a sign that the teacher
has poor classroom control and that, in turn, is a sign of incompetence.
Therefore, it is not surprising that many teachers are particularly uncomfort-
able when someone is observing in their classroom. Student misbehavior
threatens their image of competence. Such situations can be nerve-wracking.

174
One teacher told us, "I don't care what anybody else thinks of my
teaching." However, she went on,to say:

I don't like anybody in my classroom. It took me

awhile to get used to your people [the research
team]. But I decided to ignore it. I don't like
anybody, even other kids, cothing into the classroom.
It's'like we are a family,and when somebody comes in
I get a little nervous. But I would never change
anything I do. . .the principal observed me this
year; and I didn't know he was coming. When he
walked in I thought, "Oh, God." We were talking
about Greek art, and I' worried about what the
students would say. Fortunately, they left their
best comments until after the principal had gone.

Another teacher commented on how nervous a colleague became when

she visited that teacher's classroom.

It's a funny situation. . .when I go into one

teacher's room he getsreal nervous and starts yelling
at the kids, telling them to sit down and be quiet
the whole time I'm in there. 1 may have just dropped
in to ask him one short question. But he's so
worried and wants students toll* so perfect that I
have tO wait until he welt to get complete control
of the classroom.

In this instance the teacher being visited worke0 feverishly to

maintain classroom control, and in sb doing, to present an image of
competence. However, the teacher's demeanor contradicted'the image he.,
wished to project. A "good-"1 teacher would act as if he took the good
behavior of his students for granted. Ln the unlikely event that the
students would act up, he would display his competence by handling the
disruption effortlessly.

Limited Impression Mana ment

The uncertainties of the profession encourige teachers to employ

rimpression management techniques while in the presence of their colleagues.
However, there are social sanctions against talking too boldly about one's
real or imagined accomplishments, A high school teacher spelled out the
rules surrounding self-praise:
7.

Now we have some teachers who are very boaStful'about

their accomplishments and what they can do.' Ot6er
teachers don't like that. pon'tbrag, because we're-
all competitors and we all think we're very intelligent.
We're the most intelligent people in the world, did you'.
know that? We are, we know it all. But I don't'feel
I do, I really don't. But every faculty I've ever been 1
a part of, and this is my fourth, is made-up of- teachers r

175

t
 who think they know it all.

Question: So teachers are not supposed to brag,

and they shouldn't tell too Much about
what they're doing because that might
seem like bragging?

Answer: That's right.

Question: Does that have something ta do with,

m4intaining smooth relationships among
fatulty-members?

Answer: Yes, that's it. That's it. 1 don't

feel it's my place to tell an incompetent
English teacher how to improve her teach-
ing. Now I'm.a tactful person,and I think
I could do that in a tactful way. .But I '
don't have the courage,and I don't really
feel it's my place to criticize other
people's teaching.

Impression management is made more difficult when limits are

placed on the amount of advertising teachers can do for themselves. As
Gertrude McPherson concluded after studying the faculty at a small town
school:

To complain too much or to boast too much were both

taboo at (Adams) school. Once someone boasted too
.
loudly or complained too bitterly, others began to
look. To boast was to blow your own horn at the
expense of other teachers. To complain was to expose
vulnerabilities and insecurity. It encouraged competi-
tion [Link] jockeying, creating doubts in the
minds of the other [Link] theimown standards
and their ritual acceptance of the inevitability of
what was. (McPherson, 1972, pp. 201-202)

Conformity and Faculty Harmony

Prestige jockeying,was discouraged by imposing sanctions against

artless boasting, instructional innovation, or working with other teachers
to promote change. Teachers are able to keep their uncertainties in
check
if conformity is enforced and collaboration minimized through _peer .pressum
An experienced teacher spelled out some of the social norms [Link]
at her school:

We all get 1Nong, but we're very independent. This

is a very independent facultY. Most faCulties I've
been a member of have been very independent. You may
sometimes have little cliques here and there, but
that's the exception. We come in, we do our jobs,

176
193
 and that's it. We don't have tiMe to do anything else.
Those who have time, they're your incompetent ones.
Those who have time to be out of their classrooms doing
anything but what they're paid to'do are the poor teachers.

Question: So working together is almost a sign of

incompetence?

Answer: 4Well, maybe I've overstated it. But we'do

sometimes wonder, 9.1-leh, how do you find time
to do what you're doing? When are you doing
your job?" .We wonder that because we don't
have the time.

The social system that causes teachers to be uncertain about their

competence and professional worth also discourages teachers from working
together to solve their common problems. The social_norms at some schools
and the time demands placed on teachers promote conformity and mitigate
against faculty cooperation. We asked one teacher why her colleagues didn't
help one another and why they didn't work together to promote change. She
answered angrily:
-

Well, there is the time element. I'm sorry, but that'

is the biggest problem of all. We all have one free
hour at the end of the day when we're totally exhausted.
We're not going to use that time to go to another teacher
and talk about how to improve our teaching. That's just
it: We're just too tired. The job is too demanding. We
don't have time. We have papers to take home. It takes
me 7 hours to grade a set of essay questions. I mean 7
hours. That's-a whole Sunday. And that's just one class.

Such a comment could be construed'as a plea for more time and a

lightened work load so that teachers could work together to improve the
school and their own performance. However, this teacher was not suggest-
ing such a change. In her view, teachers must learn to adapt to the system
as it is and should not expect de system to be changed to suit their
interests or needs. She explained:

Teaching isn't More demanding than any other work, even

in my area. Fthink that it's demanding and if you don't
want to work hard you'd better not be. .a teacher.
. But
being a civil engineer [is] just as demanding and being-a
minister is demanding, and being a judge is demanding.
We're not special. All these things are demanding. So
what? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Question: A lot of people are gettilig out, aren't they?

Answer: Yes, and I'm not sorry that:they're leaving.

I think they should get out. If you don't
like teaching, then get out of it. Even if
you're good at it, that doesn't mean that you
necessarily should be doing it.

177
194
 0

'Another teacher commented on the problem of time and the imposs418ility

Of change.

QUestion: Would it help to get teachers together to

share ideas?

Answer: That would be nice, but-it's absolutely

impoS'sible. It [Link] happen. We
don't have the time. I wonder whether
it would'do any good anyway. I'm not
arguing that we shouldn't coordinate our
programs, but that's an ideal,and,I don't
think itIvill'happen.

.A third te'acherargued that teachers should be cealiltic and accept

the status quo.

I think if a teacher gets to the point (where he)

gets tired and loses enthusiasm that he should
make a decision to get out of teaching. He should
0 get out of teaching because teaching is not going
to change. Teachers'need to be more realistic. I
think I'm realistic.

4
Section VIII

Teaching Poverty Students

Introduction

This chapter has emphasized that teaching is a vulnerable profession

and beset with uncertainties. These uncertainties are assuaged somewhat
when at least moderately competent teachers are,assigned to classes with
average or above average students. Most teachers are able to conduct such
classes in ways consistent with the role expectation checklist; thus, their
classroom performance does not threaten their professional reputation or
damage their personal self-esteem. The uncertainties increase dramatically,
however, when a teacher (any teacher) is assigned classes that include low-
achieving, low SES students. Managing the classroom often becomes difficult,
confrontations with students increase, hostilities flare, pupil-teacher
relationships become less stable, student interest and achievement diminish,
and teaching becomes generally an arduous affair. Each of the nine criteria
of teacher com etence is mor difficult to achieve in t ical low erform-
ance, low SES classrooms. From the point of view of the teacher, the work
is harder, proof of professional competence is more difficult to c6me by,
and, if that weren't enough, the teacher's professional reputation is put
in jeopardy. Teachers have much to lose and little to gain in classes
dominated by low-achieving students.11 Teaching,such students is
threatening to teachers' professional self-esteem and reputation of
competence. Every teacher must find a way to alleviate this threat.
Prelimindry analysis of interview data suggested that [Link]
teachers dealt with competence thr'eafs differently than did low
[Link]. It was therefore decided to analyze interview data
more closely. .w

An efficacy questionnaire was administered to all teachers taking

part in this study. The questionnaire used for middle and junior high
school teachers differed somewhat from that used at the high school
level (see Appendices B and I). Both questionnaires included the
efficacy items described at the beginning of this chapter (see page
145 of this report). Responses to the efficacy questions were tallied,
and an efficacy score assigned to each teacher. High efficacy scores,
it will be remembered, reflect a teacher's belief that students from
poor home environments can learn and that the teacher has the skill
to get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated youngsters.
Efficacy scores ranged from a lowof 3 to a high of°10 (see Table'
47).

Teachers receiving an efficacy score of 8 or above were deemed

to be high efficacy teachers. Those receiving a score of 4 or below
were deemed to he low efficacy teachers. Twelve high school, basic
skills teachers and four middle and junior high school teachers had
high efficacy scores, while six high school basic skills teachers t
and five middle and junior high school teachers had low efficacy scores
(see Table 48).

Two teachers, one for the high school level and another from
the junior high level, received high efficacy scores but displayed
low efficacy attitudes and/or behaviors in the classroom and expressed
low efficacy attitudes during interviews and inform0 discussions.
Both teachers were eliminated from the high efficacy group and data
from their interviews are not included in the qualitative analysis
which [Link] this chapter. A review of pertinent interview data
and a complete explanation for their elimination from the,high efficacy
grou,p is presented in Appendix S.

11
In fact, there is some stigma attached to teaching "more than one's
share" of basic skills classes. Teachers with the strongest
reputation for competence in our studies were genera1V assigned honors,
gifted, or college prep classes, while many of those with lesser
reputations were assigned basic skills classes for three or more
periods a day. It must be noted that not all teachers who taught basic
skills classes were thought of as "less competent" by their colleagues.
We are reporting a trend and not an iron law within the social systems
of the schools we studied.

179

I6
 Table 47

Distribution of Responses by School

on Two-Item Rand Efficacy Scale

Middle School Junior High High School

.
,

X f(X) F(X) CP(X) f(X) P(X) CP(X) f(X) P(X) CP(X)

Score frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequeny Percent Cumulative
Percent- ,
Percent . Percent
,

3 0 0 0 1 5 5 3 8 8

4 2 7 7 1 5 10 3 8 16

5 0 0 7 3 15 25 3 8 '' 24

6 7 25 32 6 30 55 8 21 45

7 5 18 50 3 15 70 8 21 66

8 11 39 89 . 4 20 90 11 / 28 94

9 2 7 96 2 10 100 1 ''i 97
4 ..

10 1 4 - 100 0 0 100 1 3 100

197
198
 Table 48

Number of High and Low Efficacy Teachers Interviewed by Grade Level

Number of High Number of Low

Efficacy Teachers Efficacy Teachers
High School, Basic
Skills Teachers 12 6

Middle and Junior "-

High School Teachers 4 5

C.

181
1 99
 Interviews with high ahd low efficacy teachers were analyzed
sepdrately to see 'tf the two groups define their work with low-achieving,
low SES students iq a different manner. Examples of interviews with high
and low efficacy teachers are included in Appendix T.
Competency Threats and Low Efficacy Teiehers

When many students in a classroom do not do their school work

well or at all, when they are difficult to manage ind appear uncoop-
erative, pay-to-day classroom events are often experienced by the
teacher as, threatening. Teachers with low efficacy scores tend to.,
attri,NWthese classroom problems, not to their'own failures as
teachers, but rather to students' 1), 'Fick of ability, 2) poor,
motivation, and 3) character deficiencies and poor home lives: These
three issues will be dealt with separately though they are usually
intertwined in teachers',thinking.

Low efficacy teachers are more likely than their high efficacy
counterparts to claim that basieskills students aren't learning
because they can't learn. For example, low efficacy teachers told
US:

The . . basic problem [with low-achieving

.

students is that] their thinking skills are limited.

Their rational, thinking, lojical skills are just
missing. They haven't been taught to reason. . .

They've just been raised; theyere not raised to

think. They come to school and I can teach them to
read, but I can't teach them-to think rationally.

I don't know if they ever will get it [basic

skills] no matter how hdrd yo0 work them. Partially
[that's due to] immaturity and lack of motivation.
I'm sure some of it has to do with their mental
ability aadcapacity. I'm sure of that.

There is only so much We teachers can do with

students when they come to us in the ninth grade
" working at the third stanine. I guess we don't
really believe that we can bring them up to the
eighth stanine. That's a big problem, you've got
to coniider what's coming in.

YAU can't do much' with [basic skills students].

a
I don't'know why that is, but there are things they
just can't do.. So you don't see much progress and
you don't feel much is going on.

182
 C110

Of course ability is a factor in achievement,and we should not be

surprised that teachers mention low ability as a deterrent to learning.
But it is interesting that when low efficacy teachers discuss student
ability, they do so to explain why students can't be taught rather than'
why such students have trouble learning. Motivation is another factor
associated with student learning,and low,efficacy teachers have much to
say on dis,subject.

I can tell them every day that they have 6 do well

in Enbl$sh, but they don't seem to care. And I don't
think it's me. .You can't stand there with a cattle
.

prod to keep them awake.

I have some [students' in there who just don't care_

about school at all. (They are] totally turned off, .

they don't care. I don't think they belong [Link].

They're not interested im-toming to school.

A lot of these kids don't have the internal, academic

motivation they need to. .pursue an education for
.

education's sake. That's not in their values.

For low efficacy teachers,lack of motivation and low mental ability

explain why some students cannot be taught. Such explanations free teachers
from responsibility for student learning because, by the teachers' analyvis,
ability and motivation are beyond a teacher's control.

Low efficacy teachers are more likely to be offended by the behavior

of low-achieving students than are high efficacy teachers. Poor student
behavior is seen as a cause of low academic achievement and as a reason why
teachers cannot be held responsible for student failure.:

Regular students ire just more vivacious and want to .

cexcel. They really'want to do well. But compensatory

education classes- will bring you down because of disci-
, pline problems... .If one'student looks at another. . .

the wrong way, they'll start arguing. They'll try to

make the teacher look bad if they can. . .I don't know
why, but they will. I'll admit I look forward to
Wednesdays when I don't have to teach my fifth period
Comp. Ed. [Compensatory Education] class.

Low efficacy teachers also attribute student failure to the home.

4)
It doesn't do any good to call parents of Comp. Ed.
students, I've never gotten a response. .I don't
.

think parents care. They don't think education is

important. . .They think school is just a place for
kids to go. .and to socialize.
.

183
201
 ,

47You know rComp. Ed.-students1 don't have dinner

table conversations. They doh't [talk] in the
evening with their families. They don't comierse
on an intellectual level. . .It's just chatter',
and that's al) [Link]. That's all they know is
chatter.

I wish somebody cared at home. I'[Link] saying' ,

they're not loved or cared for, but I wish some-4
body cared [about the kids'] education. . .

You can tell whether these Audents come from a

decent home wih both parents. .and someone in
.

an authority position. With the decline of. . .

family life you'te going torun into more and

more learning [disability] problems. [There's .

not much a teacher can do.] I mean you can'work

with them for-a time, but whether they learn is
, . .dependent on the parents' authorityr .I've
.

seen the homes half of these-students live in and

[it's] no wonder they can't [learn].

To sum up, low efficacy teachers-tlo not share'responsibility for

the failure of low SES, low-achieving studentsr Such students; these
teachers insist, are not bright enough, not motivated enough, not well
enough behaved, or brought up well enough to succeed at school. This
"silk pUrse-sow's ear" argument absolves teachers from responsibility
for student learning and student behavior. In effect it circumvents thg
checklist criteria for good teaching. Low efficacy teachers are untroubled
by the failure of low-achieving stbdents because these teachers feel that
there is nothing they, or any other teacher, can do to avoid such failres.
The responsibility for failure lies with genetics, the home, or the students
themselves. Many low efficacy teachers are so convinced by this line of
reasoning that they simply give up attempting to teach low-achieving students
in theie class: Note the fatalism exOessed in the comments of th'ese low
efficacy teachers:

I don't think any of us ever blame ourselves [for

student failure]. I ,meen all of us have our doubts
-and we have bad days. We all feel we could put more
into it, or [we feel] if we cared more we could get
students motivated. . .but. ..we don't blame'obrselves
for the problems here.

You don't want to'sit down and continue to work. . .

with [compensatory education students] when you know

they're not going to remember it. I feel you can sit
down with some of these students and go ovei- [the material]
.and they'll know it and they can do it rjght then and
there. And you get up and leave and come back five minutes
later and they've forgotton how to do'it completely.

184
202
 I didn't reach ard. .And I accept the Yact
t hat I'm not going to move Jim along. It took me
a couple of years tO [Link] that [about gtudents].
But not going to move them all. j think an
.awful lot of teacher energy [Link] with those
[students] who don't do anything. .There's the
.

question, is it worth it, spending hours'and hours

for jgt 12 compensatory education students. It
takes 4 lot of time, a lot ottime for very few
kids.

If I gave them [a book] to take home, that was

[a dig]mistake, becauselt would frequently never
make it baCk to the'rbom. I learned that most
students did not\gnjoy reading at all. They liked
' to sit in i clissebom situation and read a play
with each student taking a part, but that takes
long time. And theywould get frustrated:and
they would lose interestor [Link] whole,poi-ntcof
the thing. I found that to be a problem.
-

We finally read a novel at the end of the year

.,that my'intern found. It iook[the class] eight
weeks to get through it:. They hated it. .As a.

matter of fact, I guess only about four out of the

clags Iinished it.
. ,

I don't want to teach grammar, and I told the principal

that. ,In fact, I told him not to assign me to a
language arts class again. We argued-about it. I said . .

I'm not interested in teaching grammar to illiterates.

Hg said that was because I,don't likevteaching grammar.
' But ITsaid, "Wrong, 1 love grammar. .I'm a whiz at
grammar.t It's the easiest thing in.:the world to teach.
put these students can't get it, and I don't agree with
"k
teaching it to them:. :. ." .

'High-efficacy Teachers
. ,

e High efficacy teachers are more likely than thetr low efficacy,counter-
_ pirts to define low:Achieving students as reachable, teachable, and worthy
of teacher attention and effort. While la efficacy teachers lppear threat-,
eeed by the lack of disciplipes motivation, and achievement they see in
[Link] students, high efficacy teachers are able to rise above sabh threats.
In fact, maby bigh efficacy teachers seem to take pride in their abiTitY,to'
teach students their colleagues define as unteachable. High efficacy teachers
7
do not ignore the problems poverty students bring with them to the classroom.
.THeyacceptsych problebs as epal, but,to some degree, surmountable. In
cdntrast jo their low efficacy colleagues, Kowever,,they define their role '
as helOing low'SES Students-dvercome the handicaps that poveriy ha's inflicted
ppon them. These quotes are typical of the hopeful *termination we found
[Link] of opr interviews with high efficacy teachers.

185
0 203
 You see, [low achieving] kids need teachers. They
probably need them more than any other students.
They need a teacher who will work with them and who
will care. I don't mean fo be derogatory, but they.
don't'need a first-year teacher who doesn't know what
-she's doing. They need someone' who knows what's going
on The kids with'the most problems heed the best
teachers. We have to be tough on kids all the way around.
I have grandiose plans. Half the time they don't work .

out. We start a,[Link] and I think it's going to be

terrific and'it falls on its face. But I sal, "Well,. .

that's tough: I'Mtry,again."

I don!t believe it's right 6 'give up on anybody. I

guess that's Ohy I keep trying; A student can fail
every day in themeek [but] I'm not going to accept
it. .Most_students [Link] some [work] and they
.

. .see the results. They're not'going to be math -

wizards but they.'re goirig to be able to do Something.,
, .
4 Fiet

I think I'm lacking a bit in my basic skills classes

becduse this is my first year of teaching. Mter a
while I think I dap start getting those [test].scores
up. I think the longer FBS classes ane around, the
more successful we'll be. So, [Link] eventually the
[test scores] will 9et better. With a bit more work,
we tan have better results.

I enjoy basic skills [classes]. The students definitely

need the assistance. They need my help. Most really
want to master these skills. I think most .of them work
fairly well. I think I can tell fairly well whether a
student is putting sufficient effort [into his work].
I may give students an F [when I think] their progress
'is too slow. Last [marking period] I gave several students
F's. .and I saw a very great increase in their progress
.

during the last nine weeks.

An Academic Focus

Many high efficacy teachers worry that the school system ignores the
needs of lbw-achievirig students. For example, one high efficacy teacher
discussed an llth grade boy who had slipped thrOugh school without mastering
evenyrudimentary academic skills. Teachers didn't rectignize the young man's
problem beCause "he's fairly quiet, undemanding [and] doesn't disturb any-
body Nobody particularly notices what the heck is going on." Teachers
with a high sense of efficacy are troubled by the school system's failures
and take it upon themselves to do something to help stvdents who fall
thr,ough the inslitution's cracks:

I said, "You're not going to slip by me. I don't

care whether you're qUiet or not. I want you to

186
204
 start learning this stuff." I meant it. I called
his mother and told her the same thing.

A major complaint of high efficacy teachers is that academic achievement

is no longer at the center of school life:

The school's priorities seem to be mixed up because

academic [work] is not stressed enough. The stress
seals to be on band, athletics, home economics, art;
all things that are important, but I think academics
are more important. These activities borrow from
academic time.

Take for example the young man that just left the
room. He was failing my course because he missed
so many classes this year. But he still was excused
'to go to band and chorus practice. There was nothing
I could doDbout L.---sentanote Tto_the
et. chorus di'rector] saying I would not excuse him
because. . .he was failing. But he was still allowed
to go.

[We] are required to teach not just a6demic things,

[but to] make sure that their hearing is checked,
their eyes checked, sex education is taught, morals
are taught, which is all fine. But the school [is
being] loaded with more and more and more; drug
education, environmental education [and so on].
When you start teaching more and more,subjects, you're
going to lose time. You're going to end up giving
less timeto each subject.

We have to be tougher on kids all the way Around. I

don't know howwe're going to do it. .,.but we need
to start with things like, "You're going to come to
school. (The teacher pounds the deskjor emphasis)
You will have a pencil. You will have paper." It
bothers me that we don.'t have these'policies.

All high efficacy teachers approved of the state's testing program

because, they said, the test focused attention on the academic deficiencies
of Many students. They approved of the county's policy of offering remedial
classes in communications and math for students who had failed the state
assessment test or whose achievement test scores indicated that they would
probably fail when they took the assessment test in the 10th grade. However,
many high efficacy teacherg were disturbed that these classes were too
narrowly focused on the basic skills which appear on the assessment test.
In many cases students only studied a skill untq they could demonstrate a
modest level of competence on a teacher-made and teacher-adminisMted
follow up test. According to some teachers, the state-mandated minimum
tompetency requirements served not as an achievement floor below which no
student would be allowed to fall, but rather as an acuievement ceiling beyond
which many academically, troubled st4dents would notbe encouraged to ascend:

187

`' 205
 I think we should teach [basic skills] classes like
remedial English classes. I hate to see [students]
-just-work-on-skills-and-check-them-off_as_they go
through them. They should have reading and writing
and even some grammar. But we focus,on [a few narrow]
skills-and-I think the kids miss -out on a lot because
of tpat. They would benefit more from reading classes..
That, after all, is their problem. They don't read
well. We should read whole stories together and not
just focus on little paragraphs on ditto sheets. When
we focus on skills, the kids miss out on so much. They
don't get any literature. .

FBS [Florida Basic Skills] students in the 9th grade

don't get 9th grade E6glish. And FBS 10th grade
students don't get 10th grade English, and if they
take FBS in the llth grade, they will have met their
full English requirements for graduation [without ever
being in a full fledged English class].

High efficacy teachers find that some students are unmotivated,

undisciplined and do not appear to want what schools have to offer. But .
these teachers are unwilling to categorize all low-achieving students in
such negative terms. On the contrany, they generally find their Compensatory
Education students tp be highly motivated and willtna to work:

Most of them work pretty hard and it wasn't a case

of their not wanting to do well. Now, you've got
a few goof offs, always, but most of them worked
and wanted to do well.

A Focus on Friendship

Not only do high efficacy teachers find basic skills students motivated
and willing to work, they find them likeable and generally well behaved:

fthink the personalities of FBS students are easier

to get along with. They're nicer. Maybe it's because
it's a small-class and they're afraid to say much, but
Oley all seem to be quiet. They don't have disciplThe
problems. I just think they're nice kids. I really do.

They're pretty good. They really are. . .They get a

feeling of rapport. . mith the teacher. They understand
how far they can go is pretty much dependent on them-
selves. [Link] ask questions,they can work as hard as
they want to, do as much [Link] they want tp or as little.
I guess the class feels close together 6ecause it's small.
The students know each other. There is more time for
individual students to help each other. .

When Basic Skills students misbehave, high efficacy teachers attempt to

meet the challenge with a "firm, yet fair" response:

188
 There has to be consistency when students misbehave.
They have to know that when they do such and such,
this will happen to them.

A second theme which ran through our interviews with high efficacy
teachers was their desire to form primary [Link] students.
,Some teachers told us that one of their major objectives each year was to

Get to know [their] students.'

Be a friend to students and to be someone who under-

stands them.

High efficacy teachers did not express the desire to form intimate, family-
style relationships with pupils, but they did appear to be most comfortable
when the formality of the typical teacher-student interaction was relaxed
somewhat. They recognized the rieed for authority in the classroom but
wanted to Wild their authority throughmutual understanding and appre-
ciation rather than to base their authority on the institutionalized
power of the teacher role.12

High efficacy teachers are able to build rather warm relationships

with their low-achieving students because they genuinely like these
youngsters and do not find them morally repugnant. Teachers did discuss
the negative home enronment of some of their poorer students and the
bad habits some students brought with them to the classroom. But seldom
did a high efficacy teacher suggest that bad habits or a poor home life
made a student unlikeable and/or unteachable. NI the contrary, the
teachers we interviewed suggested that getting to know students and
liking them facilitated teaching and learning. One teacher explained
that after a primary relationship is established a teacher can correct
the student's behavior or give a special assignment without ther
student feeling that lie or she is being picked on or singled out.
Establishing personal relationships in the classroom bleeds some 9f
the potential hostility out of the teacher-student [Link]

I can say to a student, "I want you to improve this or

thattoday." And they can come and tell [me] their
problems or just say, "You look nice today" or "I'm
glad you're here."

High efficacy teachers point out that getting to know their students
enables them to "anticipate what a student might do in [any'given] situation,"

12 The distinction between personal authority and institutional or

positional authority is borrowed from Max Weber. It was first applied
to education by Waller (1932) in his now classic study, The Sociology
of Teaching. It has since been elaborated by Schmuck and Schmuck (1971).

13 For a discussion [Link] in the student-teacher relationship,

see Waller (1932),

189

207
 and thus be prepared to encourage learning and discourage disruptions.
If students value their teacher, the teacher will be more able to influence
pupil behavior and bolster student self-esteem. Some high efficacy
teachers insist that a positive self-concept is essential to learning.
"If you don't feel good aboUt yourself," one teacher told us, "you're not
going to work hard and you're not going to put time into [your studies]."

The teachers we have been discussing display a willingness to get

know their low-achieving students and the determination to teach them.
At the same time they are sadly mindful that the odds are stacked against
many of their poorestipupils. "I wish I could say that schools could
take anybody and turn him or her into an Alfred Einstein," lamented one
teacher, "but, I don't think it's possible." However, the teacher went on
to say that the school should not focus on the negative aspests of a
child's life:

When you get night down to it, you're going to have

to work with the child anyway. It doesn't matter if
he can only show a gain of two months at the end of
the year, you have to work with him the whole year.
And maybe they'll surprise you. It's' important to
take them where they are,. . .make them feel secure,
let them know you are behind them and. . .you want
them to do,the best they can possibly do. You're
not expecting [any more than that], but you don't
expect them to be lazy and just slide by."

190

'208.
 Section IX

Summary

This chapter began with the contention that the study of efficacy
demands a social psychological investigation of how teachers define their
work, the forces that impinge on those definitions and the meaning structures
that undergird and legitimate their professional lives. Ethnographic inter-
viewing is well suited for an investigation of how teachers define and
experience their work in the schools.

An analysis of interview data suggested that teaching is an uncertain

and isolated profession that offers educators few assurances that they are
making a significant or lasting difference in the knowledge, skills, or
lives of their pupils. This uncertainty,threatens the ties of meaning and
commitment that connect teachers to the roles they play. Uncertainty puts
the professidnal self-esteem of educators in continual jeopardy. This threat
is assbaged in varying degrees by a socialization process that encourages
teachers to conform to a set of role expectations in the domains of class-
room management, instruction, and student-Oacher relations. The role
expectations checklist described in this chapter provides [Link] of competency
criteria against,which teachers can gauge their degree of conformity to the
teaching role. The urge to conform to these criteria grows from the teacher's
inner competency doubts and from the certain knowledge that a teacher's
performance'in the school is being continually judged by fellow teachers.
The worry that one's deep-seated suspicions of personal incompetence will be
confirmed by the negative evaluations of one's peers leads many teachers to
"keep up appearances" and to present an occupational self-image that is
consistent with the demands of the work situation. An idealized impression
is presented to peers which accents certain facts and accomplishments and
conceals minor failings, flaws, or acts of deviance.

It is significant, however, that conformity to the teacher's role

does not bind educators into a professiondl unit organized around similar
values and,a common body of knowledge. The checklist behavior teachers are
encouraged to accept does not promote an explicit world view or a set of
shared educational aims. Checklist conformity assures teachers only that
they are doing what is expected of them but it provides no,assurance that
"expected behavior" is worth doing or cdntributes significantly to the
education and well being of students. Teacher conformity is self-protective
but not necessarily self-assuring. It provides teachers with a loosely
coupled set of instructions which guides their behavior and protects them
against negative peer evaluations, but it fails to provide protection against
the vicissitudes of self doubt.

The social-psychological milieu of the school fosters self-doubt,

conformity and impression management. Efficacy attitudes must be analyzed
within the context of these quotidian realities of school life. Low-achieving

191

209
students make teacher confbrmity to the role expectations checklist decidedly
more difficult. The uncertainties that already exist within the social-
psythological milieu of the school'are thus heightened considerably when a
teacher, any teacHer, is assigned to classes where low-aChieving, low
socio-economic status children predominate. High-efficacy teachers deal
with this heightened threat quite differently than do their low-efficacy
counterparts.

The attitudes and behaviors of high and low-efficacy,teachers contrast

sharply. These two groups of teachers work in the same schools and teach
the same students but they experience their Compensatory Education classes
in decidedly different ways. High-efficacy teachers uphold relatively high
academic standards for their low-achieving students and worry that such
students are getting lost in the bbreaucratic shuffle of the school. They
respond to such problems by concentrating on academics in their classes
and by insisting that students do the Tame. They find their basic skills
_students sadly deficient academically but anxious to improve, willing to
Work, and generally well behaved. They enjoy such students and work to
build friendly, non-threatening relatibnships with them.

Low-efficacy teachers; on the other hand, experience frustration and

sometimes anger over the attitudes and behaviors they think characterize
most low-achieving, low SES pupils. Such youngsters offend the moral
sensibilities of low-efficacy teachers and violate their image ofcwhat
students should think, be,and do. One matO teacher with an efficacy score
of 6 told us that she was shocked by her fiTst Basic Skills class:

I thought Compensatory Education students would be

willing to work because they needed help. But I had
a number of very, very extreme behavior problems in
the class. I had some students. ..who really plugged
at it, but [I had] some do-nothings and forget-abouts
:who would only talk about food, or boys, or what to
wear. Some kids were. . .out of it; what could I do?
They were constantly being suspended, or if they
weren't suspended, they were truant, or in fights,
or in the courts. I don't think teachers are prepar-
ed to deal with students like this. That's what made
teaching these classes unpleasant for me. I was robbed
by some students in the class.

I don't think a lot of the Basic Skills kids are

motivated. So I think it's too much to ask of a
teacher that students pass [the state assessment] test.
I think a teacher could nearly kill herself trying to
motivate some students. [We should] motivate but we
shouldn't have to push and push and push. Outside factors
[Link] kids, "Why bother?" [They know that] so and
so can get a job without a high school education, so and
so can rip people off, he can burglarize people. . .and
make a fortune. So teachers are dealing with so many
externals that it makes teaching too hard.

192

210
 I cannot get kids to come in and make up skills
they've missed. They have no excuse but I can't
force them. People need to look at the kinds of
students who are actually going into Basic Skills
classes. They_are putting kids with low scores
on the Metropolitan Achievement test in these
classes. Kids who've gotten zero,and no one is
asking why their test scores were low. I think
the test scores were low because the kids were N.
away from school a great dealt,. ...were in
trouble constantly, or creating problems in the
classroom.-

Many of the students this teacher faced in her Basic Skills classes
she thought were too psychologically troubled to be helped by teachers.
"I think that kids surely need help. They deserve soMe type of help. But
I think the kind of help they need is far more than what a regular teacher
can give in a classroom. They need psychological help and they need
disciplinary action. I really don't feel comfortable teaching them." The -
teacher's discomfort arose from the fact that she did not find her Basic
Skills students to be morally acceptable:

I have a value conflict with the students. I

don't believe there are degrees of cheating.

I don't believe that tt's right to take something,
just because somebody else has it and you don't.
I'm constantly faced with that in my Basic Skills
classes. "I haven't got it,and I want it, so and
so has it, so I'm going to take it." And they
think that's all right. It's an issue of the
haves and have nots.

I don't like them to say hurtful' things to

students or to say hurtful things .about someone's
mother. I abstain from that kind of thing in my
classroom. But many times I,get to the point where
I think of [hurtful] things to say,to students, and
at times I have [said them]. But I do that in order
to protect another'student. I have had to.,put down
students because they were giving that kind of
treatment to someone else. I find that sometimes
that's the only way you can handle it.

"Motivated. .
.and better than average students" interest this teacher.
She finds them "self confident and kind. They don't need to lash out at
me. A lot of them feel better about sChool and have school spirit. And
they pull together on some things." But below average students are so
difficult to work with, so unmotivated, so hurtful, and so uneducable that
they don't-deserve her time:

193

211
 In some instances I'm not sure that I care.
Sometimes I feel, Nhat's the useV! Teaching
can be very frustrating, a very frustrating
experience. I'm not going to mince words about
it, that's the way I feel. I feel threatened,
too. I can see where a lot of these clasS'es
could be very threatening.

The teacher describes herself as burned out and feels the need to
change her goals. "I really fee,l that I'd like to get out of the classroom
and into administration." She said she was tired of "walking into the same
classrooms, [Link] same kinds of students, and getting the samelinds
of results."

Where high-efficacy teachers found Basic Skills students motivate4,

low-efficacy teachers found them disinterested. Where high-efficacy
teachers found Basic Skills students interesting and likeable, low-
efficacy teachers found them morally repugnant. High-efficacy teachers
found Basic Skills students to be challenging, Put low-efficacy teachers
found them unworthy of [Link]'s effort. High-efficacy teachers ran
orderly, academically-oriented classrooms that were free of negative affect,
but many low-efficacy teachers had difficulty controlling their classrooms
and sometimes reverted to sarcasm as a discipline method or means of getting

It is not clear frontIMs chapter's ethnographic analysis if efficacy

attitudes cause teachers and students to behave in certain ways or if
classroom behavior influences efficacY-attitudes. It seems reasonable to
suggest that teachers who [Link] can gettfitsough_to low-achieving
students are likely to try, and those who believe they cannot react such
students are not likely to exert much effort in that direction. But,efficacy
is probably not a simple first cause in a linear chain of events. The belief- t,

behavior cOnnection is probably interactive. A teacher who tries diligently

but unsuccessfully to teach low-achieving students may become disillusioned
in the process. As a result his or her sense of efficacy may decline. N,
Another teachen, achieving more positive results, may alter his or her
efficacy attitudes accordingly. In any event, it is important to note that
efficacy attitudes, whether positive or negative, reflect the actual class-
room experiences of the 'teachers who hold them. Analysis of student
achievement data suggests that Basic Skills students really do not learn as
much in the classrooms of low-efficacy teachers (see pages 106-138 of this
report).- Student behavior in low-efficacy classrooms generally reflects
less involvement in learning and less, interest in,or respect for the teacher.
Students in classrooms of high-efficacy teachers, on the other hand, make
more academic progress, display greater interest in classroom activities and
show less hostility toward theiT teacher.

194

212
 CHAPTER 8

Efficacy, Uncertainty, and Status Panic

Introduction

Teaching is a wh4te-collar occupation,and virtually all, teachers view

themselves as belonging to the middle class. For many, teaching served as
a social elevator that lifted them from the blue-collar, working-class
world of their parents. For some middle-clasi women, teaching provided a
means of financing a husband's ascent into the upper middle-class world of
business or the professions. Far some other women, teaching provided the
supplemental income necssary to fight inflation and shore up a family's
flagging middle-class status. Many teachers of both sexes view classroom
instruction as a mere stepping stone'to administration or as a temporary
occupation that will finance more lucrative career goals that await them
iri the future.

The oft-stated accusation that teachers are biased in favor of middle-

class values is undoubtedly true. The life experiences of most teachers
demOnstrate their allegiance to the ethic of vertical mobility, self-
improvement, hard work, deferred gratification, self-discipline, nd
personal achievement. These individualistic values are,based upon the
conviction that the social system (both the social-economic system and
its component, institutional systems) works well, that [Link] essentially
fair and that it moves the culture slowly butinevitably toward progress.

The Oddle-class system of values puts the individual at its center.

If individuals develop their talents, work hard, persevere in the face
of adversity, it is assumed that they will eventually succeed in life.
Conversely, those who lack talent and/or ambition will eventually fail.
Winners in the American competition will be able to display,their success
through the consumption of goods, the utilization of leisure time, and
the exhibition of power and status. It is further assumed that those who
fail merely suffer the just desserts of their own indolence.

There is a rich literature that details how middle-class teachers

favor students who display an allegiance to middle-class values and
disfavor those pupils whose behavior contradicts that value system.
However, little attention has been given to how that same value system
affects the teachers themselves. By better understanding the white-
collar world of the school teacher we can also understand the hopes and
complex anxieties that grip individuals in the teaching profession. We
can further understand the connection which exists between efficacy
attitudes and the social realities of the teacher's professional existence.

This chapter will utilize data from ethnographic interviews,

especially as teacher comments relate to the issues of status, pay, on-
<the-job recognition, and job satisfaction. Portions of the chapter will
draw on theoretical literature in the area of white-collar work and
alie ation. The objective of this chapter is to supplenent and enrich

195
2-13
the analysis of the preceding chapter and to set the stage for the
grounded theory presented in the next chapter.

Status Awareness

Max Lerner has described white-collar workers as forming:

A loose collection of occupational strata,"probably

more anxiety-ridden thanethe rest oi the culture,
dominated by the drive to distinguish,themselves
from the working class, uncohesive, held together
by no common bond except the fact that they are
caught in a kind of purbatory between the hell of
the poor and the weak and the heaven of the rich and
the powerful. (p. 188)

White-collar workers are usually achievement-oriented. Many take

pridein the fact that they (and/or their parents) have moved up the
status ladder and see the possibility for future status achievement for
themselves and their children. They are made anxious, however, when:
1. the community does not award tnem the prestige they feel their position
deserves; 2. when they discover that their present occupation does, not
present future opportunities for advancement; 3. when shifts in the ,

economy make the economic future precarious, or 4. when the salary

advances of blue-collar workers appear to threaten their positiOn of
relatixe advantage. Any one of these four circumstances can throw a
middle-class white-collar worker into what C. Wright called "status
panic." (p. 239)

White-collar workers are aware of their position in the status

hierarchy'but are often insecure. They are threatened from below by the
skilled and semi-skilTed, blue-collar workers who, despite limited
education, enjoy incomes that rival or exceed their own. They are threat-
ened from above by the superior status achievements of highly paid managers,
administrators, and professionals. Many people pursue an education and
enter the white-collar work force under the assumption that their efforts.
will earn them status, job satisfaction, and greater control over the events
that affect their lives. These hopes aee not always realized. They soon
learn, as Lerner has pointed out, that theythave nothing to sell their
employers,

except their skills, theiy personality, their eager-

ness to be secure, their subservience and silence.
Since they must act as the personal eyes, ears, hands,
and brains of impersonal corporations, they are no
longer the "masterless" men of an earlier America:
they must always wear the public mask of their occu-
pations; to be marketable they must shape themselves
to a persbnality pattern of efficiency, smoothness,
slid§ Vige-Tif.-cliarin or deference--which is what is
expected and what will be paid for. (pg. 490-491)

196

214
 We turn now to the question of whether teachers are subject [Link]
anxieties and estrangement that Lerner, Mills, and other social scientists
think are typical of middle-class, white-colAar workers.

The Status Awareness of Teachers

To our knowledge no studies exist which explore the status

insecurity of teachers. However, there is reason to hypothesize that
many teachers suffer the same status worries and work-place alienation
that afflict so many other white-collar workers. We will discuss the reasons
for this Mypothesis below.

Dan Lortie has pointed out that "teaching is [Link]-collar,

middle-class work, and as such offers upward mobility for people who grew
up in blue-cbllar or lower-class families." He goes on to say that "teach-
ing appears to be one of th&more important routes into the middle class "
(p. 35). According to national education,data, 50,percent of male teachers
and 33 percent of female teachers had fathers who were employed as unskill-
eded, semi-skilled, or'skilled laborers. (NEA 1976, p. 127) From the
vantage point of a child from a blue-collar family, the status of a class-
room teacher may appear impressive and prestigious. Such a child may
discoverthat teaching offers relatively easy access into the middle-class.
Teachers' colleges are relatively inexpensive, numerous, and generally do
not have rigorous standards of admission or rigorous requirements for
graduation. However, the cost of edudation and course requirements are
usually difficult enough to convince blue-collar teacher candidates that
they have made significant sacrifices in order to achieve white-collar
status. In short, they are proud of their job, however, such teachers may
become aware that they are relatively disadvantaged when they compare their
starting salaries with those of other occupations. (See Table 49)

After some time in [Link], teachers may realize that their

career pay is scheduled and front loaded; that is, to say, teacher pay is
determined by district pay scales and the amount earned by a teacher with
30 years experience is roughly 2 to 2-1/2 times that earned by a beginning
teacher. The vertical mobility aspirations that brought blue-collar
individuals into the teaching profession are thwarted by a system that
offers few status advancement opportunities for classroom teachers and
little economic reward for years of service.

Upon realizing the limited possibilities for future upward mobility,

many teachers decide to leave the profession for more lucrative, status-
awarding pursuits. Others may channel their interests into administration.
Still others may attempt to upgrade their income and validate their status
claims by furtheringtheir education and earning advanced professional
degrees: All of these activities indicate a commitment to the ethic of
continual advancement and the dissatisfaction with the status acaorded the
teaching profession.

The ethic of advancement is further frustrated when teachers

relize that their scheduled salary increases barely keep up with inflation..
 TABLE 49: Average Starting Salaries of Public School Teachers
Compared with Salaries'in Private Industry, 1978-1979*.

Position or Subject Field 1977-1978

Beginning teachers with bachelor's [Link] $ 9,656 ,

College graduate with bachelor's degree*

Engineering 15,606
Accounting 13,056
Sales-Marketing 12,084
-Business Administration 11,556
LiberaT'Arts 11,004
Chemistry 14,088
Mathematics-Statistics. 12,756
Economics-Finance 11,424 ,

Computer Sciences 13,188

Other Fields 13,476

Index ReZationship to Starting SaZaries for Teacherst

Beginn,ing teachers with bachelor's degree 100.0

College graduates with bachelor!s degree*
'Engineering 169.6
Accounting 141.9
Sales-Marketing 131.3
Business Administration 125.6
Liberal Arts 119.6
Chemistry 153,1
Mathematics-Statistics 138.7
Economics-Finance 124.2
Computer Sciences 143.3
Other Fields 146.5.

Source: National Education AssoCiation. Reprinted by permission of

sNationar Education Association.
* Fnom annual reports of Frank S. Endicott, Director of Placement
Emeritus, Northwestern University. Salaries are based on offers madeo
to graduates by approximately 200 companies located throughout the
United States. Salaries are based on offers made in November to
students who will graduate in June.
t Computed by NEA Research from data RIhanted in the Endicott reports

198

216
Between 1967 and 1978,, according to one report, the average gross income
fdr teachers rose only 5.9'percent when corrected,for inflation. Other
public employees fared no better,but many strongly unionized blue-collar
workers did very well indeed. The average gross income of steel workers
over the same period advanced 34.9 percent, thac of coal miners 31.1 pen:.
cent, truck drivers 32.9 percent, and plumbers )0.5 percent. (See Table
50.)

According to more [Link] collected by the-National Center for

Educational Statistics, the buying power of teachers' salaries declined
by nearly 15 percent duritig the 1970's.L(See Table 51.)

We assume that *teachers with high mobility aspirations'would be

frustrated by their lack of economic advancement-and bx the comparative
gains of [Link] workers. Teachers who pride Ihemselves on their
middle-class status must feel threatened when the income of many blue-
collarLworkers exceeds their own. If, as many sociologists contend,
relative deprivation is a fundamental cause of status panic and social
discontent, then teachers have reason to be troubled. As Paul Blumbero (1980)
has pointed out:

p Today the middle-class struggle to maintain, what

have been for [Link] income differentials,
is collapsing. Such salAried employees must inevitably
develop a feeling that their income is no longer
commensurate with their socjal worth and that people
who are socially inferior to themselves are being
allowed to pull outrageously ahead. When rank-- or ,

imagined rank7-no longer gets itsdue, social order

'is in danger.'

In a society where money is the measure of social

worth, what happens when clerical workers and retail
sales people discover that factory workers are
suddenly earning not Merely slightly more, but 2-2.5
times mare than they; when school teachers and
libralins are being left behind in the factory dust;
when u ionized blue-collar workers are quickly closing
iweven on college professors who have invested up to
ten years in graduate school... .to prepare for-a
career? (p. 83)

There is, of course, no single answer to Blumberg's questions, but

we can be sure that teachers are aware and concerned about their financial
situation. We can be sure as well,that teachers see a connection between
their income and social status. We asked one teacher, for example, if he
would choose teaching again if he had it to do over. He acknowledged
that teaching had been important to him. However, he quickly added:

But when I think about the way [Link] recogni2es

teachers, and the value of teaching, and the way they

199
217
 TABLE 50: frends in Earnings, Selected Occupatidns, 1967-1978
5
Az;e-rage Gross % Change
OccupatiOn AnnUal IncomP After
(5IC codea where appropriate) 1967 1978 . Inflation
6

Consumer price index 100 195.4 ,

Steelworker (331) $ 7,426 $19,573 +34.9%

Coal miner (11,12) 7,738 19,822 +31.11 4.

Automobile worker (3711) 7,613 18,658 +25.4

Truck driver .(421,423) 6,843 6,432 +22.9 .
Food-store worker (54) 4,638 10,899 +20.3
Registered nurse (industrial) 6,188 1341.6b +19.5
Laundry worker (721) 3,598 7,800 +10.9
Plumber . 11,149 22,360b +10.5
Restaurant worker (58) 3,120 6,677 , + 9.5
Federal civil servant, GS-16 4

(nonpolitical manager) 20,982 44,756 4. 9.2 .

Accountant, level V (top) 12,795 27,301 4. 9.2

Personnel dtrector, level V ('top) 19,186 40,835 + 8.9
Messenger((urban) 3,666 7,202b 4. 8.2 ,

Electrical/electronics worker
(36) 5,762 12,126 4. 7.7
Text:1:- worker (22) 4,285 8,923 + 6.6
Rubber (tire) worker (301) 7,862 16,266 + 5.9
School teacher (urban) 7,464 15,450 4. 5.9
Accountant, level III (of V) 8,879 18,115 + 4.4
Department store employee--
nonsupervisory (513) 4,285 8,736 + 4.3
Policeman (municipal) 6,482 13,190 4.,4.1
Buyer, level IV (tc?). 11,806 23,853 4. 3.4
Secretary (urban) 5,772 10,816b , 4. 3.2
Federal civil servant, GS-12
(white-collar professional) 11461 23,087 + 3.1
Furntture (25) 4,846 9,734 4. 2.8
Chemist, level III (of VIII) 9,719 19,453 + 2:4
Typist (urban) 3,874 7,17622 + 2.1
Buyer, level II (of IV) 8,211 16,195 + .9
Computer programmer 9,984 19,608 + .5
Engineer, level III (of VIII) 10,330 20,194 0
Engineering technician, level .

III (of V) 7,235 14,062 - .5 N

Apparel worker (23) 4,222 8,195 - .7
Chemist, level VIII(top) 24,676 47,156 - 2.2
Engineer, level VIII(top) 22,235 42,106 - 3.1
Federal civil servant, GS-5
(clerical) 5,565 '10,507 - 3.4

Table Mcontinued on next page

4a.

200

21g
.

TABLE50 (continued) Trends [Link], Selected Occupations, 1967-1978

Average Gross % Change

Occupation. Annual LICOPW After
(7117'codea where appropriate) 1967 1978 Inflation

Consumer price index 100 195.4

Iniurance company employee--

-
nonsupervisory (63) 5,782 10,878 - 3.7
Shoe worker (314) ,, 4,181 7,800 - 4.5
'College professor (average
11,114 17,601c - 7.1
Bank employee--nonsuperVisory
(60) 4,864 8,757 - 7.9
College professor (full) 17,158 30,353, - 9.5
Librarian . 7,305 11,894° -10.3
-Welfare recipient (per family) 1,894 3,089 --16.5

Sources: Compiled from,Bureau of Labdr Stitistics, Employmnt and

Earnings, United States, 1909-78 (Washington, D. C., 1979); Handbook ,
of. Labor Statistics, 19773 Bdlletin 1966 (Washington, D. C., 1977); ,
Occupational Earnings in AU Metropolitan Amas4 July 1977 (September
1978); Current Wage Developments 31 (March 1979); National Survey of .

Professional, AdiniJtrative, 'Technical, and Clerical Pay, March 19783

Bulletin 2004 (Washington, D. C., 1978); Time, January 15, 1979;
American Association of University Professors (AAUP), "No Progress
this Year: Report on the Economic Status of the Profession," AAUP
Bulletin (August 1977).

aSIC: Standard Industrial Classification.

.1977. Income change calculated on basis of 1977 Consumer Price
Index, which was 181.5.
aComparisontis 1967-68 academic year with 1976-77 academic year.
Inctime change calculated on [Link] 1976 Consumer Price Index,
which was 170.5.

201.
2
 Table 51

Salaries of Classroom Teachers in Regular POblic

Elementary/Secondary Schools*

Constant dollars
Projected
$24,000-

,
High
alternative
$22,000-
/
Intermediate
alternative
$20,000,.

$18,000-- Low
alternative

$16,000-

$14,000- 6

$12,000-

$10,000-
971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1487 1989 1991

. School year edding

ihe buying power of teachers' salaries decreased by nearly 15 percent

during .the 1970's. In the next decade, teachers' salaries are expected
to begin increasing as the demand for teachers grows.
*Source: Dearmin h Plisko, 1982,

202

220
 ,reward-teachers7 .--Tif-I.--didn'-t-have-an- -outside
income T would probably be very dissatisfied.
Teachers are not recognized the way they should
be. I feel that with my ability in Mathematics
I could just have eaiily become an engineer, any
kind of scientist, a medical doctor, anything
like that. I'm not sure that I'd necessarily
have been happier doing that. . .But I would have
had more recognition in society. I would have
more financial rewards.

Another teacher gave us a similar message:

I do get,discouraged on occasion. The pay is

lib-low. So I asked myself why am I doing this,
why did I 6er go into teaching. I feel embittered
.some of the time ibout the pay.

We asked the same teacher if she would encourage her older.

daughter to enter the teaching profession. She said she would not
because of the poor pay:

It's too bad that we pay people who work with words
so poorly. There's not much reward. My daughter
has a high IQ and she's good in language and English.
But I'm pushing her into math and science because
there are more opportunities there.

Another teacher told us:

I'm looking more and more to getting out of teaching.

It's not so much that I don't like teaching, it's
because I'm not makiq9nany moneY. I think I do too
many things too well to sit around here and make ten
or twelve thousand dollars eyear when I [Link]
go and find some kind of business to get involved in
and do much better in what I'm doing. I think
probably within the next [Link] four years I'll be
out of teaching. It's the money. It's a real problem.
I think we're just above the poverty level right now.
We're just not doing well at all.

We asked a teacher what might be done to improve the prestige of

his profession. His response is indicative of the close connection which
exists between salary and status in the middle-class value system:

I think the biggest thing they could do lo increase

teacher prestige would be to double the salaries.
Double the salaries. People would place a higher
value on what teachers do if they made more money.
Ifu had to pick one thing that would increase
the prestige of teaching it would have to be an
 -increase i n the -sal ari es .

Occupational status is one of the most widely studied aspects of

the social stratification system in America. Most studies derive from
research conducted by the National Opinion Research Center. Since that
time other studies have found a "high degree of stability in occupational
prestige " (Coleman and Rainwater, 1978 ; Inkeles and Rossi, 1956; Hodge,
Seigel, and Rossi, 1964; Hodge, Treiman and Rossi, 1966). In most studies of
occupational status, teachers rank well below other well recognized
professions (physicians, pharmacists, lawyers, and so on) and in the lower
third of white-collar occupations. In a ranking system that gave status
scores as high as 583 and as low as 30, Coleman and Rainwater found high
school teachers had a rating of 131, or just barely abcpe, "the lowest
level of managerial. . .and kindred workers." (p. 61)1 Status-sensi-
tive teachers are troubled by their low salary and by the relatively low
level of prestige that their salary reflects.

The social standing of teachers may be further threatened by the

growing public dissatisfaction with education in general and teachers in
particular. Over thelpast eight years, for example, there has been a
gradual decline in parents' confidence regarding the quality of public
schooling in America. In 1974, 65 percent of parents with school-age
children gave a grade of A or B to-indicate what they thought was the
quality of American schools. By 1981, that percentage had fallen to
36%. (Gallup, 1981; Dearman and Plisko, p. 108) The reasons for the
decline in public confidence have not been studied in depth so its exact
causes are not-know. However, scholars, critics, and the popular press
frequently cite such reasons as the prolonged national decline in
achievement test scores; the steady rise in educational expenditures;
the escalation of school crime; the advertised failure of great society
programs designed to improve educational quality, and an increase in
teacher militancy. For the first time, the 1980 Gallup Poll reported
that a majority of Americans would be displeased if a child of theirs
decided to become a public school teacher.

Teachers we interviewed were aware of their flagging image in the

community and were disturbed that the public didn't understand the problems
teachers face or appreciate what they took to be the real accomplishments
of the schools. As one teacher told us:

I don't think the average person knows what a teacher

does. If I brought someone in [ to my class and he3
knew the content, he would still have a rough time
physically and mentally doing the job. .Teaching is
.

a physical and mental strain. It's exhausting.

Many teachers felt that the Public held unrealistic expectations:

1
Coleman and Rainwater included the term"professional workers" in the above
quote. We have deleted that term because we could not find any "professions"
in the list of occupations they studied that had scores below 130.

204
222
 Parents are demanding too much . the whole'society is
. .

demanding too much from the classroom teacher. We're

not gods. We can't take a child that doesn't have it
between the ears, a child that was born with poor genes,
and make [him or her] pass a literacy test. We can't
do that. Let's face it, we're not paid what we deserve
to be paid. We have a lot of responsibility and they're
demanding too much of us. When we ask for a raise they
say, "Are you kidding?" Now if we grovel for a while
they may give us a raise. Another prbblem is the
'student-teacher ratio. Teachers have talked about it,
it's been in the papers, and everyone knows'that . ..

if [Link] students to progress you've got to lower

that ratio. You can't have 38 kids in an English class
and do a great job teaching writing. You just can't do
it. That's one of the reasons for teacher burn-out.
We have too many students.

Teachers explained that they felt squeezed between the high

expectations of the public and working conditions thatmade it impossible
to accomplish what the public expected. Some teachers believed that the
criticisms that had been directed toward the school would be better direct-
ed toward the home:

They're demanding too mAch of teachers and,not giving

them enough. I'm not saying we don't have respect. . .

I feel I'm respected in this community, but in the

newspapers and all we've lost a lot of respect. They
blame the, teachers because students don't do well on
their tests. You see we'regetting the blame when
a lot of tfie blame should be placed on the home.
There needs to be a lot more demanded of the home
and less demanded of the teachers. Give us less
students and then see what we can do. Pay us more,
pay us as professionals, and let administrators treat
us as professionals and then see what we can do.

The concerns that teachers shared with us give poignant meaning to

the data collected by the National Education Association in a recent
national survey of teacher opinion. Teachers were asked to indicate the
forces and factors that had had a negative effect on their job satisfaction.
Well over 50 percent of teachers surveyed indicated that the public's
attitude toward school, the treatment of education by the media, student
attitudes toward learning, teacher salaries, and the status of teachers
in the community had had a negative effect on their professional morale.
(See Table 52.)

Teachers come to their work with aspirations for vertical mobility

but find little opportunity for advancement in their chosen profession.
They come with the hope that they will earn an adequate income, but they
find that their salaries barely keep pace with inflation and that the pay
of many blue-collar wbrkers equals or exceeds their own. They come with
the expectations that white-collar work will afford them a respectably

205
223
 q

Table 52

Job Satisfaction: Opinions of Public [Link]*

"Each of the following afects teacher morale. Has each

had a positive or negative effect on your job satisfaction?"

Public attitudes
toward school

Treatment of
education by
the media

Student attitude
toward learning

Salary

Status of teachers
in the community I

Stddent-behavior

Class size

20 40 60 80 100

Percent who responded that item had negative eff,ect

on morale

More than half of all teachers believed that salary, community and media
attitudes, teachers' status and student attitudes towards learning had a
negative effect on their job satisfaction. Salary had a more negative
effect in the South than in other regions. In nearly every category,
secondary school teachers were more likely than teachers of other levels
.to respond that an item had a negative effect.
*Source: Dearmin & Plisko, 1982:

206
224
high status in the community, but they find that their prestige is damaged
by the decline of public confidence in education. These circumstances
cause status panic in many teachers, damage their self-esteem, and-
diminish their commitment to education. It would appear that teachers
fit 'Beth Vanfossen's description of white-collar workers:

White-collar workers perform necessary work activities

and [Link] to the running of bureaucracies. But
they lack decision-making power and work autonomy. Their
jobs are relatively secure, but dead-end. Their incomes
are sufficient, but minimal. They have to be gregarious
and sociable to please both bosses and clients, yet they
receive little recognition for their placating functions.
They-teach:their children to get along with others and'to
get an education, for it is in these two ways that they
themselves moved away from their blue-collar origins.
Theirslevels of, self-esteem are higher than in the blue-
collar stratum, yet they are more prone to a chronic
dissatisfaction with their jobs, their incomes, and
life in general. ,They neither prosper nor perish. They
truly are the epitome of the middle-class. (1979, p. 324)

The teaching profession is not providing individuals with the financial

and psycho1ogiCa1 support they need to sustain them in their work. As a
result, the numben of people being drawn to teathing is declining,and the
quality of people entering the profession is declining as well. In 1973
there' were 191,172 education degrees conferred in the United States. Ty
1980 that number had fallen to 118,102. (See TableEa.) Between 1973 and
,1981 the scholastic aptitUde test scores of high school seniors who
aspired to teaching fell in the verbal area from 419 to 391 and in math
from 449 to 418. (See TableE4.)

It should not surprise us, given the conditions discussed so far in

the chapter, that there has been a catastrophic drop in the degree of
satisfaction teachers report they find in their work: When a national
survey of teachers asked, "Suppose you could go back to your college days
and start over again; in view of your present knowledge, would you become
a teacher?" Only 25 percent of female teachers and 16 percent of male
teachers indicated that education would certainly be their career choice.
(See Table 55.)

Status-Panic and Teacher Isolation

We might expect that the common problems teachers face would promote
unity and cooperation within their ranks. We did not find that to be
,the case in most of the schools we studied. We found little evidence
that teachers were united by the problems they shared. We found almost
no evidence that teachers worked to bolster one another's flagging self-
esteem. Instead, we found that teachers were generally isolated from one
another and received little recognition from either colleagues or adminis-
trators. Some teachers complained that they were ignored, but no one we

.207

.. 225
 Table 53

Earned Bachelor's Degrees'in Education*

Number, in thousands

200-

180 -

160 -

140-

120 -

100 -

80-

60-
gm.
paw
40-

20 -

0
1
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
School year ending

Female t---1 Male

II recipients recipients

Among bachelor's degree recipients, the number of graduates in education

rose in the early 1970's and then declined through the remainder of the
decade. Of these graduates, the proportion of females decreased more
sharply than the proportion of males.

'Source: National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of

Education. 1982 Edition. U.S. Dept of Education, Washington, D.C.
208

226
 Table 54
\\

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) Score Averages'for College-Bound Seniors*

SAT Verbal Means

Mean score
500 -

450 -

400 -

350 -

300 -

1973 1975 1977 1979 1.981

Year

SAT Math Means

Mean score
500

450 -

400 -
Pi
350 -

300 -

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981

Year

ICollege-bound seniors College-bound seniors intending

to major in education

From 1973 to 1981, the national mean SAT verbal and math scores dropped from
445 and 481 to 424 and 466, respectively. During the same time period, among
college-bound seniors who intended to major in education, SAT verbal scores
decreased from 418 to 391 while math scores dropped from 449 to 418.
Source: Dearmin & Plisko, 1982.

209

227
 Table j5

Attitudes Toward the Teaching Profession:

Opinions of Public School Teachers*

"Suppose you could go back to your college

days and start over again; in view of
your present knowledge, would you become
a teacher?"
Percent of respondents
expressing "certainly would"
Percent
80 -
80-
60 -
,,Female
40 -
Ma Te-
60- 20 -

Certainly would
O. 1

1961 1966 1971 1976 1981

40-
Probably would 80 -

60- Elementary
20 - Chances are about even .

40- ec o n d alzf" -
1.
I.
20-
Proba y would

0 0 1 1 [ i_. I

1961 1966 71 1976 1981 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981

Yea Year

The proportion of teacherswho would choose the teaching profession if they had
a chance to start over declifled considerably from 1961 to 1981. Inwery year,
men were less likely than woMen to affirm their original choice, and
secondary teachers were less likely than elementary teachers to do so.
*Source: Dearmin & Plisko, 198
talked [Link] much hope that anything could be done to diminish teacher
isolation or promote a sense of community wilhin the schools:

I think this year I have suffered-from what they

call teacher burn-out. There is very, very little
recognition here. Even a dog needs to be patted
on the head, but we don't get that here. It Makes
you question whether it's worth it:

Another teacher told us that everyOne needs to be "told that he .

or she does something well." She wished that administrators would pay
attention to her accomplishments and'let her know on occasion that she
was "doing a good job with these kids." . She thought if she [Link]
"hear that twice a year" she would feel her job was North ft." She
went on to say that edministrators had "never been [in my class] to
really see what I've done and that hurts. ,You try, you really try and
you take your profession seriously. You don't just sit on the job. But
you,never hear anything except complaints about your mistakes. You never
hear anything that's worth while."

We asked another teacher what kinds of things might be done within

the school-to decrease her feelings of uncertainty and isolation. She
told us:

Well, [Link] don't-know-. -F-can!-t-realJy_put_my

finger on specific kinds of things. I just think-
you've got to have some kind of support for what
yourre trying to do.

Another teacher commented on the lack of support systems in her

school:

I th4nkther'e is a separation here that shouldn't

exist. But my general complaint is how quickly
administrators forget what it's actually like to
be working in classrooms. [Link] of the
problems and frustrating times that you go through.
They forget that you need some support and under-
standing and it's very seldom. .%that you have
someone who's genuinely interested[ in what you're
"doing] and willing to lend you an ear and listen
to your problems

Teachers appear to be especially frustrated by administrators'

lack"of recognition for their hard work and accomplishments. One teachel
told us that her husband was encouraging her to leave teaching:

He sees how much teachino has devastated me over

the years, and it has. A lot of these kids can
break your heart. And he says I don't get much
reward from teaching. I guess he's right, we
certainly don't get much from the front office.

211
 We might get a pat on the back at a faculty meeting
when the principal says, "You all have done a terrific
job." But nobody comes in and says, "Thanks for stopping
the riots at'the basketball game." That was-something
I did this year. AnCno-one says; "Thanks for letting- 4
us know that such and such was going on." And no one
says, "We think you're doing a terrific job." I ddn't
know of anybody in the schools who has ever gotten
that kind of recognition.

If it is true, as John Rawls and others contend, that recognition

from significant others is necessary for the establishment and maihtenance
of %elf-esteem, then teachers' self-esteem is put in jeopardy by the
general lack of administrative and'collegial support. (Rawls, 1971,
1). 441.) A teacher understated this point when she told us, "It's
awfully nice to get feedback from outside of yourself." The literature
from social psychology and sociology which bears on self-esteem would
suggest that it is not simply nice to have others evaluate one's work
-positively, it is essential to the maintenance of professional self-
respect. Because teachers have difficulty assessing their classroom
accomplishments and receive little recognition from the community,
colleagues, or administratots, their professional self-esteem is put
in a state of continual jeopardy. Teachers' anxiety concerning their
professional competence is heightened by a value system that links
self-esteem with salary and social standing. Dedicated to the ethics
and vertical mobility, teachers are discouraged to see their social
standing in the community beginning to slip and their relative-economic
advantages being eroded. They are simultaneously angered and saddened
td see the failures of the school system the subject of political debate,
telpvision expoS1s, -[Link] magazine cover stories.

If teachers are the products Of the best middle-class valves, then

they are also victims of this value system. We-heed-not believelhat
teachers deserve the grim description ofl"white-collar-Man"--offered by
t. Wright Mills:

He is more often pitiful than tragic, as he is

.seen collectively, fighting impersonal inflation,
living out in slow misery his yearning for the
quick American climb. He is pushed by forces
beyond his control, pulled into movements he does
not understand; he gets into situations in which
his is the most helpless position. The white-
collar man is the hero as yittim, the small
creature who is acted upon but who does not act,
who works along unnoticed in somebody's office
or store,'never talking loud, never talking back,
never taking.a stand. (1951, p. xii)

It would be an error to apply this Babbitt-like description to

teachers. As we observed in their classrooms, shared their ideas and
frustrations during long conversations, spoke with their administrators
and students, we never thoughtwe were in the presence of Philistines or ,-

.0

212

230
 4

the children of Willie Loman. But we didrantinually sense that the

teachers were confused and worried about tt'hir self definition. Like
most middle-class Americans they 'desired to be successful but had diffi-
culty finding tangible signs of their success. They worked long hours,
facing sometimes'more than 150 students a day. They planned lessons,
taught classes, counseled students, attended meetings, sponsored clubs,
corrected papers, filled out forms, wrote report cards, coached sports,
talked with parents, and much more, and yet they-had'little way of
knowing whether all this work amounted to anything. They are ikeepers
of the American dream, strivers, carriers of middle-class values, but
they have no product to call their own. They are unsure of their
accomplishments on the, classroom level and are unsupported by colleagues
and the community. In this sense they are victims of the values they hold.
[Link] difficulty reconciling their actual achievements with their
personal expectations.

Michael Lewis (1978) contends that most middle-class Apricans are

frustrated by the mtsmatch between actual achievements and personal
'expectations. As he explains:

If our quest of self-respect leads ds to high

aspirations, the chances are very great that
in the overwhelming majority of cases there
will be considerable difference between what
we,think we [Link] of and what it is we ft
actually seem to be achieving. And if the
maintenance of self-respect depends upomnot
only great expectations but great expectations
realized; then such disparities are likely to
pose a major threat to the-self-esteem of many
Americans. (p. 15 )

,
Lewis contends that aspirations by themselves are relatively
unproblematic. However, "convincing ourselves that we have indeed been
successful--that our dreams have been realized and [Link] we
may respect outselves--is extremely pro6lematic." (p, 15 ) The aspira-
tions of teacheri encourage them to lay claim to "the good life" and to
personal achievement. But as Lewis has pointed out, those same values
make "any perceived failure. .a threat'of significant psychological
.

force to our self-esteem." Failure, or the hint of failure, in fact

anything but the absolute assurance that our accomplishments haves
exceeded our aspirations, "threatens our self-esteem by caysing ds to
doubt our character, our competence, or quite possibly botR. To the
extent. .
.that our aspirations go unrealized (whatever the reason),
we are threatened and troubled by personal guilt. Fearing that we have
done less than we should, we..are all top frequently haunted by the sense
that we have done ill." (p. 17) Teachers are so haunted. They posses,s
no personal [Link] means of,exorcising the ubiquitous worny
that they have failed to fulfill their own middle-class success aspira-
tions.. They are particularly vulnerable to the self-doubt and status
panic that characterize many white-collar workers.

213
231
 A

The Psychological Functions of Teacher Isolation

feachers generallY work albne, out of sight of colleagues, and

this isolation no doubt contributes to their competence uncer*Inties.
Withoft colleague contact teachers can gain no meaningful peer support
and no Consensual4standard of pradtice (Lortie, 1975'.

The teachers we spoke with were aware of their professional

isolatiod and many were troubled by the insular nature of their work.
"I wish I had the opportunity tb go around to other classes," said one
teacher. '"I want to observe other teachers." She felt she courd learn
from her peers. Another feacher [Link] was sorry that "we don't help
each other out [in this school]." A third teacher'complained that she
hadn't

gotten a lot of support frompeople [tin her school].

You ask them to ti'y tb help you do ,something,and they
say, "I really don't have the time." They're leaving
at 3:15 or 3:30 instead of ,4 quarter to four. They :

go home,and they don't take anything with'them. And ,

they won't help anybody'do anything. . .."

If teacher isolation has [Link], it also has its functions.

Staying out of the view of others protects a teacher'from the interfer-
ence of colleagues and from further threats to an already shaky self-
elteem. One techer told us thdt her schbol offered no orientation for
new teachers. She said-she had been teachidg for four months at her
school before she learned that instructional materials were available for
teacher use in-the school Library. "It wasn't until after the new year
that I [learned] that,I could go'down and get Taterials[from the
library] instead of spending mery,night developing my ownA," We asoked,
this teacher why none of her colleagues helped'her. She answered, "It's
each man for himself.°

While the new teacher just quoted was inconvenienCed by her

isolation'frbm colleagues, she assured us that she was not complaining 4
about being left alone. "I'd rather stay on my owri," she explained,
because "I'm not the type of perton who is cliquish." She wanton to
say that she felt more comfortable being left to her own devices even
though it meant,that she occasionally had to do extra work andlive with
the knowledge that, as she put 'it,."nobody really cared enough"'to help
AM(
her out. This teacher felt there was greater safety behind the closed
door of her classroom than there would be in the more open world of
cooperation.

,Another teacher said that she was not bothered by "the loneliness
of teaching" because, as she put it, "I'm basically a Toner anyway. .May-
be that helpSs."

1?
'We asked a middle school teacher if he had 'ever talked to_hts peers :
; About common concerns and problems. "No," he answered, "because I never
felt the need to do that. .When I leave[ the classroom] I leave my problems
.

°to

214

232
 and try to settle them when I get back." Sharing problems, he explained,
was a sign of uncertainty,.and he assured us that he-was "not a wish9-
washy person." He went on to say that he never saw his [Link]
because, "It's usuallY been my policy that my social life and my school'
life are two different things. [They are] geared differently."

Isolation places a buffer between teachers and potential threats

to their self-esteem. It serves to simplify the psychological life of
teachers. One teacher told us that she was glad that she:did not social-
ize with her fellow, teachers because,isolation allowed her to avoid "the
gossip and the problems that teachers probably. . .have with each Other.
I'm sure there are peisonality conflicts,but I don't know about them.
because I'mnot in,on it."

Of course [Link] are bothered by the insular nature of

their work. One teacher complained that her colleagues were work,ng
"in their own little world. Everybody is doing their own thing and no-
body is helping anybody else." As a consequence, she explatned, the school
becomes atomized and the educational enterprise hopelessly sejMented.
"Nobody is working together ['with colleagues] to make this a whole school.
I don't think a school can be effective that way. We're all in the boat
together,andLit's sinking." The teacher felt personally powerless to
effect a change in teacher relationships. She said that the habit of
isolation was so embedded in teadiers that only the-principal would have
the power to break the norms of non-interference: "I just think the
administration. . Aeeds to be strong. I think the administration has
got to try to foster.[ teacher. cooperation]."

Another teacher at the same school explaiged why colleagues did

not cooperate:

We have the chance,but we don't do it. I don't

do it that much. I don't know why that is. I
.
.think it would embarrass us if we hadn't
.

thought of an idea ourselves and had to get it

from another teacher.

In other words, merely rkeiving help from a colleague can be threatening

to the shaky professional self-esteem of the teacher. Isolation protects
individuals from the burden of such threats.

The isolation of teachers and its attendant ideology of non-

interference mitigate against teachers offering [Link] a colleague even
when it is clear that the colleague is in need'of help (McPherson,
1972). A high school department chairperson explained, "When teachers
are having trouble, the rest of us generally ignore it. You can't come
in. . .and tell teachers what they should be doing.
I mean you can't.
You cannot do it as a co-worker.'

If getting inspiration fr)m other teachers is threatening, keeping

information to one's self can be self-assuring. An individual's pride in
teaching a successful lesson may ne diminished if other teachers have

215

233
similar successes with the same material. If successful materials get
passed around the school, a teacher may find their usefulness diminished
because students coming into the class may have "already learned that
stuff" in a previous course. This may explain why a teacher reported
that she waS unsuccessful when she asked [Link] some helpful
suggestions:

Anybody's input would [have been] a help. If

hey-would-just-share-some-of-the things they
have tried. But you knovii teachers get hold of
a good idea and instead of sharing it, they
hoard it. A lot of teachers are that way. They
get some material and hoard it and won't let you
see it. But I need some ideas and materials.
I'm dying for information.

While it may be irue, as we suggested in the last chapter, that

teacher insularity heightens self-doubt by depriving teachers of collegial
support, it also appears that isolation from peers is a consequence of
teacher uncertainty. An analysis of ethnographic interview data gives
warrant to the hypothesis that teachers respond to the uncertain nature
of their profession by promoting an ideology of non-interference in one
another's classrooms. Teachers avoid asking for help from or offering
help to their colleagues and thereby lessen their vulnerability to
negative evaluations from their peers. If an uncertain teacher keeps
'his uncertainties and successes to himself, he can legitimately expect
others tá di-the same.

The Organizational Function of Teacher Isolation

The psyéhological function of teacher insularity is to assuage

the several uncertainties that teachers face; the social functioh of insu-
laTty is to decrease institutional disruption when. teachers. are absent, .

quit, or transfer to other schools. If teachers are self-contained and

self-sufficient then no teacher or group of teachers becomes indispensable
to the smooth operation of the school. Every teacher is a unit unto him
or herself, and all units are functionally interchangeable. New teachers
need little orientation and their efficiency does not require long
initiation periods, learning the ropes, or building close relationships
with colleagues.

We asked an experienced teacher how her colleagues [Link]

her if they were being candid. Although she has worked in the school
for over a year, she was unable to answer the question:

I think the majority of faculty don't know I'm

here. The principal never introduced me. He
would introduce teacher aidesand interns [from
the university],but he never introduced me. I
kidded him[ about that] one day,and I was sure

aft

216

234
 I.

[he would introduce me] at the next faculty meeting,

but he never did. I don't know if he just thought
I was always here or what. I really don't know the
answer to that, but it was rather strange. There
are some teachers here I don't even know the names
of.

The principal may have breached a rule of'etiquette,but he

violated no organizational imperatives-when-he-fa-i-led-to-introduce
the new'teacher to his faculty. At that particular school it Was
not necessary that teachers know one another. The aidesmight serve
many teachers, and so they needed to be known,and interns might be
mistaken for students so they needed to be identified: But teachers
work by themselves and can easily be replaced. Of course teachers
vary in personality and instructional methods, but the insularity
of teaching assures that individuality and personality are not of
central importance to the school's operation.

When we'aiked another teacher at the same school how her peers
would describe her, she answered:

I don't know, I don't know. [At my last school]

I was very, very popular with the faculty and fairly
popular with the studentS. The day I left students
stood in front of my car and said thaft'IJii have to
run over them if I planned to leave. I was very
popular with the fdalty at thatS-Eh-6-61. But-here,
I don't know. . .I don't think they Icnow whether
I'm here or not.

Teacher isolation functions to deprive teachers of [Link] to

influence school-wide decisions that affect the conditions of their work.
If teachers do not often speak of common problems, they are not likely'
to object to decisions that have a negative impact on their work.
Administrative decisions can be made at the top, by principals, county
administrators, or state officials without faculty consultation. Many
teachers we talked to were disturbed by what they perceived to be their
powerlessness within the organization of the school. One teacher said:

I think there is too much of a separation between the

administration and. . .classroom teachers. [Adminis-
trators lack]-actual feelings for [ and an] understand-
ing of what goes on in the classroom.

The interviewer probed for further informatiln by repeating the

teacher's comment, "So you have the impression that administrators at
this school don't know what's going on in the classroom?" -The teacher
responded, 'Yes. Sometimes I have the feeling they don't care, either."

'A second teacher told us, "I haven't ever been involved in a school
where I had much say-so.". A third teacher complained:

217.

235
 Teachers aren't consulted as much as they should be
by the county officials or school administrators. A
lot of decisions that I don't agree with don't orig-
inate at this school. For example, I don't think we
NN should test 10th graders [on the Basic Skills test]
but that's not a school decision; that comes from the
ttate. And the administrators at this school didn't
decide to spread the Basic Skills classes among
teachers, thatyias a county decision.

When decisions are made in far-off administrative offices and

the rationale for decisions is not shared withfaculty, some teachers
begin to feel manipulated. They suspect the decisions serve the
administrative conveniente of the bureaucracy rather than the interests
of students or the teachers themselves. For exa ple, in 1980 a county
decision was made to have most math and English teachers take one or
)
two Basic Skills classes rather than giving Bas;Ic Skills assignments to
a few specialized instructors. Teachers claimed they were not consulted
on this issue. Because Basic Skills classes were small, the effect of
the decision was to increase the number of preparations for most teachers
while decreasing the total number of pupils each teacher met in a day:

The county decided to spread Bas/ic Skills classes

across many teachers [[Link] had] to lower
teacher-student ratios. They 'increased the work
of individual teachers,but theY lowered the students-
to-teacher ratio of each teacher. [The results]
looked good on papen but theY hurt the effectiveness
of teachers. The administration didn't stop to
think what [their dedision] did to people. Some
teachers just teach one Basic Skills class and
that's ridiculbus. All the preparation they have
to do to get ready to teach [that one class] takes
time away from their other classes. Part of the
administration's motivation was political,and part
of it was sheer laziness.

It would make more sense if we could figure out .

our own assignments within a department. We know

more. They could give us the classes [that needed
to be taughtland the periods when those classes
should meet. We could figure out the rest. But
administrators insist on making the decisions,
and they mess them up.

Anotherteacher commented on the same issue:

Too many teachers are teaching Basic Skills classes.

NowE administrators] do that for some reason. The
first being that they believe that no teacher wants
to teach three or four Basic Skills classes. That's,

218
236
 true up to a point. But their real concern is, 1
to lower our teacher-student ratio. If we teach ,

six classes with 35 or more students, our student-

teacher ratio is high. But if they throw in one or
two Basic Skills classes where there are only 10 or
15 students, theylower our student-teacher ratio
substantially. That lodks good on paper. They want
to stay below the recommended level of 150 students
per teacher.

As a result, we have four teachers teaching llth grade

Basic Skills. We don't have sufficiemt materials for
all teachers so we have to do a lot of trading back
and forth. One of the teachers is not even housed in
this department so there is a physical problem of
transferring materials. It's hard for us to get
together to plan and share.

Some teachers express frustration over their inability to influ-

ence the decision-makinaprocess. One teacher told us, "We are some2
times consulted, but it never seems to matter." Another teacher had a
similar complaint:

We talk [ with administrators] to a cdrtain extent,

but I don't know that anybody listens. You tell
your department head and he can pass it on to the
principal, but it doesn't help. The administration
starts,planning and they don't think about our
problems. They have problem's of their own.

This study did not include an analysis of administrative activities,

and we cannot attest to the accuracies or inaccuracies of teacher percep-
tions about administrators. The point being made here is simply that
teacher insularity may increase teacher powerlessness and administrative
autonomy. -As a result many teachers feel alienated from their peers, from
the administration, and from the process of education itself:

We have our little secret pals [ at this school],and

we do little things together, but bdcause the adminis-
tration is not really with us. . .we're not together
[as a faculty]. I don't know what would bring us
together. We feel so beaten down.

Many teachers complained that they were not accorded the respect
they deserve by administrators. They considered themselves to be pro-
fessionals and were offended when they were treated like functionaries
within a bureaucracy or like children who were not to be trusted. We
were at one school on a teacher work day after students had been dismissed
for the summer. Teachers were cleaning their classrooms while the
assistant principal reminded them frequently over the PA system that they
were not allowed to leave the school until their grades had been turned
in and their rooms had been checked for cleanliness. They were informed
that someone would come to their classes to check each of their file
drawers and desks to make sure that everything was clean. A teacher
commented:

I've taught at a lot of schools and nobody has

ever looked into my desk drawers, never. I feel
it's rather an intrusion. They're saying I'm
not professional.

The biggest [problem at this school] is that we're

being treated unprofessionally. We're talked down
to. We're asked our opinion,but we know that it
isn't going to make any difference. We'll get
talked down to at faculty meetings. If a teacher
has done something wrong, tben [the administra-
tion] should tell that teacher. But the whole
faculty shouldn't [Link] be lectured to.

Just as not all teachers were cognizant of or particularly disturbed

by their isolation from peers, not all teachers are conscious of or offend-
ed by the fact that they are sometimes treated "unprofessionally." For
example, we were interviewing a high school English and art teacher when
the principal walked into her classroom. The conversation between the
teacher and the administrator went as follows

Principal: You know I won't check you out until

that art room is clean. (The principal
turns to leave.)

Teacher: But wait, wait, wait. I still have some

art materials to store in there. I put
some stuff in there yesterday. When I
did, Herman* said . . . .

Principal: (The principal interrupts.) Herman

don't know,how to clean out stuff [sic].
He's not responsible, I am.

Teacher: But he's my boss . . . .

Principal: No, I'm your boss, sweetie.

Teacher: But I asked Herman, "Can I just leave this

stuff here [in the art room]?" He said,
"Yes, you just leave it here."

Principal: No. The answer to that question is no.

Wait !til I hit his office.

Teacher: Well, he's not here.

*Names have been changed throughout this report.

220

238
 Principal: If he wants his paycheck he'll have to
get checked out. If I don't check him
out, he doesn't get his pay check. If
he wants to wait until the end of the
summer, that's fine. I'm just saying
that the room has to be cleaned out
and that is his responsibility.

Teacher: But he's not here. If you can give me

the key I'll take some more stuff up there
after I've finished my grades. What
should I do, put all that stuff in a box?

'Principal: I don't want you to "eave that stuff in

the front room.

Teacher: Oh, I thoughtyou were talking about the

art room.

No, that's fine as long as it's locked

up. But the front room is your respon-
sibility. You use it all the time and
it's filthy. Clean it up. You and
Herman both.

Teacher: Oh, you mean the room that has all those
boxes?

Principal: Boxes and art material and all that other

stuff that needs to be put a'Way in the
back.

Teacher: Well, if Herman's not here, I'm just

going to throw it away.

Principal: Don't throw away the art material. Give

it to Reggie and let her lock it up for
next year.,

Teacher: 0. K., I can handle that. Where are you

going to be?

Principal: I'll be around.

Teacher: But I have to get into the room to put

away the art material.

Principal: I'll be around. (The principal exits.)

 Uncertainty? Isolation and Alienation

Erich Fromm has suggested that when individuals doubt their

professional competence, their social status, and self-worth, an avail-
able haven from anxiety is found in conformity to authority (l963,
pp. 151-163). The English/areteacher we quoted above did not indicate
to us that she was affronted by the attitude of her principal. She
merely wanted to understand the lines of authority and clarify what was
expected of her. Insofar as teacher isolation sets individuals adrift
to deal with their own status insecurities and competence worries, it
will promote in many an urge to conform to-prevailing norms and to avoid
questioning the assumptions on which those norms are based. They find
security in their acceptance Of the status quo and acquiescence to the
institutional pressure to conform. As one teacher put it, "I guess some
feel that they should not rock the boat, They should just go along with
things and forget,about it."

As we have seenmany teachers were bothered by their inability

to influence administrative decisions, but others accepted their
relative powerlessness with adaptive good grace. For example, we asked
a teacher what might be done to increase morale at this school. He
answered:

I can't think of anything. These questiOns are

hard to answer; they are things you don't think
about very often."

When'we asked the sve question of another teacher, she replied,

"I would rather not get into,that. I just won't get into that."
Another teacher commented, "I don't feel as if I'm a part of a team. I

feel decisions are being made someplace else." When we asked if this
state of affairs was bothersome, the teacher replied:

I guess I never thought about a question like that

before. I'm sure that if there was a way I could
better the program, I think I would be listened
to. But,as it stands now, I am just kinda doing
what I'm told to do.

At Jeast for some teachers, the combination of professional uncertain-

ty, status panic, lack of recognition, and isolation appeari to engender
an attitude'of unreflective acceptance and quiet conformity. In their
eagerness to find security in an uncertain professional world, they take
care not to rock the boat and notAo offend colleagues, parents, or
supervisors. When asked what is'needed to,improve teacher morale or
'performance, they are stymied by the questfon. IT pushed, they might
suggest that teachers work harder or that administrators "get tough with.
incompetent faculty." They do not suggest changes in the organizational
structure of the school and rarely recommend that teachers work more
closely together in order to solve common problems. They have reified
what they call'"the system" and do not think it is in their power
(individually or collectively) to change how that system works. They may

222
240
fl_

be dissatisfied with teaching, but they trace the cause of that

dissatisfaction to failure of students or flaws in themselves and
not to social troubles within the system itself. They share no
collective consciousness with their fellow teachers and no communal
vision of their professional task. They are unable to achieve what
C. Wright Mills once called a "lucid summation of what is going on in
the world and what may be happening within themselves." (1959, p. 5)

Our discussions with teachers convinced us that for many tile

conditions of their employment promote an attitude of non-involvement,
uniformity, and acceptance of the status quo. It engenders feelings of
insecurity, status panic, and self-protection through isolation. These
are conditions that promote a form-of alienation that social_psychologists
have called self-estrangement.

Self-estrangement refers to a loss of meaningful connection between

the worker and his work. According to Robert Blauner, "When an individual
lacks control over the work process and a sense of purposeful connection
to the work enterprise, he may experience a kind of depersonalized de-
tachment rather than an immediate involvement in the job task." (1964,
p. 27)

iMany of-the teachers we talked with and observed-claimed-that_their

profession was not fulfilling their needs or tapping-their potentials.
One teacher lamented that she had completed college in the early 1960's:

If I were today's woman, I wouldn't be sitting here

right now,and I'm not sure I'll be sitting here two
or three years from now. I don't remember ever
making a conscious decision to be a teacher, never.
I was a history major and ., . I was going to
either go to law ,school or get a Ph.D. in history.
I was offered a full tuition scholarship for a
Ph.D. in history. I just picked up those education
courses to have that teaching certificate. I never
intended to end up here . . . .

Another teacher said that if she had it to do over she would not
become a teacher again because, "I have capacities that I haven't
tapped, that can't be tapped in teaching."

To these individuals, 'and many of their colleagues, teaching"provides

only a weak sense of accomplishment, satisfaction or success. They are
estranged from their work and from themselves. They feel they have given
up an'essential part of themselves to pursue a task that provides little
professional recognition, social status, remuneration, or personal
satisfaction. They do not realize themselves through their work and are
haunted by the knowledge that they have not become all that they once
hoped to be. They form a negative occupational identity that threatens
their already beleaguered self-esteem. Blauner discussed the connection
between a lack of job satisfaction dnd self-identity:

223
241
 Self-estranging work Compounds and intensifies [the]
problem of a negative occupational identity. When
work provides opportunities for control, creativity,
and challenge -- when, in a word, it is self-expressive
and enhances an individual's unique potentialities --
then it contributes to the worker's sense of self-
respect and dignity and at least partially overcomes
the stigma of low status. Alienated work -- without
control, freedom, or responsibility -- on the other
hand, simplY confirms and deepens the feeling that ,

1 societal estimates of low status and little worth are

valid. (1964, p. 31)

_We_are not suggesting that all or even most teachers are estranged
from their work or themselves. We are intead suggespng that the pressures
of isolation, status panic, uncertainty, and non-recognition make it
difficult for teacher's to [Link] estrangement. We havr tried to show
that professional isolation is promoted by the physical anc. ocial organi-
zation of Reny sthools and by a social-psychological milieu of non-Inter-
ference that dominates the work place. The psychology of individual e
teachers also promotes insularity because isolation offers some protection
against the uncertainties of their profession. Under such pressures it
is difficult for teachers to maintain high efficacy attitudes for any
students, let-alone_for_the_most tumbled, low achievers [Link] clas5-
rooms.

The aim of this chapter was to place the activities and uncertain-
ties of teachers within the context of a middle-class value system that
promotes that social mobility and personal achievement within the context
,of a social oi-ganization that puts a limit on teacher income and status,
provides little tangible evidence of educational achievement, promotes
non-involvement, isolation, and powerlessness.
 CHAPTER 9

A Qualitative Study of Efficacy: Introduction

Problems in the Study of Efficacy

In every day parlance, the word "efficacy" is defined as the

capacity to produce a desired effect. Efficacy is synonymous with
effectiveness. Within the social sciences, there has been a growing
interest in individuals' perceptions of efficacy. Persons with a
high sense of efficacy see themselves as capable of achieving 5ome
specified goal. For example, teadhers with positive efficacy atti-
tudes express and display the belief that they can positively affect
student learning. It has been hypothesized that educators who possess
a positive sense of efficacy are the most effective teachers (Armor
et al.,1976; Bermanet al., 1977). The task of the present research
is to determine how, such a hypothesis cap be best studied.

A literature review and our own preliminary research indicate

some of the complexities which plague the study of efficacy. A few
of these complexities are listed below.

-Teachers-with-a-positive-sense-of_efficacy_see-themselves
as capable of teaching and see students capable of learning. Thus ,

the study of teacher efficacy attitudes must probe four dimensions;

two dealing with teacher's perceived capacities and two dealing with
a teacher's perceptions of student capacities. (See Figure 7.)

Teacher's Perceptions of
his/her Own Capabilities

I am capable of I am incapable
teaching of teaching

Students are
\ Teacher capable Teacher incapable
0 capable of
\ cu Studentscapable A C Students capable
.r. learning
\ (flO 4)

Students are'
Teacher capable B Teacher incapable
incapable of
'Students incapable Students incapable
learning

Figure7: Teacher Efficacy Perceptions

1
As 'can be seen from Figtre7, teachers with a high sense of
efficacy ar^e those whd see themselves as capable of teaching and who

225'

243
 A

see students as capable of learning (Cell A). Efficacy attitudes ere

'soured by either a low perception of personal capacities or a loti
perception of student ,capacities (Cells B, C, and D).

2. Teacher efficacy attitudes may Aiffer depending on the

students with whom they work. An eduator who feels quite capable of -
teaching gifted students to soar to creative heights may feel incapable-
of helping low achieving students make even modest academic progress.
For the purposes of this study,, We have focused on efficacy attitudes
as they relate to low achieving, low socio-economic status (SES) students.

3. Perceptions of efficacy refer to attitudes which may or may

not bp related to teacher effectiveneSs. It is conceivable that a
teacher who reports a high [Link] efficacy, in fact, may not possess
the skills he believes he possesses. Converselyi a teacher who is
dissatisfied with her performance and doubts her capabilities, in-fact,
may be an .iffective teacher. Thus, a study of teacher effidacy percep-
tions must take into account possible differences betwe9n perceptions
of efficacy and a teacher's actual effectiveness in the"classroom.
(See Figure 8.)

4. We ask a great deal of teachers when we question them re-

garding efficacy. A teacher's efficacy perceptions are directly related
to his/her feelings of professional competence and self worth. Under-
standably, a teacher may hesitate to reveal that he feels ineffectivei
He may ftfde-this-perceptfon-from-an-lnvestigator ahd-perhaps-from him
self. ,Similarly, a teacher may be hesitant to reveal that she doubts
the learbing capacitiesof her low achieving, low. SES students. The-
professional ideology-of educators 'demands that no student be "written
off" as incapable of learningat least not on the basis of his or her
socio-economic background. All this being the case, it is riecessary to
study not only the professed beliefs of teachers but their professional
performance as well.

5. A teacher!s sense of effiaacy may vary depending on the

'objectives'under consideration. For example, a teacher [Link] capable
of teaching students to read but incapable of teaching them to compute.
Thus, the study of teacher efficacy necessitates a sensitivity to subject
matter objectives.

6. [Link] complexity involved in the study of efficacy is

related to the fifth.o A teacher's sense of personal efficacy is likely
to be affected by the objectives teachers set fur themselves. A teacher
may report an inflated sense of efficacy because he 'olds quite modest
(easily obtainable) objectives, while,another teacher may report a
deflated sense of efficacy because her objectives are quite high and
difficult to achieve. One teacher may feel effective because his studenti
love him, while another may feel ineffectiv_e because all of his students
are not reading oil grade level. As Dan Lortie observed, "the demanding
perfectionist will feel depressed by outcomes which cheer the more easy-
going colleague" (Lortie, 1975,p. 141 ).

226

244
 'gr..

Teacher Efficacy

High - Low
Efficacy Efficacy

High High Efficdcy4 Low Efficacy

;3
0 Effectiveness Low Effectiveness High Effectiveness
w-
4-
A C
LLJ

B B
W'
0 High Efficacy Low Efficacy
ms
w Effectiveness__ _Low Effectiveness Low Effectiveness
. .

\
'Figure 8: Teacher efficacy
perceptions and teacher effectiveness

227
245
 ,

7. It is a common misconcejytion that attitudes are the primary

cause of'behavior. While attitudes may cause behavior, the opposite
is a'ko Sometimes true. 'ror example, religious beliefs may "cause"
one to pray and go to church,ard praying and going to church may strength-
en one's religious beliefs. Or to use an example more relevant to the
present research, a positive sense of efficay may "cause" a teacher
to employ effective teaching behavior, and the employment of effective
teaching behavibrs may also affect a teacher's sense of efficacy.,

8. Fa4ors unrelated to a teachei''s attitudes and behavjors

'may affect what a teacher thinks and does. Student behavior,'for
example, may change a teacher's beliefs, as may the organization of the
school, the cliMate of the classroom, or the attitudes of fellow teachers.
A study of efficacy must be sensitive to these issues.

In Search of Methodology,

As we compiledlhe above list of complexities, it became clear

that the,study of efficacy did not lend itself to exclusive use of
traditiohal methodologies. The use of questionnaires and social psycho-
logical instruments would not by themselves unravel the mysteries of
.efficacy.. If efficacy was a transactive phenomenon as we expected it
to be, its'study would have to take place where relevant transactions,
were likely to occur--that is, in the classroom. We would have to
investigate the processes by,which efficacy attitudes are formed and
haveTtheiT-Influence-on-the behavW-Of- feather's, wild students. This ,
suggested the need to use the methodology of qualitative sociology.

What was significant for our purposes was, not &imply the study
Of individual_beliefs so much as the "moments of context" in which the
beliefs are translated info action and in which act4ons have an effect ,

on beliefs,. Thus our focus in the early stages of this study 4as not
to be on the teacher and his or her psychology but rather or the
reciprocal interaction of the teacher and the social environment of the
classroom. We understand that efficacy might show itself in many forms
and haye [Link]--both on the behavior of the teachei- and the
attitudes and behavior of the students--but we were looking for some
Minimal model of the teaching process that woulj account for efficacy
in all its forms.

In short, we were seeking a theory of teaEhihl-that was broad

enough to expdse and explain the behaviors teachers have in common
yet detailed enough to illuminate and .explicate deviations from the
norm. We nee&[Link] uncover thebasic social psychological processes .

alive in the teaching act,which- would serve to explain the wide vari-
.ations we finct in the behavior of public'school teachers. Of coprse,
such a theory of teaching would potentially involve much more than the
question of efficacy, but our focus would haveto be on the efficacy
issue. Theoretical cons'cructs. which did not bear on efficacy would
have to be put aside to await exploration at a later date.

228
246.
Grounded Theory

Social saience research has traditionally dedicated itself to

testing hypotheses and/or verifying established theories. While such
approaches are immensely useful, they are more likely to deepen our
knowledge than broaden it. An alternative to the testing of formal
theories is tO'develop,theories grodnded in empirical data of cultural
description, what Glasenand*Strauss have called grounded theory
(Glaser, 1978; Glaser ti Strauss, 1967). In this section of the report
we shall discuss how we used grounded theory to study teacher behavior,
not for [Link] of testing hypotheses from a predetermined theory,
but rather for the purpose of developing a conceptual framework for
understanding and explaining what takes place in public,school class-
rooms, given certain sets of circumstances. -

Our review of the literature revealed many theories of teaching

but no theory of classroom behavior which bore directly on the question
of efficacy. We agreed with Phyllis Stern (1980) that

the strongest case for the use of grounded theory is

in investigations of relatively uncharted waters, or to
gain a fresh persOective in a familiar situation. In
the first instance, it can easily be understood that
where no theory regarding &situation exists, it is,
impossible to test theory. It is especially helpful--
even necessary--in attempting to study complex areas of'
behavioral problems where salient variables have not
been identified. In the second instance, it becomes
clear that the value of a fresh perspective in a fami-
liar situation is in its applicability to practical
problems. (p. 20)

The study of teacher efficacy displayed both problems. While f

there are many studies of teaching, few of them shed much light on the
efficacy issue. Our research was seeking new information in familiar.
territory. We were aware that in the social sciences familiarity breeds
not so much contempt as it does blindness. Every Americap,is familiar
with the daily routines of classroom lif%but our taken for granted
assumptions about schooling can easily,blind us to subtle aspects of
the teaching Process.

Grounded theory offered a methodology for solving the multiple

problems which surround the study of efficacy. It is a form of field
methodology which aims to generate the theoretical constructs that help
us understand the social behavior under study. Ittallows for limited
intrusion by the investigator,and it differs from other methodologies
in important aspects: (1) Theory is generated from data rather than
from previous studies, although a review of pertinent literature is
an important component in theory f6rmation. (2) Grounded theory at-
tempts to discover and describe the essential social process alive in
a social situation. It does not merely describe what goes on but

229
24 7
attempts to develop a conceptual framewbrk for understanding and ex-
plaining social behavior. (3) The process of 'grounding' a theory
is intricate and cannot be adequately summarized in a brief intro-
duction. However, an essential component of grounded theory methodol-
ogy is that every piece of data is painstakingly compared with every ,

other piece of data. Conceptual formations grow from the data but are
then brought back to the data for further verification. (5) Grounded
theory does not proceed through a series of linear steps. Instead,
investigators work at several,research tasks at once. In the following
section, we will briefly de cribe some of the methods found useful in
grounded theory. However, 't is important to keep in mind that we have
() convenience of descr4ption. As Hutchinson
separated these steps for tha
(1979) describes it, "the processes of grounded theory are circular
rather than linear. That is, the researcher begins data collection,
proceeds through a number of steps, such as open coding, theoretical
sampling, memoing, sorting, identification of basic social psycholog-
ical processes, and then begins again." (p. 27)

Data-Collection'

Data collection in this phase of the study was conducted in two

middle schools in a Flortda community. The schools were organized quite
differently but were approximately the same size and served similar
populations. Observations were conducted in fourseparate classrooms
in each of the two schools. Data were collected from a variety of
sources; interviews, classrooni-observations, documents, test scores
and discussions with former teachers. Over a hundred hours of class-
room observ.,ation and interviews were completed in the first stage of
this research. Questionnaires were administered to over half of the
teacher population in both schools and extensive interviews were con-
ducted with eight teachers after the classroom observation process was
completed. Further data were collected during a day long workshop
in which participating teachers came together to discuss preliminary
findings of our research.

Coding
After each classroom observation,researchers returned to the
university to complete their field notes. These notes were typed.
Before our field work was completed we had amassed over two hundred
pages of protocol and interview material.

Protocols were typed on cards leaving a wide,left side margin.

A researcher was assigned to read the protocols and to code each inci-
dent with words that describe what the primary actor was doing. Our
coding focus was on teacher behavionand thus our codes were descrip-
tive of the educator's activity rather than student activity. Some
early codes included "giving up," "ignoring," "managing," "lecturing,"
"stigmatizing," and so on. By staying close to the data and using
codes that described only what was clearly going on, the researcher

230
24
 guarded against imposing preconceived interpretations on protocal data.
Codes were written in the margin of the protocols,and all incidents
received a code.
,
1

As codes were developed, the researcher began to develop a defi-

nition of each code. This was done by returning to the data and insur-
ing that incidents that received the same code shared important char-
acteristics. Codes were compared with other codes. In this process
some codes were dropped, other codes were established, and a clearer
description of each code began to emerge.

As the researcher began to mass a large number of codes (we had

over 200 in the early stages of the coding process), a re-examination
of the codes was undertaken. The researcher asked.a series of questions
of each code. The objectives of these questions were to establish:
(1) the apparent causes of each behavior described in a code, (2) the
contexts in which the behavior was likely to emerge, (3) the contingen-
cies that characterized the behavior, (4) the consequences that followed
from the behavior, (5) the activities which covaried with the code and
(6) the conditions under-which the code occurred.

Each of these coding activities necessitated a return to the data

to verify the accuracy of the code descriptions and the dimensions in
which the coded activity took place. In this way, the researchers'
insured that codes were grounded in protocol data.

Glaser and Strauss insist that the development of warranted codes

necessitates careful attention to data, continual comparisons among
codes, careful questioning of each code, and a willingness to let go
of codes that [Link] meet high standards of accuracy.

Quality codes bind analytic insight and imagery. As Glaser

describes it, "a code with analytic,ability is easily related to other
codes with spedified meanings and can be combined with other codes to
develop a warranted and well grounded theory. Good codes must also
have descriptive imagery that freesthe researcher from having to
continually illustrate the meaning of his or her code." (1978, p. 40)

The codes developed at this stage of grounded theory research are

called substantive codes because they codify the substance of the data.
The process of comparing a code with the data and comparing codes with
other codes has been called the continuous comparative methodology of
grounded theory. It is important to grounded theory that none of the
steps be skipped, for each step further 'nsures that the theory is
verified by data and not by some preconceived social scientific theory.

As codes begin to take shape, some are discarded because they do

not meet the rigorous criteria set out by the methodology. Others
emerge as most descriptive, useful, and convincing. The researcher
then works to sort codes into useful categories. Categories are
simply codes that appear to hang together. For example, some codes

231
249
clearly dealt with issues of discipline, while other codes described
processes of teaching. The comparative process used in code development
is used again in coding categorization. Categories are compared with
other categories, with the codes from which they emerged, and from the
data in which they must be grounded. This continual comparative process
assures again that development of theory stays close to the data at hand.

Concept Formation: To this point the researcher has cut up avail-

able data into small descriptive segments. Slowly, however, the researcher
must tie these segments together into codes, tie codes into categories,
and finally tie categories into concepts. The process of concept formation
begins tentatively as the researcher tries to find a conceptual framework
in which to arrange his or her codes and categories. At this stage the
objective of the investigator is to discover the main sociaZ psychological
problem Which motivates the behavior of actors and explains the social
scene. At first, we suspected that our teachers basic social psycholo-
gical problem was to maintain classroom discipline. Over time, howev1r,
we saw that discipline maintenance wes but a part of a larger problem;
that being the maintenance and protection of a professional image of
competence.

Conceptual DeVelopment:, After the researcher has brought codes

into conceptual categories, it becomes necessary to seek a further uni-
fication of the data. This is achieved through the processes of reduction,
selective sampling of theoretical literature, and selective data sampling.

Reduction is a process whereby the researcher reexamiries the code

categories whi,ch have emerged. In the early stages of the present re-
search,categories, such as the following, emerged: Lecturing processes,
recitation processes, management activities, sorting behaviors, warning
behaviors, discipline activities, organizational activities, and so on.
Commonly, the number of code categories at this stage of the research
is plentiful, complex, and too overwhelming to be useful. The researcher
must seek to reduce the reconceptuaTizedd code categories so that they might
more usefully reveal what is happening in the situations under study.
This process begins with the method of reduction.

The researcher reviews the code categories in an effort to discover

"linkages." The effort here is to build,groups of code categories into
higher order categories. Clustering code categories is an important step
in the discovery of "core variables," which help to explain the social
scene.

The process of clustering code categories is primarily theoretical

activity. But here again, as in every step in grounded research, clusters
(or what Glaser and Strauss call,core variables) must be referred back to
the data of the study for verification. It is not enough that core
variables be theoretically neat and conceptually tight; they must "fit"
the data. In the present study it became possible to cluster codes
under such broad headings as "managing time and information," "managing
instruction," "maintaining discipline," and "equilibrium behavior.".

232

25 u
 At this point in the research process, investigators must move
into the research literature. What is read and deemed important is
guided by the cluster variables and, ultimately, by the coded data of
the study. The purpose of a selective sampling of the literature is to
find and draw understanding from pertinent theories in the social sciences.
An attempt is made to find information in the literature which will "fit"
the data and expand the researcher's understanding of the social scene
under study.

As codes are successfully clustered into main concepts (core

variables) and are enriched by insights found in the social science
literature, it again becomes necessary to verify the findings through a
disciplined return to the data. This might entail a return to the field,
an exploration of protocols in new classrooms or an examination of data
from other classroom studies. This process is called "theoretical
sampling," because its purpose is to verify and,advance the developing
theory.

TheOretical sampling (also called selective sampling) is a

deductive process. The conceptual framework which has been built from
coding, clustering codes, and developing core variables is tested by
collecting data which help confirm and deny its (the conceptual frame-
worK's)validity. Where problems are found, adjustments must be made, and
further theoretical work must be undertaken. Portions of the theory may
have to be discarded, and new ideas may need to be added. In all cases,
however, changes must be checked against the original data and verified
with further theoretical sampling.

Ultimately, the aim of this process is to develop core variables

which explain all the relevant data under study. The variables "fit"
the data and are "saturated" by it. They must not leave important
activities unaccounted for.

At this point the researcher has a number of rather tight categories

that make sense of large portions of the data and are supported by existing
social scientific theory. What began as a fragmented mass of data is
gathered together into a rather consistent and understandable theoretical
form. But the theory construction is still loose. It is not unified
around a single theme. In our research, for example, we were plagued with
the question of how such teacher behaviors as managing time and information,
instructing, orchestrating behavior, and disciplining were related to one
another. We had to search for a tight, well-conceived, clearly verified,
manageable theory which successfully tied these fragments together into
a theoretical whole. We sought a theory that was convincing, consuming,
useful, and could be verified by the teachers who had allowed us into
their classrooms.

The ffmergence of the Core Variable: The core variable which binds
all codes and code clusters into a tight theoretical fabric emerges as
the researcher discovers the basic social psychological problem confront-
ing the actors in a social scene. The core category appears to explain
all relevant actions, it reoccurs frequently and is found within all code

33
251
clusters. As Glaser put it, basic social psychological processes "are
fundamental patterned processes in the organization of social behaviors
which occur over time and go on irrespective of the conditional variation
of place." (Glaser, 1978, p. 100) \

On the Significance of Context: An Introduction to Theoily

As the researchers reviewed the protocols and developed substantive

codes describing the activities of teachers, they were constantly reminded
of the environments in which teaching typically takes place., As a ground-
ed theory of teaching began to take shape, they became more,fully aware
of how "the conditions of teaching" help shape the activities of teachers
and their sense of efficacy. These insights occurred at the end of the
theory development process, but it seems appropriate to, diiscuss them at
the start of our report rather than at its conclusion. The last two
chapters were devoted to this task. We will review a few) salient points
here. A description of the conditions of teaching will facilitate a
better understanding of our theory of the teaching act.

Isolation

Teaching is an isolated profession. The physical structure of

the school places teachers within assigned classroomsp The class sched-
ule segments the teacher's day and minimizes the oppoitunity of peer
interaction. The physical isolation of teachers is a structural mani-
festation of less tangible separations.

The responsibilities of teachers are highly clompartmentalized.

Teachers are responsible for organizing specified bodies of knowledge
for teaching specified groups of students who come to class during
specified hours of the day. Teachers carry out these duties with little
or no peer interaction. Though a faculty shares a responsibility for ,
the education of the student body, teachers carry out this responsibility
sequentially rather than communally. As Dreeben (1970) has pointed out,
the demands of teaching do not necessitate teacher collaboration.

Compared to other occupations requiring coordinated

collective efforts, as are found in certain typeS of
industrial production and medical practice, teaching
does not depend on the successful completion of
specific prior contributions to a sequential effort;
that is, few demands of the job encourage the co-
hesiveness and mutual dependence of the teaching
force within the school.. (p. 52)

Without professional collaboration there can be no empirically

based and communally accepted professional standards of practice. Indeed,
no such standards exist within education. There are some clearly defined
behaviors that are expected of all teachers (viz.: that they maintain
reasonable order in the classroom, that they do not assault community

234
252
norms, that they get students to work, and so on), but such standards
have more to do with the general decorum of the classroom than with
teaching techniques or educational objectives.

Vulnerability

Isolation of teachers from their peers deprives them of the

opportunity to see others at work and to develop a shared technical
culture (Lortie, pp. 55-5P; Dreeben, pp. 85, 99). The absence of
professionally sanctioned goals and scientifically verified techniques
leaves every teacher the primary judge of his or her own competence in
the classroom.o While this allows educators some degree of autonomy, it
also leaves them vulnerable to self-doubt and arbitrary criticism. It
deprives them of professional self-respect because they can never find
objective verifications of their subjective assertions of competence.
When plagued by self-doubt, classroOm disruptions, student disinterest
and/or parental complaints, teachers can find no convincing evidence
of their on-going effectiveness. As Mary Metz has stated it (1978):

Teachers have no way of checking on their students'

memory of material even a year later, much less when
they come to need it in the vicissitudes of adult
life. Much learning is intended not as an end in
itself but as a basis for developing broad capacities.
It is expected that one develops a more logical mind
from learning algebra or gains creativity from writing
free-form poetry. But how can one assess such capaci-
ties reliably, let alone trace their origin? If
education is supposed to impart strength of character
or richness of personality, the problem of measure-
ment defies description. (pp. 19-20)

Lortie has pointed out that "people in other lines of work also
have occasion to doubt their personal efficacy arid the value of the
services they offer." However, the isolation of teachers and the lack
of technical culture within the profession make them particularly .

vulnerable to the self doubt. Lortie (1975) explains:

In fields where people perceive their knowledge (and

their ignorance) as jointly shared, the individual
burden is reduced. A person can take comfort from
his compliance with normal expectations within the
occupation; he can feel he did everything possible
within "the state of the art." (Physicians so argue
when they are charged with malpractice.) Then the
individual can cope with unpleasant outcomes by sharing
the weight of his failure and guilt; his inadequaty is
part of the larger malignancy of the field. Teachers
derive little consolation from this source; an
individualistic conteption of practice exacerbates
the burden of failure. (p. 81)

235
Multiple Publics

Although it is trde that teachers work behind closed classroom

doors and out of view of other adults, it is also true that many people
make judgments about a teacher'scompetence. Educators a a group are
assaulted by the criticism of free-lance writers (Silberman),college
presidents (Conant), disillusioned classroom teachers (Holt, Kozol),
retired state superintendents (Rafferty), college professors (in numbers
too numerous to enumerate) social\critics (Goodman, Illich), and even
a retired Navy admiral (Rickover), This criticism goes unanswered and
assaults the image of the professibn as a whole.

In [Link] the sweeping criticisms leveled at the teaching

profession, educators must face ongoing evaluations by students, parents,
fellow teachers, administrators and; occasionally, the community at
large. The judgments of students have an immediate and ongoing impact
on the evaluations teachers make of their own professional competence.
A teacher who continually fails to capture the interest of stucients,"
to motivate them to work, or to win their "respect" will experieriCe a
daily assault on his professional self-confidence. Even if the teacher
successfully manages students, and motivates them to work, the educator
must endure an ongoing conflict within her relationships with pupils.
As Willard Waller stated a half-century ago:

The teacher-pupil relationsh# is a form of

institutionalized dominance and subordination.
Teacher and pupil confront 40 other in the
school with *an-miginAl,conflict of desires,
and, however much that cddffift'may-be-reduced
in amount or however much it iilay be hidden, it
still remains. (1932, p. 195),

Parents, of course, make judgements about the adequacy of their

children's instructors. Such judgments, by necessity, are made on the
basis of secondhand information (the perceptions of-the children,
accounts of other parents, and parent-teacher conferences), and almost
never from direct observation of the teaching act. Teachers can not
be sure of what others are thinking about them. Even parents with major
complaints may avoid sharing their dissatisfaction with the teacher for
fear "she will take it out on my child."

Fellow teachers also make judgments about the competence of their

colleagues, but only on rare occasions will they share their criticisms
with the teacher in question. To challengela fellow teacher is to risk
that the challenge will be reciprocated. Thps, an ideology of non-inter-
ference develops in most schools that minimizes probing discussions of
one another's tEaching practices and that faictions to heighten the
professional isolation of teachers (McPherson,, pp. 64-81).

236
254
 Utopian Goals
c

Though the teaching profession has not developed consensual

standards of practice against which to judge the performance of teachers,
educators are treated to a litany of lofty objectives. The teachers in
our study set these objectives for themselves:

I think the most important objective is to reach

students who seem unreachable, giving them a self-
image [and] letting them know that each individual
has his own worth in life.

My major goal is to'help [students] excel in academics.

My most important objective is to get to know each

student and to be highly,organized as to planning.

I want them to learn the material.

To make students feel comfortable with themselves,

to internalize the importance of learning.

To impart concepts and skills, to be a friend,

someone who understands them.

To individualize instruction, to allow students to

move at their own pace and to feel aood_about them-
selves.

To help students see themselves as being worthy

people. To give them the love they may not be
getting at home.

While admirable, these goals are largely unattainable. No

teacher is likely to get all her students to excel, to reach all her
seemingly unreachable pupils, to motivate all children who come to school
unmotivated, or to individualize the instruction of the 125 students she
sees in a day. Nor is it likely that a teacher who faces 28 students for
a 55-Tinute language arts class will give low self-esteem pupilsi positive
self-concepts, provide love to those pupils whose "parents don't know
how to love them," or to make everyone feel worthy, comfortable, and
socially self-confident.

Because the objectives ofteachers are utopian, educators are

continually faced with the possibility that they cannot achieve the goals
they have given themselves. However teachers might resolve this mismatch
between their objectives and their achievements, the fact that a teacher's
performance can never quite live up to her hopes must heighten the uncer-
tainties endemic to teaching.

237 255
The Endemic Uncertainties of Teaching

The isolation of teachers, the absence of shared criteria of

competence, the multiple publics they serve, and the mismatch between
Utopian goals and modest achievement make teaching a chronically
uncertaim affair. Teachers encounter difficulty assessing the merit
of their own work, because they seldom see others in action and cannot
compare their own achievements with the accomplishments of their
colleagues. ,It is difficult for teachers to know if they have obtained
some self-proclaimed goal, because the goals they set fo;. themselves
are often unclear and unmeasurable. How is a teacher to know a
student's self-concept has grown during a marking period, or if it has,
whether she is responsible for its growth?

The Core Variable: Maintaining Professional Self Esteem

The major social-psychological problem facing teachers is the

maintenance of professional self-esteem in a line of work that offers
few supports for and myriad threats to the self-respect of its members.
In the two previous chapters we have sedn that the self-esteem of
teachers is threatened by a number of factors, no one of which is
necessarily debilitating, but, when added together, can challenge the
professional confidence of even the most talented and,self-assured
individuals.

The Concept of Professional Self-Esteem

Professional self-esteem (or professional self-respect, we use

these terms interchangeably in this report) refers to a persons
feelings about his or her imagined appearance to others in work-related
situations. A great deal is implied in this rather straightforward
definition. A positive self-esteem is only achieved when we have the
feeling that we are doing something worthwhile, that we do it competently
though it taxes our ability (it isn't something just anyone can do),
and that our abilities and achievements are recognized and appreciated
by significant others. If any one of these elements is missing, our
access to professional self-respect is jeopardized. As John Rawls (1971)
explains:

When we feel that our [work is] of little value, we

cannot pursue [it] with pleasure oe take delight in
[its] execution. Nor plagued by failure and self-
doubt can,we continue in our endeavors. It is clear
then why self-respect is a primary good. Without it
nothing may seem worth doing, or if somethings have
value for us; we lack thewill to strive fnr them.
,All desire and activity becomes empty and vain, and
we sink into apathy and cynicism.

238 256
 Self-esteem is not something an individual can simply will for
him or herself. Self-esteem is socially bestowed and socially maintained.
Of course, individuals play a part in the social situations in which their
self-esteem is established and/or aTrmed, but their feelings of self-
respect depend in large measure on how they are treated by others.
Gerth and Mills (1953) explained:

What we think of ourselves decisively influ-

enced by what others think of\us. Their atti-
tudes of approval and of disapproval guide us in
learning to play the roles we Oe assigned or which
we assume. By internalizing these attitudes of
others toward us and our conductwe not only gain
new roles, but in time an image of\ourselves. Of
course,,man's "looking glass° self Tay be a true
or distorted reflection,bf his actual self. Yet
those from whoma man continually seeks approval
are important determinants of what kind of man
he is becoming. The self, Henry Stack,Sullivan
once said, is made up of the reflected appraisals
of others. (pp. 10-11)

The attitudes of others toward ourselves and,pur work are subject

to personal interpretations whith may or may not be accurate. Thus,
individuals continually assess their performance by 'taking the attitude
of others" around them in an effort to view their own behavior as others
might view it. Thus, as Cooley (1962) pointed out years ago, self-
respect has three principal elements:

The imagination of our appearance to the other

person; the imagination of his judgment of that
appearance, and some sort of self-feeling, such
as pride or mortification. (p. 185)

, We have been using such admittedly awkward phrases as profession-

al self-esteem, professional self-respect, and a sense of professional
competence because it is important to distinguish between the sRlf-esteem
of a teacher-as-teacher (derived from evaluations of the teacher's work
performance) and accumulative self-esteem of a teacher-as-person (de-
rived from the individual's total life experience). In order to study
a person's cumulative self-esteem it would be necessary to investigate
the psychology of the individual and uncover the ways in which the
person's past experiences influence his or her present actions. Silch
a task is beyond the scope of this study and not relevant to the
question being asked here. The task of the present research is to
investigate the social, situational forces that work on all teachers
in the schools we studied. For that reason our approach is sociblogical
(or social-psychological) rathen than psychological. We have sought to
discover the factors within the professional lives of teachers that in-
fluence their behaviors, attitudes, motives, and feelings of professional
self-respect.

239
25
 Challenges to the Professional Self-Esteem of Teachers

We have already seen through an analysis of interview dita

that teachers have few institutional or interpersonal supports for
the establishment and maintenance of professional self-esteem. In
the past two chapters we have endeavored to show that teaching threatens
,an individual's self-respect because:

1. It is difficult for individual teachers to

assess whether or not they are making a lasting
or significant difference in the lives of their
students.

2. Teachers do not share a technical culture against

which individuals can assess the efficacy of
their behavior or the extent of their profession-
al competence.

32% Teachers are isolated from,one another.

4. Teachers must live with the knowledge that

their performAce is being monitored by colleagues
and that their peers' opinions regarding their
professional competence will be based on incom-
plete, often second-hand knowledge.

5. The ideology of non-interference that governs

the interpersonal relations among teachers makes
it difficult for individuals to gather help or
support from colleagues.

6. The profession receives little public reCognition,

social status, remuneration, or professional
autonomy and thus engenders status anxiety in
teachers who entered the profession expecting to
enjoy all the perquisites of white-collar, solidly
middle-class work.

7. Many teachers feel that they receive little

support from administrators and are treated
"unprofessionally" by those above them in the
school system.

8. Many teachers have little say in the decisions

that affect their'work.

9. Teachers are barraged with criticisms of public

schooling from the media, the public, and some-
times the parents of their students.

10. Many teachers suffer self-estrangement.

240 258
 Teachers, like the rest of ut, work to maintain self-esteem,
but they must do so in a profession that engenders self-doubt, offers
few measures of professional competence, provides scanty opportunity
for peer evaluation and allows multiple publicsto negatively evaluate
an individual's performance on the basis of incomPlete and indirect
evidence.

The Student Audience

Deprived of a professional audience that will acknowledge

competence and reward excellence, teachers must maintain their pro,
fessional self-esteem by referring to the attitudes and behaviors of
their students. A teacher's work is guided by the role expectations /0'

of his or her peers. ([Link] discussion of teacher role expectatjons

in Chapter 7.) But teachers must gather evidence that they have met
these expectations by observing the work of students, the behavior of
students in class, the attitudes of pupils toward their work, and the
,attitudes of pupils toward the teacher. In a sense, then, students
are a teacher's primary audience because only students provide the
teacher with confirmation that he or she is playing the role of teacher
competently.

All teachers we spoke with said they derived their greatest pro-
fessional satisfaction from their students. One teacher told us that
she knew she was a good teacher because:

I feel comfortable in the classroom. I just feel

I know what I'm doing. Many of my students. . .

respdnd and I have a good relationshi0 with many

of [them]. The kids like me and I like them.

Another teacher told us that her greatest rewards in teaching came when
she saw students excel and, just as importantly:

When they show some appreciation. I got a letter

, from a former student indicating her appreciation
for me. Those kinds of things help make it worth-

A high school teacher said that students were the only [Link] stayed
in the profession:

Oh, I enjoy the student§, and I really enjoy

[teadhing them]. If I didn't, I'd quit. I

don't think you could stand it if you didn't

like [students and they didn't like you].

A teacher of honor students told us that she knew she was a good
teacherbecause:

I guess [my students] tell me. Not in so many. words.

241
 but,in a way they tell me-so: ror example,. .

juniors were planning a class tr,ip,[Link],mts in

my honors class insjsted that it be on a Wednesday
because that is the day our class doesn't meet.
.There was no way they wanta to miss my class. . .

Students who aren't doing well will sometimes

drop [an elective course]. But my honors students
[will stay in my classeven when their grades are
:low] because they want to be there. They
. . .

finure that they're learning, and that's reward-

ing for me.

Three Domains of Teaching.

'An analysis of interview data revealed that the role expectations

of teachers fell [Link] domains: classroom management, relationships
with students, and instruction. An examination of ethnographic, class-
room observation data (protocols) and the activities of teaching identi-
fied through open coaing revealed that the same three domains dominate
the activities of teaching. The first; classroom management, includes
all teacher efforts to modify andior punish inappropriate student be- .
havior, to reinforce (reward) appraprian behavior, and to generally
keepclassroom activities running smoothly. The second domain
instruction, [Link] activities intended to transmit knowledge
to students, and to shape and sharpen their academic tkills. The third
domain, teacher-student relationships, includes all activities that en-
courage a friendly, person-to-person (rathee than role-to-role) re1ation-'7
ship between the teacher and individual students. The three domains of
teacher behavior account for more than 90 percent of all the teacher
activities identified through sUbstantive coding.1 All teachers we
observed spent the vast majority of their time woi-king in one or another
(re these three areas.

The three dOmains of teaching are conceptually distinct but

usually become blurred on the level of practice. Teaching may go on
during a friendly exchange with a student, an academic question during
a class may be designed to punish'a student for inattention, and a

1
The other 10 percent of our Codes referre'd to teiCher activities that
were instigated by some outside intrusion (a parent Visiting a class,
a fellow teacher entering the room, a message coming over the intercom,
the ringing of a fire bell, and so on). Other activities could be classi-
fied under the heading "Buying Time." Buying time included all the make-
shift activities that teachers devised either to free themselves from
some teaching task (in order to correct papers, to rest, or gather their
thoughts) or to artifically extend class activities to,conform to the
discipline of the school's bell schedule.

242

260
disciplinary act may prepare the way for an academic lesson or a better
relationship with a pupil. Despite the overlapping of these three
domains it is generally possible to determine the intent and immediate
consequences of most teacher acts.

The Interactive Focus of Grounded Theory Research

It is not possible tO build a grounded theory of teaching by

looking solely at teacher attitudes or exclusively at student behaviors
or scores on student achievement-tests. Grounded theory methodology
demands that we study the active process of teaching as it takes place
within the environment of the classroom. We cannot focus exclusively
on the teather or students, but must focus instead on student-teacher
interaction. We must seek the motivationally relevant structures that
propel the actions of teachers in the social setting of the classroom
(Schutz, 197p; Webb, 1976). Our focus is on the projects and motives
of teachers. The qualitative nature of this_portion of our study is
compatible with Alfred Schutz's (1962) contention:

That the social sciences have to deal with human

conduct and its commonsense interpretation in
social reality. [This task involves] the analysis
of the whole system of [actors'] projects and.
motives. . . Such an analysis refers by
.

necessity to the subjective point of view, namely,

to the interpretation of the action and its setting
in terms of the actor. (g, 34)

Professional Self-Esteem and the Student Audience

As previously indicated, the major social-psychological problem

confronting teachers is the construction and maintenance of professional
self-esteem. This core variable must be understood in the context of
Schutz's contention that we can accurately analyze human behavior only
if we examine social situations from the point of view of the actors
themselves. The grounded theory of teaching presented in this report
contends that all teachers must find ways to maintain self-esteem in
a profession that offers few concrete assurances that the teacher is
tompetent, doing what needs to be done,and is making a difference in
the academic and social growth of students. We contend further, that
teachers are generally so uncertain about their professional competence
that they must be constantly on the lookout for even [Link] of
personal achievement. A high school teacher told us, "Even the'smallest
of accomplishments make me feel good." Usually these small accomplish-
ments are found in the attitudes or achievements of individual students.
For example, another high school teacher told us:

The'best thing is seeing even a little success.

I can only remember one student who came back to
thank me. . . And that makes me feel good because
.
 at least One of the students heard what I was
saying, thank goodness.

As we have already suggested, professional self-esteem is

achieved and maintained when an individual does work that is challeng-.
ing and personally satisfying, when an individual does that work well,
and when significant others value the [Link] the work and the
accomplishments of the worker. The teachers we spoke with and observed
in their classrooms contended that teaching was important and challeng-
ing work. However, they did not think that the public appreciated the
difficulties that teachers face, the sacrifices the teachers make or
the accomplishments they are able to achieve. They receive little or
no positive feedback from parents, colleagues, or administrators.
They receive little or no help when it is needed rand almost no rec-
ognition or praise when it is deserved. They are aware that their
colleagues expect them to conform to the criteria of the role expec-
tations checklist. They know that failureto conform will invite a
negative eva1udtion by their peers. They understand, however, that they
will not be told if they are being evaluated negatively and that it is
unlikely that colleagues or administrators will give positive suggest-
ions on how they might improve their performance. They understand
that careful conformity to the role expectations of their work is not
the occasion for praise or recognition. Teachers can seldom tell if
the silence of their peers is a sign of approval or disapproval. All
of this is to say that teaching is a line of work (one among many in
.modern society, we suspect) that deprives even its accomplished partic-
ipants of the requisite conditions for the development of professional
self respect',

Teachers are sensitive to the "smallest accompliOments" and

the "little Successes" because theY care about their work and want
the reassurance that comes from knewing that they are doing their
jobs well. rsolated from a community or network of collegial relations
that affirms their professional achievements and self-worth, teachers
must look to student attitudes, behaviors,and academic growth for small
signs of achieyement and appreciation.

Teachers have some measure of autonomy over classroom activity

and work with students using a variety of approaches. However, they
must continually\monitor their classroom behavior to make sure that it
conforms with the expectations of others. If teachers lose control of
their classes, if,they invite the hostility of students, if they fail
to capture studentjnterest, or'if thi-y earn the reputation of being
"too easy" or "excessively tough"_teachers risk the silent censure of
their peers. If, 6i the other hand, teachers can manage the class well,
if they are able to motivate students, if they win the good will of their
pupils and keep them\on task, then the teacher will observe at least
some small signs of Success and avoid getting a "bad reputation" in the
school. It must be eemembered, for teachers certainly remember, that
students are carriers \of information regarding teacher competence. So
even when teachers are "playing to a student audience" they are,
calculatedly or not, playing to an audience of their peers as well.

244
262
This was the point of the previously quoted teacher who said:

I don't want anybody [saying] something bad about

what happens in my class. I think that one thing
keeps me on my toes more than anything else. . . .

It is little wonder that teachers generally prefer classes of

high-achieving, motivated students. Such students are more likely than
their low-achieving, lessmotivated classmates to make observable progress,
to accept the expectations of the teacher and toAemonstrate attentiveness
and perhaps appreciation as well. Such students are more likely to pro-
vide self-assuring feedback to a teacher and to carry positive messages
about the teacher's performance to other teachers in the school.

Defining the Situat4on and Achieving Self Respect

Defining the Situation

Human beings interact aithin situations that are circumscribed

by time and space and saturated with meaning. Sometimes individuals
must work to define the meaning of a situation, as may happen when
two people unexpectedly bump into one another on a dark street late at
night. More often, however, individuals interact within situations
that are largely predefined by custom and culture, as is the case when,
say, a judge and defendant interact in a courtroom setting. Individuals
enter such situations knowing how they are expected to act toward others
and how others are expected to act toward them. They share a common
definition of the situation at hand. They know what the situation is
about and what it demands of them. They know how each party is expected
to behave and the attitudes each is expected to display. Society has
provided if not a script for them to read, at leest a pattern of
behavior with which they are expected to conform. As long as they stay
in pattern, that is, as long as they stay within their respective roles,
the situation remains relatively unproblematical and the social play
can proceed according to plan.

It would be a mistake, however, to define role-taking as a mere

process of conformity. As Petqr Berger (1963) has pointed out:

It would be missing an essential aspect of the role

if one regarded it as merely as a regulatory pattern
for externally visible actions. Roles carry with
them both certain actions and the emotions and
attitudes that belong to these actions. The professor
putting on an act that pretends to wisdom comes to
feel wise. The preacher finds himself believing what
he preaches.

We seldom merely play roles, we usually become the characters we play.

This is especially true if an audience of other role players, dutifully

245

_263
playing their own assigned parts, believes our performance or at least
takes our performance seriously [Link] stay in their respective
roles. Taking on a new role may be a bit awkward at first, but once
we take hold of a role, it takes hold of us. We are able to play our
part with unreflective conviction. In fact, the regulatory strength
of a role is traceable to its habitual, unreflective and routine
character (Berger, 1963, p. 97).'

Most situations in everyday life are rather routine. They are

'familiar to us and the expected acts of others call out from us an
expected response. Thus, Berger has defined role as a "typified
response to a typified expectation" (1963, p. 95). When we play a
role we know the pattern of behavior that is expected of us and we
know what to expect of other role players. As Hewitt (1979) has
pointed out, within routine situations:

Things are in their [customary] places, the

appropriate others are present. ..and much
that happens requires little conscious control
on the part of participants. One could almost
describe such a situation as a chain of habi-
tual responses. (p. 125)

Small breaches of etiquette, fits of bad temper, flights of fancy

or acts of frenzy momentarily challenge the taken-for-granted routines
of a situation and thus require our thoughtful attention. But in most
instances the routine definitions of a situation are never seriously
challenged. Social life is possible only because most of the time
people interact within situations that they define in approximately
similar ways. When actors hold common definitions of a situation,
they can follow the lines of action appropriate to that definition.
They understand their identity and the identity of other role players
within the situation. When a situation is routine and well defined,
the actors within the situation are also well defined.

A situation becomes problematic when its definition becomes un-

clear to the actors within it. Suppose, for example, an employee enters
an office one morning to find his boss unusually abrupt and abrasive.
He is unable to figure out "what's going on," which is tO say, he does
not know how to define the situation or his place within it. He can
no longer assume that others see events as he sees them or that his
perceptions are aceurate (Schutz, 1971, pp. 3-47, McHugh, 1968). He
must concentrate on events, objects in the office, conversations,
gestures and acts in order to read the meaning of the situation. He
must look for signs of .how he and others are being defined, for when
situations change, the situational identity of actors may change as
well. He must become interested in the situational identity of his
boss and the motives that underlie her behavior.

Let us consider the question of situation identity a bit closer.

Of course, the troubled employee knows who his boss is--he knows her

245
264
 name, her status, her habit and quirks--in fact, he knows her well
enough to know that her behavior is unusual and that she is irritable.
He does not know why and that is the question he seeks to answer. He
knows who his boss is, but he does not know in what capacity she is
acting and what motivates her actions. Is she dissatisfied with his work
or behavior, is she mad at him or her boss or her husband, or someone else
entirely? When these questions are answered, he will better understand
the situation at hand and the situational identity of [Link]. He will
know "Where she is coming from," which is to say, he will understand what
motivates her actions. And he will better understand his place in the
situation and how he is being defined within it. As Anselm Strauss has
put it, "' Who am I in this situation?' is problematic just as long at
the situation is problematic." (p. 47)1 Strauss quotes C. Wright Mills
on the same point:

The establishment of one's own identity to one's

self is as important in interaction as to establish
it [Link] other. One's own identity in a situation
is not absolutely given but is more or less proble-
matic. (p. 47)

The distinction between routine and problematic situations is

simply this: When situations are routine, the actions and motivations
of individuals are self-explanatory. Explanations for people's behavior
exist, but as Strauss has put it, these explanations "have the status of
assumptions rather than queries." (p. 48) In problematic situations,
explanations of people's behavior are not clear and individuals must
inquire into the motivations of actors and the meaning of their acts;
an interpretation of events must occur and some acts of designation must
occur as well. In routine situations the motives and situational identi-
ties of actors are presumed, in problematic situations the motives and
situational identities of actors are uncertain.

Teachers as Definers of Classroom Situations

Teaching is the uncertain profession that it is because teachers

must continually confront problematic situations. Every time a teacher,
issues a command, teaches a lesson or merely speaks before a class, that
teacher's definition of the situation is put at risk. Students may ignore
the teacher's comments or requests. They may talk back. They may show
signs of apathy, boredom, frustration, contempt, or rage. They ma; miss
the point of what is being said or be confused by what is being taught.
Any one of these student responses (and myriad others we could mention)
render the classroom situation problematic and with it the professed
identity of the teacher as well. The claims of professional competence
that a teacher makes by merely accepting the status of teacher are
threatened when students fail to respond in accordance with the teacher's

1
The analysis presented here borrows heavily on the work of Anselm
Strauss, especially Chapter 5 in Mirrors and Masks.

247

265
LrmerrimarsranrmmirrarrarrrirrarierrrerlIMINIMINMEIOMIrriMINMIIIMMIIIMEMINP
definition of the situation.

Much of a teacher's time is spent trying to control or regain

control of fast-changing situations and thus trying to maintain control
of the definition of the self that the situations imply. Of course,
a teacher who loses control of the definitions of classroom situations
does not lose his status, he is still the teacher. But he may be defined
by others (by students and ultimately by colleagues) as being an un-
resourceful, weak, or incompetent teacher. The more sedurely such
negative identity labels are fixed to a particular teacher, the less
likely it becomes that the teacher will be atile to control the defini-
tions of classroom situations in the future. The more negative the
label the more difficult it becomes for the'teacher to maintain his or
her professional self-esteem, This explains why, as Willard Waller
found in his 1932 study of teaching:

Many teachers have [Link] it pays to spare

themselves no unpleasantness in order to establish
and make secure their dominance in the first days
and weeks of [the school year]. They exert them-
selves particularly to define the situation as one
in which the teacher is dominant. Until that defini-
tion is accepted, there Will be some conflict
between teacher and student . .the problem will
.

be more severe in a school that has previously been

poorly disciplined. Until his definition of the
situation is thoroughly established in the minds
of h.s students, the teacher cannot relax. (pp.
197-198)

There is no reason to believe that teachers are a unique breed of

individual, hyperactively concerned with maintaining an image of
competence around others. As Erving Goffman (1967) has amply demon-
strated, individuals in all walks of American life are concerned with
making a good showing in the presence of others. However, in most
adult encounters, rules of considerateness and self-respect prevail.
This means, according to Goffman, that individuals claims of competence
generally are allowed to go unchallenged and that participants in the
situation are allowed to hang onto the individual identities they claim
for themselves. "This kind of mutual acceptance." Goffman tells us,
"seems to be a basic structure of social interaction. . ." (p. 11).
Even when individuals don't believe someone else's presentation of self,
they generally refrain from challenging what has been presented. When
situations turn unexpectedly problematic, as might happen when someone
commits a social gaffe, individuals generally feel beholden to lessen
the situational embarrassment felt by all and help the offending
individual regain his or her composure.

Teachers are as concerned as they are about their image of

competence because that image is so often challenged by problematic

248
266
situations. Students are not adults, and they have not yet internalized
the rules that govern routine adult encounters. Adolescents in particu-
lar are more likely than grownups to declare that the emperor is naked,
to challenge authority and to express emotions that most adults would
judiciously suppress. As one teacher told us, "My biggest problem [is]
kids not controlling their emotions. They are angry so they take out
their anger on the teacher."

Teachers work to maintain control of [Link] situations because,

among other things, they wish to control their image of professional
competence and sense of self-esteem. They get little support from their
colleagues and administrators in thjs regard and must gather evidence of
competence from their students. But students are only [Link],
and they are not always attentive to the legitimate ego needs of teachers.
They frequently create problematic situations that teachers find taxing
and sometimes threatening. Thus, as Waller has said, "The fundamental
problem [facing the teacher] may be stated as the struggle of students
and teachers to establish their own definitions of the situation in,the
life of the school " (p. 297).

The teacher-student struggle to maintain control over the defi-

nitions of the school situation can be seen in every domain of the
teacher's work. It is most Oviously apparent in classroom management
situations, but it is present as well during periods of instruction or
even during informal, teacher-pupil conversations. The primary social-
psychological problem of the teacher in all three types of situations
is to maintain the efficacy and legitimacy of his or her self-image of
competence.

The teacher's feelings of emotional well being are tied to the

responses of the classroom audience. If the students' responses sustain ,

the identity that a teacher holds for himself (I am a competent eacher),

events are routine and call out little feeling from the teacher. If the
class goes well, responses of the students confirm an image of competence
greater than a teacher claims for himself (I am better than I thought)
and the situation is the occasion for "feeling good." If the class goes
badly and does not fulfill even the routine expectations of the teacher
(I am not as good as I thought), then the situation is rendered proble-
matic,and we can expect that the teacher would "feel bad," feel hurt,"
or perhaps "get angry."

We can say that situations are non-problematic when they confirm

the identity (image of competence),that teachers claim for themselves
and that situations are problematic when they deny or contradict that
self-claimed identity.

The remainder of this chapter will deal with each of the three
domains of teaching. We will show how the core variable operates in
each area and discuss how that variable (the maintenance of professional
self-esteem) is related to the efficacy attitudes of teachers.

249
2 6 '7
 Classroom Management

The expectations that "good teachers" can control their class-

rooms is a prevailing norm in the culture of the school. It's a
dominant feature in the role expectations that teachers hold for one
another and for themselves. Of all the role inadequacies the teacher
may possess, the failure to maintain order in the cldssroom is the most
pervasive, public, and pernicious. Effective classroom management skills
are central to the teaching task because poor discipline jeopardizes the
teacher's ability to teach and to build productive relationships with
students. News of a teacher's inability to maintain discipline spreads
quickly among students and teachers alike. A reputation for "discipline
problems" jeopardizes the teacher's image of competence among peers and
invites further misbehavior from students. A previously quoted teacher
put it succinctly when she said, "If you can't discipline, my dear, you
can just hang it up."

The expectations that good teachers can control their classes is

so taken for granted in the culture of most schools that simply accept-
ing the status of teacher is tantamount to claiming, "I can keep students
.in order and on task." To step before a class is to ask students to
accept the -eality and warrant of tHis claim. Students are implicitly
asked to believe that the instructor in fact possesses the management
skills that are part and parcel of this projected role; that things are
in reality what the teacher claims them to be. Teaching is difficult
precisely because students do not always accept the reality of such
claims as readily as most teachers would like.2

When students accept and acknowledge the legitimacy of the teacher's

role and the teacher's ability to fulfill that role, the classroom
situation is routine and the teacher's situational identity is Secure.
When students fail to verify the teacher's claims of competence, the
situation is rendered problematic and the teacher's situational identity
is in jeopardy. The line of teacher activity that expresses his or her
definition of the situation (and his'or her self definition as well) is
out of sync with the'students' definition of the same situation. The
teacher is not "living up to" the expectations of his or her status and
this is the occasion for subjective concern. Goffman (1967) describes
what occurs when an audience does not confirm the identity an individual
claims for himself:

He is likely to feel ashamed and inferior because

of what has happened to the activity on his account
and because of what may happen to his reputation. . .

2
There are a number of social-psychological reasons why students might
challenge the status claims of teachers. However, a discussion of
these reasons would divert us from the topic at hand. We have included
a brief discussion of the factors that influence social control in school
settings in Appendix U at the end of this report.

250
268
 Further, he may feel bad because he has relied
upon the encounter to support an image of self
to which he has become emutionally attached and
which he now finds threatened. Felt lack of
judgmental support from the et-aunt& may take
him aback, confuse him, and momentarily incapac-
dI
itate him as an ifiteractant. His manner and
bearing may falter, collapse, and crumble. He
may become ashamed and chagrined; he may become
shamefaced. (p. 8)

An incident in a high school class provides an example of how

deeply a teacher may feel embarrassed when he or she is not able to
control a class. What follows is a condensed and paraphrased descrip-
tion drawn fibm field notes:

From the moment the bell rang the teacher had

trouble getting the attention of the class and
getting the lesson under way. A number of
students asked permission to leave the -oom and
finally the teacher announced, "No one is gding
to leave, so don't ask." Some students continued
to make such requests and others slipped out of the
classroom door when the teacher's head was turned.
The class grew noisy and few students paid
attention to the lesson being presented at the
board.

Students called an end to the class ten minutes

before the bell rang. They left their seats;
ignored [Link] ahd milled around the room.
The teacher [Link] stop teaching because she had
lost her audience. [Link] in frustration,
"I don't know why you come here if you don't want
to listen." No one appeared to hear her comment.
Two students began to argue,and one of them .

called on the teacher for help. She responded

sarcastically, "I wish you'd all kill each other
and get it over with."

When the bell rang the remaining pupils sprang

for the door and the teacher made her way to the
corner where a member of the research team was
taking notes. The researcher described their
achangein her field notes: "She is very
frustrated and said she didn't want me to observe
any more thjs year.,. . She said it makes her
.

nervous . .and she is already nervous enough.

.

She seems depressed."

An image of competence is assumed by the teacher in the very act

of teaching, but if that image is to be maintained its validity must be

251
269
affirmed in the attiiudes and actions of the student audience. When
the image is not affirmed, the teacher is likely to feel embarrassed
and perhaps nervous and depressed. Such was the case in the incident
described above. She was embarrassed by what had occurred and did not
want the researcher (or any other adult, for that matter) to witness
any further humiliation she might have to endure in her class.

When teachers are able to command the attention of students,

they are likely to take pride in this skill and look for occasions to
demonstrate their ability to others. For example, a veteran teacher
told us:

I used to love it when kids were being rowdy during

an assembly and other'teachers couldn't control the
situation. I'd step in and with a few words and a
stern look I'd get things back in order. I was
'
showing off, of course, but it was a good feeling,
nonetheless.

Substantive coding of protocol data indicated that teachers

behaved in different ways depending on whether or not they perceived
the situation as routine or problematic. As we have already explained
routine situations are those where te;cher and stpdents appear to share
the same definition of the situation. Problematic situations exist
when the teacher perceives that he or she is losing (or is in threat of
losing) control over the situation. We will be discussing these two
domains of classroom management separately, but it must be kept in
mind that these two types of situations represent points along a -

continuum and not wholly separate entities. There is no fixed point

at which a routine situation is rendered problematic. What-one teacher
may define as harmless, another teacher may experience as deeply troub-
ling. We are interested here in the general [Link] exist
between routine and problematic situations and the bearing different
situations may have op the question of efficacy.

Classroom Management Within Routine Situations

Some conflict theorists would argue that there are no routine

situations in classrooms because, as Willard Waller ttressed, the
"teacher and pupil confront each other. . .with an original conflict
of desires, and however much that conflict may be reduced in amount,
or however much it may be hidden, it still remains," (p. 195)

Most teachers would agree that students do not necessarily want

to do all that teachers would have them do and that education always
implies differences of perspective and a certain conflict of wills.
Howeve.., all teachers we spoke with reported that some time in their
teaching career they had had classes in which such conflicts were
subdued if not eliminated altogether. When we asked teachers to describe
such experience, they told us of classes where the teacher and students
shared (or came to share) the same definition of the classroom situation:
 The students were motivated. What made it special
was the cohesiveness in the class. =

I thoroughly enjoyed [the students in the class]

because they were so curious and eager [Link]
cheated if I didn't challenge-them. If I gave a
test and there wasn't a trick question on ft, they
felt disappointed. I enjoyed that so much.

There was an esprit de cor4ps among students. Some

of the material was not familiar [to me] so I was
learnidg dlong with the youngsters. I had to use
my imagination and creativity. I came up with a
lot of creative ideas.

I got along really well with all those students.

They were fairly positive toward school. They were
fairly positive about math, as well. You are always
going to have a few [students who] are ratherinegative
about school, but 80 to 90 percent of that class was
pro-school. And I think they liked me.

They were bright, intelligent, and they made an

effort. Everything about them was good..

The students were highly motivated, self-disciplined,

interested. They wanted to learn. They were creative.
They gave me great feedback. I would give them home
work,and it would come back. You could send Progress
reports home and you knew their parents would get
them.

The best teaching situation, according to the teachers we inter-

viewed, were those where there was a cohesiveness that helO the class
together. CoheSiveness is displayed when students have a shared interest
in the material being presented and the teacher who presents it. They are
individually and collectively motivated to master that material. EVeryone
is engaged in the work of the class. Teachers are pushed to design origi-
nal and creative lessons,and students are pushed to master those lessons.
There is also a mutual recognition of teicher and student success.

It would appear that the "ideal teaching situation" is one that

provides the teacher and,,student alike with the conditions Rawls claimed
are necessary for self-respect. (See pages 238 and 239 in this report
for discussion of self-respect.) It would further appear that classroom
management is not problematic when the self-respect needs of both teachers
and students are being met in the social environment Of the class.

Most teachers carry with them a vision of the ideal teaching

situation and that vision is based in a large degree on their own best
teaching experiences. The reality of everyday classroom life, however,

253
2 71
seldom lives up to the promises of the teachers' ideals. Within most teach-
ing situations teachers must work diligently to keep some control of events
and the prevailing definition of those events. If we judge from teachers'
desciptions of their best teaching experiences, we would have to conclude
that the real challenge facing teachers has less to do with controlling
the behavior of students than it does with winning their minds. Students
4ho come to believe in what the teacher is doing and to see the teacher's
role as legitimate are unlikely to cause problems in the classroom. On
the other hand, students who see little worth in what's going on and do
not honor the teacher's role are nicely to be frequent causes of disrup-
tion. Few teachers win over all the students in a class,just as few
teachers lose control of the class completely. Most teachers, certainly
all we observed, were continually working with those students who, for
the moment at least, were apparent believers in the classroom enterprise
and were rOing herd on those students who were not. As long as no
student behavior openly challenged the teacher's definition of the
situation (which, of course, included the assumption of the teacher's
authority in the classroom) events within the class did not become par-
ticularly problematic. The teacher had to .stay vigilant to insure that
events did not get out of hand (out of the teacher's control). Teacher
vigilance took the form of behaviors we have labelled accounting, direct-
ing, monitoring, and quieting. We will discuss these processes individ-
ually.

1. Accounting is the proces% by which teachers keep track of the

location of their students in the sense of their physical location (know-
ing the physical whereabouts of their students) and in the sense of
academic activity (monitoring the students' skills, progress, and present
activities). Much of the teacher's time is spent accounting for the
physical and academic whereabouts of their students. Accounting for the
physical whereabouts of students entails calling roll, monitoring the
comings and goings of students, and generally keeping students in view.
Accounting for the academic location of students entails such activities
as collecting papers, recording grades, keeping students on task, and
charting students' progress over time.

Accounting behavior has both manifest and latent functions within

the classroom. The manifest function is to allow the teachers to keep
track of their students and thus be able to help them and, when needed,
to manage nr control them. The latent function of accounting is to rein-
force the expectation that the teacher is--and should be--in control of
classroom events. If teachers can continually account for their students,
it is easier to hold students accountable for their acts. Perhaps the
latent functions of accounting are more important than the manifest
functions, 'For teachers who are unable to legitimate their managerial role
for students have liittle hope of controlling their students' behavior.
,

[Link] is the process teachers use to tell students what

they should be doing during routine classroom events. It is a taken-for-
granted assumption within most classrooms that the teacher has things for
students to do and will let students know what is to be done, how it is

AP.

254
 Vir

/
to be done and when it is to be done. A tabulation of protocol data
reveals that teachurs instigate, direct, and monitor a vast array of
student activities as the following excerpts from field notes reveal:

The teacher says to the class, "Students whb need

to go to the library should go now.. I'm waiting
for. . .you to get going [so the rest of us] an /
start our work."

The teacher turns to say, "You have your

let's get busy!"- The teacher asks Waldo to pa s
out [additional] work sheets.

The teacher says, "O.K., let's look at"the board.

\ Tom, will you read the first [sentence]."

The teacher tells the class, "Get out your paper

and begin to write. I don't want to take [away]
any of [your] yearbooks, so don't read them now."

The teachers says, "When you're finished [[Link]]

the paper, return it to the owner."

The teacher directs the class to put their chairs

up on the desk.

The teicher says to three students, "Look at me.

Before you leave I want you to [clean your desk]."

The teacher tells Tom, "Go to the shelf and get a

book, but please don't talk, O.K.?"

Willie is a short fellow. He gets up to get an

activity out of a. packet the teacher has posted
on the back wall. It is too high for him to
reach so he jumps for the packet and aimost knocks
down a sign. The [Link] him to get
. . .

a`chair. . . .
eq.

The teacher says, "People, listen carefully. The

test will be timed for 25 minutes. We'll grade it
[when yoiere through]. Those encyclopedias need
to be put .up."

"Kids, it's time to start cleaning up. ."

. The
.

teacher givesdirections about which group of

students should be cleaning up the room and work
areas. Everyone is instructed to put their chairs
back under the tables.

Every teacher in our study gave frequent directions to students.

Instructions were issued with the unambiguous expectation of pupil

'ees

255
2,73
compliance. Students were expected to do as Ahey were told, to acknow-
ledge (or at least not publicly challenge) the teacher's,right to issue
directions. They wert expected to see the teacher's directions as
reasonable and legitimate. As long as the expectations were Ocit Publicly
violated, the classroom situation reMained non-problematic. Giving
directions gave students things to do and keeping students busy lessened
the chances of student misbehavior. It helped define the classroom
situation as beingin the teacher's control.

3. Once directions have been given, the teachgr must monitor the
class to see that his or her directions are being carried Out. The
monitoring process helps keep [Link] task. It also serves to define
the limits of acceptable behavior and reinforces the teacher's control
over classroom activities. One teacher who. is proud of her management,
skills explained that close supervision of students helped them to:

know what to expect from me.' They know what

I'll put up with and what, I won't. .
. They.

know what's expected of them. [Thus] very, very

few times have they ever come close to going
over the line.

Monitoring student behavior helps a ttacher control the definition of

the situation. It also helps the teacher avoid potential trouble; to
keep routine situations from becoming unexpectedly problematic. The
monitoring of classroom noise serves both these functions. Teachers
frequently establish their control of the class by quieting students
at the start of the period. Some examples:

"Good afternoon, sit in yOilr seats. . Jet's

settle down. Everybody get quiet."

The bell rings indicating the class has begun.

The teacher says, "All right, let's get started."'

The teacher is standing at the front of the room.

She says, "I see some of you aren't liitening.
You should be taking out your work, so let's do
that."

The teacher begins the class by reading from a

[student's] paper. . . As she does so, two
.

boys are shifting their feet and being mildly

noisy- The teacher says, "Excuse me," and
looks in their direction. The noise stops.

The bell has rung and students are sitting in

their seats talking in normal conversational
tones. The teacher walks in and says, "Hey,
guys, there's [Link] noise." She goes to her
desk and flips through some papers.

256
274
 Once the class has begun,teachers monitor student behavior and
quiet pupils who are making too much noise. By doing so they encourage
attentiveness to the lesson and reinforce control of the situation by
insuring that student behavior never gets "out of hand." Some examples
from field notes:

Edwin comes into class wearing dangling type

bracelets, gives a message to the teacher and
then walks toward his seat. Alva says, "Stop
rattling those bracelets, boy." The teacher
says, "Edwin, I'll have to send you out if
you don't get quiet."

The teacher calls Sam's name indicating that

he should be quiet.

The teacher asks a student a question and then

says, "Shhh," to the class as she waits for an
answer.

The teacher says, "Frankie, let's get quiet."

Two students are talking about perfume. The

teacher interrupts, "Come on, let's not worry
about those smells. Lets get to work."

The teacher says to the class, "You can't all

talk this much in the library."

The teacher says to the students, "I'm going

to have to be a little bossy now." Referring
to one student who is talking, the teacher says,
"You're going to miss this because you're being
noisy."

4. Teachers do a lot of quieting during a typical class per-od and

musttake care that their efforts to quiet individual class members do
not disturb the attention of other students. Thus, we frequently found
teachers in ;outine situations quieting students with the force of a
look, a signal, or, in some instances, by falling silent half way through
a thought. Some examples from field notes:

The teacher starts to talk to the class [but

stops in mid-sentence and] waits. Her silence
and look indicate her disapproval of the noise.

A student says something the teacher is unable

to hear. A number of students are yelling. The
teacher says [in d vlice loud enough for the class
to hear] "I'm sorry, i rouldn't hear you."

257
275
 The teacher stops talking and says to a student,
"I'll wait for you to finish your comments."

Quieting is a recutTing activity throughout the class period.

Every teacher has a noise threshold that registers when students become
too obstreperous. The level,of acceptable noise varies from teacher to
teacher and from activity to activity, class to class, and even from
moment to moment. Teachers pzy accept little noise at the beginning
of the class but more noise at the end. They may accept no talking
during a test, a little more during seatwork and a good deal more during
discussion activities.

The monitoring of classroom npise is part of the teacher's

effort to maintaiii-hts-m%-ter-OW-defitatturrof-the-situation. Teachers
will usually ttlerate noise resulting froM student enthusiasm for some
academic task. Noise generated by a science project, play, debate, or
classroom discussion is general', accepted as long as it does not "get
out of hand." If the noise goes beyond "tolerable limits," the teacher
will usually quiet the class with a gentle comment.

O.K., let's quiet down now.

Shusp. Let's keep quiet so we can hear what

Janel has to say.

Noise which results from clowning, off-task behavior, or class-

room rowdiness is dealt with more sternly.

Class, that is enough! I'm not going to have

this much noise in here now. You can quiet
down this minute or we can complete this work
during lurch.

It appears that it is not noise per se which governs a teacher's

response to student talk, but rather the meaning that the noise holds
for the teacher. Noise can be a sign of student enthusiasm for an
academic task, but it can also be a sign that students are forgetting
or directly challenging the teacher's definition of the classroom
situation. In the latter cases student noise carries the suggestion
that the teacher is not in control of the class, and the classroom
situation is thus problematic.

hbnaging student behavior by accounting, directing, and monitoring

is a means of keeping routine classroom situations from becoming problem-
atic. Being a good classroom manager is the primary method teachers have
of creating and sustaining their own definitions,of the classroom
situation. It is also the primary way that teachers have to demonstrate
their competence to colleagues, students, and ultimately to themselves.

258
276
Avoidance Tactics

The teachers we interviewed and observed indicated that good

classroom management is as much a matter of anticipating problematic
situations-before they occur (and thus avoiding them) as it is a matter
of settling problems that have already taken place. The strategies of
avoidance in routine'situations will be discussed under the headings
[Link] Diverting.

1. Anticipating entails an evaluation of events that determines

what behaviors are most likely to contribute to keeping routine situations
from becoming problematic. Even taken-for-granted activities such as
leaving the classroom to visit the lavatory must be evaluated to see if
[Link]-absenc-e w4l-1--irff4-te--trojk1 ejn4he--e1ass--r---As:--one-high------
school teacher explained:

A really good teacher wouldn't leave the class

unless it was absolutely necessary. I have to
[Link] time and the class [when it is safe
for me'to ledye the room] before I can go to
the restroom. I will say to the kids, "Look. . .

I've got to leave, is that all right?" If I get

the feeling that they're going to be fine, I'll
give them something to do--and not necessarily
busy work. . ., something important--and then
I'll leave.

Another teacher nid

that administrators at his school do not
understand how carefully he must calculate whether it is safe to leave
the classroom between class period.

The administrator says, "If you've got to go

to the bathroom, it's OK for you to leave the
class." But I know it's not OK. If you leave,
, you risk coming back to a classroom that's in
chaos.

Anticipating problematic situations allows teachers to avoid

confrontrations that might cause them to lose control of classroom
events. [Link] school teacher makes this point dramatically:

I'm just saying that when ',you have a black student

who you know has hit somebody over the head with a
baseball bat [and] set somebody's hair on fire; and
you have a [Link] [white] kids who are rednecks,
you aren't going to be able to leave that classroom.
It's a tinder box.

2. Diverting occurs when a teacher acts to physically or mentally

move a student away from situations that invite misbehavior and that
might demand a disciplinary response from the teacher. Some examples of
diverting behavior:

259
277
 A middle school language arts teacher surveys the
classroom and says to a student, "You're going to
get into trouble back there, so please move up [to
the front of the room]."

[A middle school teacher has been having trouble

keeping Tommy quiet and on task. She has asked
him repeatedly to lower [Link] but Tommy's
behavior hasn't changed.] [Link] three students
at the frontdesk talking with the teacher. Tommy
leaves the teacher's desk and goes to-the side
table. He is talking [again] as he walks. The
teacher looks over at him and says softly, "Tommy,
you're loud." Tommy continues talking. The teacher
gets up [from her desk] saying, "Tommy, come here."
Her voice is soft and unthreatening. She takes Tommy
to a side table and [gives him instructions] in
how to use a controlled reader.

In the Second case the diverting tactic was successful. The

teacher's tactic was to give Tommy a task that would hold his interest
and quiet him down. She conspicuously avoided chastising him for his
inattention and loud behavior. As she explained to a classroom observer,
"The more forceful I become the worse [the behaVior] gets. If I can stay
calm, the kids will stay calm."

Diverting techniques are sometimes used to keep students from

getting into conflicts with fellow students; conflicts that the teacher
may have to resolve. Two examples from field notes:

Tom is having words with a student on [Link] side

of the classroom. He is angry, gots up from his desk
and walks toward his foe. The teacher is watching from
her desk and says, "Tom, while you're up*will you
please bring me the dictionary?"

Alvin [a middle school student] is playing with a

cigarette lighter. He sets his quiz 'Paper on fire
and quickly blows it out. The teacher stares . . .

at ,him but says nothing. I can't be sure if she saw

him set fire to the paper. The teacher says [to the
class], "OK, how about if the first person in each
row--for example, Betty in the case of this row--
picks up the [quiz] papers in numerical order. . ."
.

Students are up and moving around within a second

of the teacher's orders. Alvin calls out, "Hey, first
person, [he's talking to Betty] collect my paper; collect
my paper, you wimp!" The teacher tells Alvin to bring
his paper up to her desk [and he responds] "God, she
was supposed to pick it up!" He gets up and brings his
paper [to the teacher].

260
278
 In both of the above incidents the teacher surveyed the situation,
determined it to be potentially problematic and worked quickly to divert
students away from,probable trouble. By keeping students out of trouble,
I. the teachers were able to keep themselves out of trouble as well. A battle
which is not fought is a battle which cannot be lost.

Most situations fall far short of the teacher's notiol of the ideal
teadhing experience. Our classroom observations would suggest that
students do not often share the teacher's objectives and role commitments,
certainlynot to the degree that the teacher would like. Thus even
routine situations are seldom solidly unproblematic. An unexpected turn
of events may change the classroom climate considerably. If teachers
do not remain ever vigilant--if they fail to anticipate problems before
they occur, or handle problems quickly when they do occur--teachers lose
control of the classroom situation. Every loss of control makes it likely
that the teadher's definition of the situation will be challenged more
often in the future. the more often situations in which the teacher is
unable to manage classroom events occur, the more difficult it becomes
1
for the teacher to teach and for the teacher to maintain the image of
competence that is being claimed when taking the role of teacher.
Accounting, directing, monitoring, anticipating, and diverting are all
means of maintaining the equilibrium of non-problematic situations. We
turn now to the question of classroom management in problematic situations.

Classroom Management in Problematic Situations

Classroom events can be viewed as a mass of fast-changing

situations, each one of which must be defined by participants. When
teachers and students dcfine situations in a like manner, individual
behavior stays recognizably close to role expectations, identities are
defined by the roles individuals play, and events proceed on generally
predictable course. When the definition of a routine situation is
challenged by the expressed attitudes and/or overt behaviors of students,
the situation is rendered problematic and the dignity and public image
of the teacher is put in jeopardy.

Most teachers try to control the meaning of classroom situations

by colitrolling the behaviors of students. "I don't want [students]
talking at the same time that I'm talkihg," explained a middle school
teacher. "If I tell them to do something, I want them to do it." When
studeqs do as they're told they confirm the roles of the teacher and their
at least outward acceptance of the teacher's performance. When they dis-
obey the teacher they deny the confirmation of competence that is implied
in students' acts of obedience. Thus, from the teacher's perspective:

A lot of [student misbehavior] has to do with just

not acknowledging that I am the teacher and you are
- the student. That's [what I mean by] respect. I
am older. I know a little more than you do.. . .

That's what I expect; respect in the sense that

261
279
 when I'm talking, you listen and when I
want you to do something, you do it -
as long as it's right. Hopefully,
I'll never tell them to do something that's wrong.

Respect is a key word in the vocabulary of teachers. When ,

students do not show the teacher proper respect, they challenge the
teacher's competence to play the teacher role. They do not acknowledge
fithat I am the teacher and you are the student." The teacher's profess-
ional self image rests on just such an acknowledgment. Thus, the more
overt or serious the student's challenge to the situational status quo,
the more threatening it is likely to be to the teacher. Unintentional
violations of-Elass rules are less problematic than intentional ones;
secretive violations are le'ss-problematic than public ones, and
occasional violations less'problematic than frequent ones.

Teachers gauge the severity of a rule violation according to the

threat it poses to their professional self esteem. Such calculations
are more emotional than cognitive. Major threats will have greater
emotional impact than will minor disruptions. Thus, the responses of
teachers to problematic situations,vary widely. We will begin a dis-
cussion of the strategies teachers use in problematic situations by
first examining events that threaten a teacher's professional esteem
in a minor way and then examining by gradual degrees more tnreatening
situations.

1. Ignoring. Teachers often ignore minor infractions of class

rule, especially if such infractions do not disrupt the class and thereby
challenge the teacher's definition of the situation. For example, in a
class where a student was giving a report the teacher ignored the fact
that five pupils had their heads on their desks and were not participating
in class discussions.

We observed over 250 .fnstances of ignoring in our classroom

observatipns. It was by far the most frequently coded item in our
protocols. Usually these incidences involved the teacher ignoring
student inattention, low levels of classroom noise, the passing of notes
or other such nondisruptive and nenthreatening events.

Teachers will seldom ignore a student talking back or showing

disrespect. However, such occasions may be ignored if they are quickly
followed by signs of student acquiescence. An example from field notes:

The teacher tells Eddie, a white male, "Keep your hands

to yourself." I cannot hear his response,but it was
evidently non-conciliatory because she [the teacher]
asks if he wants to work outside the room. He gives
another response (again I can't hear) and she repeats
her previous^statement. He says, "I wasn't talking
to you," and then he gets quiet.

In this case the teacher did not need to chastise the student for
his disrespectful reply because she had already established her dominance

262
280
 in the situation. The boy had stopped bothering his neighbor and fell
silent, after one last and uneventful barb was tossed in the teacher's
direction.

In some situations teachers ignore student misbehavior as an

avoidance tactic, as a means for staying clear of people or events that
could prove threatening to their self esteem. For example, one day
toward the end of the year a movie was shown to students as a reward for
bringing back library books on time. A teacher walked her class to the
auditorium where perhaps 250 students waited\ excitedly for the movie to
begin. When the lights dimmed,the noise level, grew deafening,and students
began throwing paper airplanes and rough-housing and generally raising
Cain. The school's P.E. teacher called for quiet, but his requests were
only momentarily,respected. The female teacher left the auditorium. She
explained to an observer that such situations were chaotic and that she
wasn't going to stay around to watch "the circus." by leaving the
situation she freed herself from the responsibility for maintaining order..
and protected herself against the probability that she would fail.

Similar situations were observed in classrooms'. Teachers would

sometimes leave a hostile (or potentially hostile) student alone and
thereby avoid unnecessary confrontations. A case in point: \

Edwin walk.. into the class late. He is very angry,

lips protruding, frowning. The teacher smiles and
says, "Well, good morning, stranger." Edwin does
not respond. Still frowning, he hands the teacher
a tardy slip andsits down. The teacher looks at
the slip for a second and says, "All right, just
give me a couple of minutes and I'll get with you
and get you started." The rest of the class is
doing seat work, and the teacher is giving individual
help to students who ask for it. Ten minutes later
the teacher asks Betty to, "get altl the papers [for
this assignment] and give them to Edwin." The teacher
looks at Edwin and asks, "Do you have a pen or pencil?"
He shakes his head indicating that he doesn't. The
teacher says, "Well, then, can you give me a dime so I
cap sell you a pencil and get you started?" Edwin
doesn't respond and still looks upset. The teacher
turns and goes back to working with Emma. Twenty-five
minutes later the teacher hadn't talked with Edwin again.

On occasion, teach&s are aware that students have challenged the

teacher's definition of the situation but choose not to respond to that
challenge because to do so would invite further problems with the student.
According to the teacher's calculations more is likely to be lost in this
situation than is to be gained. Such challenges from students can go un-
heeded if they are not dramatic or public. Some examples:

The teacher is asking students questions about

vocabulary words. Half way through the exercise

263
281
 the teacher asks a question,and Bill raises his
hand to answer. Sally calls out the answer. Bill
registers his discontent with the way the class
is being run by saying, "I'm sick of this." The
teacher looks at Bill in discouragement but contin-
ues to teach the lesson.

A student is giving reports at the front of the

class. In the middle of Betty's report Alva says,
"Mrs. Jones, your shoes are freaky." The class is
restless,and the teacher ignores*the comment.

During a reading lesson the students have taken

turns reading a short story. The teacher says,
"We have enjoyed reading this, Now let's learn
from it." She asks the class a question,and Tom
calls out sarcastically, "Your guess is as good as
mine." The teacher ignores his comment and says,
"Which of you is sharp enough to hear the poetic
devices used most [in this story]?"

.In some cases ignoring is not so much a device for avoiding

trouble as it is a method of cutting one's losses. If a teacher has
great difficulty controlling,the class, if students are in open and
continual rebellion against her claims to authority, she may shy
away from trying to gain control of the situation for feat" that her
efforts will invite students to defy her requests and thus further
the teacher's humiliation. An example:

The class has'ended as far as instruction is

concerned. The teacher has disontinued the
lesson and is talking with John and Kim. The
class is becoming somewhat chaotic.' Bill and
Amy are chasing each other alround the class.
Edward is spraying a wall poster with a bottle
of tile cleaner he has snuck out of the teacher's
filing cabinet. He moves to the classroom door-
way and begins to spray passersby. Bill grabs
his crotch and shouts, "Amy stop grabbing my
dick." Sally and Amy are now chasing Bill,
grabbing,him between the legs. Finally Bill
runs up to the teacher shouting, "Watch Amy, she's
grabbing for my nuts." Only then does the teacher
acknowledge what is going on. She turns to Anly
and says, "Stop that. Act like a lady." The
teacher moves to the front of the room while Bill,
Sally, and Betsy scramble around the class. . . .

All teachers ignore some student misbehavior. They do so as a

strategic device designed to keep the class running smcothly, to avoid
diverting student attention,from the task at hand and to avoid unnecessary

264
282
 risks to their "good teacher" image. Classroom events happen quickly
and teacLars must observe what's doing on around them and calculate what
is likely to occur from one moment [Link] next. Under conditions of
uncertainty and risk teachers thOst almost pre-reflectively calculate
which courses of action will maximize their control of the situation and
minimize their risks of losing control. Central in this decision-making
process is the unstated bOt deeply felt assumption that teachers must
protect their fragile image of professional competence.

A teacher who has a history of good discipline in her class can

afford to ignore some student misbehavior simply by pretending she is
unaware of the transgression. We seldom saw teachers who had reputations
for being "good"classroom managers" ignore student misoehavior when it
was obvious to the class that a transgression had occurred and that the
teacher was aware of its occurrence. Occasionally good disciplinarians
pretended not to see an event and, by so doing, freed themselves from
the role obligations to act. Such strategic moves helped teachers avoid
conflicts with the students and helped protect their image of competence.

Teachers who had a reputation for being poor classroom managers

and who had little or no control of classroom events frequently ignored
student challenges, insults, and rowdineis. Once classroom situations
had gotten out of hand, such teachers apparently felt that they could
not afford the backlash lhat would result from "taking a stand." To
challenge a student for inisbehavior would guarantee a confrontation
which the teacher knew would escalate. While the teacher might win the
confrontation, his already bruised image of competence would be further
battered in the battle. As one teacher with grave discipline problems
explains, "I certainly wouldn't demean myself to enter a feuding situation
with a kid." Ignoring was a common strategy for the teacher. It was a
strategic move calculated to cut his losses and protect him from further
humiliation.

2. When students misbehave teachers will often handle the ituation

by telling the offending student what te or she should be doing:

Betty, pa like you to be in your seat.

'Tommy, you should not be talking. You should

be doing your work.

The bell has ndt yet rung. No one should be

leaving their seats.

Students usually stop misbehaving when teachers call on them. by

,name in a quiet, firm, but non-threatening tone.

3. A few teachers gave directions and followed their behavior

requests with a brief statement explaining why compliance with the request

265
283
was important:

The teacher responds to a student who is acting up.

"O.K., Robbie, why don't you turn around, please.
It might be easier for you if you paid attention."
There is no hint of sarcasm or displeasure in the
teacher's voice.

The teacher is giving instructions. "Now, listen,

because some people in the last period didn't listen
and did more work than they had to. Since there is
already a lot of work, you don't want to do more than
you have to.".

I intend to be flexible but during your life you

have to learn to be on time. You will be penalized
[for being late]. There's nothing else I can do.

The teacher turns to a student who has been somewhat

off task and tells him sternly that she wants him to
move becuase he is missing out on too much. ,

Explanations following a teacher request may serve to legitimate

the teacher's directions and diffuse the conflict that such directions
might otherwise have caused.

4. Some teachers, though a minority of t'he teachers we observed,

personalized their directions to students. Such teachers attempted to
trigger in their students sympathy, loyalty, and perhaps guilt in order
to change student behavior.

The teacher is lecturing and the students are talking.

The teacher says, "How do you think this makes me feel?
It sort of hurts my feelings. It makes me feel that,
what I'm saying is [Link] in one ear and out the other."

I hope you'll all be alert on Wednes0ay. It hurts my

feelings when you don't. We're going to have a test
tomorrow. When I have to [give] a lot of,.zeros, it
makes me feel real bad. If you fail,tomorrow, I'll
be very displeased with you.

A female student asks if the teacher will let the class

turn in information they have copied from a book. The
teacher answered emphatically, "No, I will not." :.;he
explains that she wouldn't allow [them to copy] because
she cares about them and what they learned. Therefore,
she would not let them plagiarize.

5. When student misbehavior is annoying to teachers, they will

frequently communicate their displeasure to students as they issue

266
284
 directionsto their misbehaving pupils. In such cases the teacher's
message is intended not merely to end the misbehavior but to mildly
punish it as well. Some examples:

Emile is told, "Keep you hands to yourself."

Most students [Link] task, but a few are fooling

around. "Henry," the teacher asks rhetorically,
"are you working on your project or just clowning?"

Teacher tells Art [in a harsh tone] to "turn around."

Wait a second, guys. Either you control yourselves

or IT' control your behavior for you.

"Cohald, where is your book?" Donald holds up his

book and the teacher commands, "Well, open it."

Even mild messages of annoyance may have an impact on students

because such messages are delivered in public. By correcting a student's
misbehavior and by doing so with annoyance, the entire class is attracted
to the transgression and alerted to the teacher's &FS-Pleasure.

6. When misbehavior begins to threaten the teacher's control over the

definition of the classroom situation and thus threatens the teacher's
situational identity, the teacher's reaction to the misbehavior is likely to
become more emotibnal. In such situatiohs teachers often warn students
that continued misbehavior will have specific and unpleasant consequences.
For example, one teacher warned a misbehaving student that he would be
kept after class if he didn't stop bothering his neighbor and get to work on.
his assigned project:

"Charlie, would you'like to do this assignment during

the first five minutes of lunch time?" Charlie answers
quickly, "No." 'The teacher then says, "Well, please be
quiet."

,
In another classrPom a student adjusted a fan so the air would come
in his direction. The tfeacher announces to the lass in a stern voice:

Class, it's time we get the rules abou the an down

'd
cold. If any student touches the fan,'I'll turn it off
for the rest of the period. That's the rule. This is
my fan; I bought it with my own money. I don't want
any students touching the fans. If you touch them,
that will be all for the day. I'll, turn them off.
They're my fans. I. bought them with my own cash. I
don't want students touching the fans.

On another occasion students have been causing minor disturbances through-

out the class. The teacher looksup to see them passing a football back and
forth between them. The teacher warns:

267

285
 If I have to speak to you one more time about staying
on task, I'm sending you down to the Dean.

The teadter warnings we have just reviewed were punitive in intent.

We found few instances where teachers actually carried out the punishments
they threatened. The public threat and the negative language
that carried
it were the teacher's intended punishments.

7. The closer the situation comes to threatening the teacher's

control of the class the more likely it is to excite the emotions of the
teacher. On such occasions the teacher2s tone becomes harsh and his or
her intention to reestablish control of the situation becbmes more obvious.
The harsh tone of the teacher's re'primand is intended to pUblicly punish
the student for his. or her misbehavior. Some examples:

Tom, will you shut up!

The teacher notices that some students are spraying

desks [with the teacher's tile cleaner]. The teacher
says, "I don't think that'[Link]." Her voice is
angry. "Now sit down and read." Two boys tre playing
outside theroom-.--TITeteactrerctl-Ts-; "Comeinhere
and behave. You have an assignment."

The teactiersays to the class-;--mStopwa-sting time. .

you're wasting time. You say I don't give you

enough time, but you waste if."

The teacher raises her voice to a near yell and says,

"Class, you must be quiet. Do you understand what
I'm saying? I have [Link] in here today. Classes
are all around us. I don't want to be nasty tbday, but
if you make a great deal of noise I'm going to have to ask
you to leave." She stops [talking] and immediately the
noise level moves u . She breaks in again,,this time
nearly yelling. "Y u're going to have to be 1u4et. This
is the last time I'r going to tell you that."

A wad of paper is thrown across the room. The teacher

says angrilY, "You know we don't do that!"

Two boys at the back of the room begin chasing each

other. The teacher sees them and calls out, "I'm not
going to have that."

The teacher stops at .Becky's desk and asks a question.

Becky answers but I [the researcher], can't hear whet
she says. The teacher says forcefully, "Becky, I told
you to do that when you got back [to the class]. Do
it now. Immediately!"

268
286
 "Turn around and be still or I'll scotch-tape your
mouths." The teacher looks sternly at the class
and the'noise decreases. "

A white male at Table 1 talks to a black male next

to him. The teacher asks the white male if he has
turned in his assignment. He gives the teacher a
blank look. The teacher says, "Don't you know if
you .did your work this past week?" He answers, "I
wasn't here Friday." The teacher exclaims, "Friday
has nothing to do with it. Don't you care?" The
student answers, "No." The teacher ssays, "Then be
quiet and don't disturb anyone, because they do care
what they get done during this marking period."

8. The last strategy for handling public misbeha'Vior is sending

a student to a higher school authority for discipline. Every school,we
observed in had a dean or vice-principal to handle difficult students.
The teachers we observed did not avail themselves of the school's
disciplinarian very often. To do so wai in some degree an admission that
the teacher could not handle classroom problems on his or her own. As a
high school teacher told us, "I don't send a student,up if I think I can
talk t&him and make him see that he can't [misbehave] like that, that he
should behave himself" This teacher ohly sent to the office those students
she felt she could not convince that they had misbehaved. Teachers who
are worried about what their colleagues will think of them are careful
not to send students to the dean's office very often. We asked a high
school teacher if there was "a significant message" in sending students
to the office frequently. She answehd:

Yes, though I'm sure 6obody sits,up there counting.

I guess it depends on what the discipline problems
are. Teachers can't do much to stop. . .students
from being tardy to the first period class. [So
sending students to the bffice for that offense is
understandable.] But we can stop students from
being^tardy the rest of the day. [Students will
be on time] .if they know we expect'them to be on
time. They won't [be on time] if they think they
can get away with being late. [Sending students to
the office for being late to class during the day]
is a sign of poor diiscipline. It's [also] a sign of
poor,discipline when'a student walks out of a class or
confront§ a teacher.

As we have seen in previous chapters of this report poor dis-

cipline is often considered to be an indication of teacher ncompetence.
Teachers must guard against getting [Link] for being unable to
handle a class. Teachers who Use the dean's office too frequently or
"write up" students for misbehavior tFat other teachers could handle
easily run the risk of damaging their image of competence in the
school.

269
287
 /
,
If, however, a teacher has a reputation for being a goad
disciplinarian, he can afford to send some students to the office
as a punishment in order to set an example for the class of what
happens to students who challenge the teacher's authority. An
example from field notes:

As the bell rings the teacher begins a grammar lesson.

In the middle of the teacher's explanation she
turns to Bill and tells him to put soMething (I
can't see what) away. Later she approaches
Stdphanie and says (I can't hear her well because
sh0s on the other side of the room) something
to the effect, "I told you to put that away. Now
I'm`boing to have to write you up." The student
objects, but the teacher ignores her comments.
The [Link] the write-up sheet from the
t cher, gathers her books and leaves for the of-
Alce.

e public nature of the event--the fact that Stephanie was .

chastised by the teacher' in front of the class and had to gather

her books and walk out of the room while the teacher waited in .
silence lor her to exit--madesthe punishment more severe and served
to set an example for other students who might contemplate ignoring ,

a teacher request in the future. This lesson was reinforced when

later the vice-principal came into the/classroom ta discuss the in-
cident with the teacher. As he entered,the teacher said in a voice
loud enough for the class to hear, "Da you have a good hot spot for
Stephanie to sit in?" Later we asked the teacher to tell us why she
had sent Stephanie up to the office.

I remember distinctly. I- said to Bill, "Put that

book away." Then the bell rang and I started clags,
and I said, "I told you to put that away ..'."
Stephanie took the book and began reading it at
the top of her voice. I said to her,, "Stephanie,
I ju t said to put that away." Wel1,1 I sent her
up t the office. I think she needs to know
that you don't [disobey the teacher]. When the
teacher has told you not to do something, you do
it. . . If the teacher expects you to be quiet
.

and start class [on time], you do what the teacher

expects.

In this case, as in so many classroom management situations

we have discussed, the teacher was enforcing her authority regarding
her control of classroom eyents. It has been argued in this sectian
that we can best understand the classroom management activities of,
teachers and the teachers' emotional involvement in such activities
if we examine them in the light of the teachers' need to maintain an
image of competence in a profession that provides little solid

270
26,5z,
 evidence of and scant reward for doing one's job well. As we shall
see, the classroom management strategies teachers use are related to
efficacy attitudes they hold.

A Methodological Abte

At the end of this section, and at the end of the two sections
that follow in the chapter, some generalizations will be mide about
the characteristics of high and low efficacy teachers. It should be
remembered that middle and junior high school teachers were selected
for observation on the basis of their efficacy scores. High efficacy
scores in this portion of the study were those teachers who had efficacy
scores of 8 or above and low efficacy teachers were those who had
scores of 6 or below.

Observers did not know the efficacy scores of the teachers

they observed. Six observers were used and at least ten hours of
observations were completed in the classrooms of each teacher. Five
high-efficacy teachers and five low-efficacy teachers were observed.

Following classrobm observations,two researchers independently

reviewed field notes and interview data. The researchers were asked
to estimate the eFficacy categories of each teacher (high efficacy
versus low efficacy) on the basis of what the teachers did in their .

classrooms and what teachers said during interviews. Both researchers

correctly estimated the efficacy categories of all but one teacher.
The attitudes and behaviors of this teacher did not coincide with
the answers she gave on two efficacy items that appeared on a teacher
questionnaire. It was decided on the basis of her frequent references
to the inability of some students to learn and her demonstrated
inability to control her classroom, instruct her class or win her
students' favor that she thould be considered a low-efficacy teacher.
(SeeAppendix S.)

Grounded theory coding was completed and the core variable of

the theory was established before the researcher responsible for this
phase of the research was toldtfie effitacy scores of teachers. On
the basis of what was found in the coding prbcess it was decided that
the second phase of our research would be conducted in high school
basic skills classes where, it was assumed, efficacy attitudes are put
to their severest test. It was also decided that systematic observa-
tion instruments would be used to determine if the findings of our
qualitative research efforts were substantiated using quantitative
methods. It should be kept in mind, therefore, that the grounded
theory Rortion of this research project set the stage for the quantita-
tive .portion which followed.

271

28 9
The Classroom Management Strategies of Low-Efficacy Teachers

No single variable distinguishes the management techniques of

high-efffcacy teachers from those enployed by their low-efficacy
colleagues. The teachers of a particular category do,not necessarily
use the same management methods and it would be a mistake to believe
that efficacy attitudes dictatespecific recipes for instruction or
discipline. Neveetheless, some useful generalizations can be made
when we look across the differences that exist within each efficacy
group. We will examine the manaaement styles of low-efficacy teachers
first and then proceed to an examination of the management styles of
high-efficacy teachers.

Low-efficaty teachers in this study were likely to perceive

students, especially low achieving students, as threatening to the
teacher's definition of the classroom situation and to the order of
the class. Though the classes of low-efficacy teachers often ran
smoothly, from the teacher's point of view disorder was an ever present
possibility. As one-low-efficacy teacher put it:

You have to be constantly on your guard because you

never know if someone is going to say something
that's going to get somebody else mad. If someone
laughs at a student, you'Ve lost him for the
period. . . . Doggone it, there are always four or
Jive people that will throw things off. Maybe you
couldn't go over what you've done the day before
because they didn't bring [their work] to ,class,
or they left their books at home, or something
[that happened] to them. [Some students] don't
seem to card.

Some teachers contended that a single student could disrupt the

class and threaten the teacher's authority. One low-efficacy teacher
took an observer aside at the beginning of a class period to explain,
"There's a student in this class who ruins feverything]." She
indicated that she hoped the student would be absent that day.
Later the teacher said that her job was made unbearable by students

who cannot or will not concentrate, [and are]

concerned with socializing or being popular [and]
flirtatious. . . , Their attention span is very,
very short. .. . They do not contribute to
motivating themselves. They are easily diverted,
they are easily upset, sometimes by conditions
0
they have caused themselves. They've made more
trouble this year than ever before. Unless they
will help themselves, how can [the teacher] go
the extra mile? [Too many students have] the
attitude ... that they [shouldn't] rat on each
other. It's bad for society.

272
29u
 Some of the problems that existed in this teacher's class,
she insisted, were due to the County's busing policy:

I don't know whose idea it was to bus and mix

things up; I dop't think that's wise.

Another teacher explained that students with problems at home

or with peers often directed their frustration towards teachers in
the school. Such students, the teacher,explained, "would prefer to
throw alpencil or start an argument rather than work. . . . They
want to get the whole class off task." When there are a few such
students in a class, the teacher's authority is continually being
put in jeopardy and great care must be taken to insure that the
teacher does not lose control of the class.
^

The perception that low-achieving students will disrupt the

classroom led low-efficacy teachers-to work hatd to "keep thing!
under control." Control of potentially threatening students for such
teachers was a primary aim,and they employed a variety of techniques
in order to accomplish that end. A common control technique was the-
use of embarrassment to punish students who misbehaved and to dis-
courage other students who might misbehave in the future. Some
examples from field,notes and interviews:

When students misbehaved,I'd get a message to the

Dean.' I think it has a better effect if I go
with theM . . . and witness what the Dean says to
them. When somebody . . . fusses at you,and a
third person is watching, it's a humiliating ex-
perience. I think it has a better effect.

I tell them, "You're showing your ignorance. I

can tolerate ignorance,but you're proud of it.
You must be propd of your ignorance because you're
letting everybody know how ignorant you are.."

The teacher is sitting at [Link] at the front of

the room and asking questions of various students.
She asks Tom a question. Tom was talking to
another student at the time. Sally, Ted and
Emma raised their hands. Other students call out
answers. The teacher says, "If you didn't call
out answers you wouldn't expose yourselves.
Almost everyone of you has been wrong."

A student says to the teacher, "Why don't you

yut the answers up on the board as we go along?
The teacher responds, "If you want to run the
class, you can, otherwise, shut up."

273

291
 A visitor comes into tile room to remind students
that they will need permission slips if they are
going to go on the swiMONng field trip. The
teacher tells the vi'sitor, "It's all right with me
if you take all of them and drown them."

'Most of the time I [Link] be real, real, [Link].

Real tough. I would single out [a student] and
that would make them mad. I'd say, "Allen, I've
given up on you. . . " That would make him mad,
but it wouldn't make him change his ways. ,

The teacher is having trouble quieting the class.

She begins to speak, then waits for quiet, Soon
she begins again. Some students are talking at
the side of the room. The teacher says, "Excuse
me, Helen." Helen looks up. The teacher says,
"Go ahead, you finish." Helen falls silent,-and
the teacher continues.

Class noise is increasing. The teacher says,

"Why donit you put your left hand over your mouth
and write with the other one?"

There is noise in the room. The teacher says,

"You'll have to learn self-discipline. I'm not
allowed to bring strait-jackets."

The teacher says, "WhAt's your problem?" The

student says, "I don't have any paper." The
teacher responds rhetorically, "Don't you think
you need that when you come to school?"

The class begins and the teacher says, "People,

are you having trouble getting settled?" She
turns to Joe and saYs, "You're wasting time."
The teacher moves to table 6 and says, "Eyerything
is more interesting than what you are supposed to
be doing."

The teacher says angrily, "Turn around and be still,

or I'll tape your mouths shut."

The teacher asks a student, "Are you working on

your project or just clowning?" Listen, she tells
another student, "either you control yourself, or
I'll control your behavior for you."

Teachers in the incidents described above attempted to

control their students by occasionally embarrassing them in front
of the class. This is not a foolproof method of classroom dis-
cipline. One teacher who used this device was seldom able to

274
292
contrôl_classroom events. Other teachers, on the other hand, had -
better results. However, despite the face that most low-efficacy
teachers kept their classes ib apparent order, these same teachers
continued to perceive the class as at least potentially threatening.
A low-efficacy teacher explained that'she had to remain continually
vigilant in her class:

God, the abuse you have to put up with. Well,

qt's not that you have to put up with. it. I
k'Avouldn't pbt up with it, but it still come§
:Uack at me every day. 'Discipline problems burp
lyou out and make you feel useless. Youlve
lalready reached the kids you're going to reach
. . . during the first five minutes of the ,

class. . You spend the next 20 minutes

. .

worrying about discipline.

We asked this teacher how the pressure of classroom situations

Made her feel. She answered:

I .get killing headaches. I begin to 'feel

physically bad. And then you kfnd of want to
get back at them. I would feel myself going down
to their level. Rather than sending them out-dr
telling them to ttop I woUld.come_back at them.
In most cases they're not sophisticated enough
. . to match wits with you. They'll just say
.

something stupid. You might say something very

'meaningful, but they're not sinart enough to get it.

One low-efficacy teacher worked to turn the class againstdis-

ruptive students. A particularly severe example 9f this technique
occurred when the teacher had handed back an exam and was reviewing
the answers with her class. Early in the period a student raised
his hand to say, "I have this right, but you marked it wrong." The
teacher said she would look at his test after class. A few moments
later another studentindicated that he, too, had lost points for a
correct answer. The teacher said, "I didn't take points off [for
that answer], did I?" Again the teacher indicated she would look
at the student's test after class. Another grading question surfaced,
and the teacher gave the student creglit after looking [Link] paper.

A few moments later'Jessica, a girl sitting in the second row,

insisted that she had lost points for a question she thought was
correct. Her complaint was not that the teacher had inadvertently
marked a correct answer wrong, but that the teacher's idea of what
was,correct was itself in error. The teacher began to show signs 'of
annoyance and attempted to move on to the next question. The student
persevered, insisting, "But I was right." The teacher attempted to
avoid further confrontation by ignoring the student's complaint and
saying to the class; "We aren't going to lunch until we finish. So
let's get going, " The class wanted to go to lunch on time and
. .

began to pressure Jessica to stop questioning the teacher. The

observer described whattook place in the class:

275

293
 Some students comment, "Yes; let's get on,with it."
,JeSsica appears upset and looks down at her paper.
The teacher asks her, "What's the problem?
JeSsica replies softly, "I don't get it." Other
studeRts comment angrily, "She gets an'A,and
she's complaining about her grade. She should
see whai`I got." Jessica says sadly, "It's not
the grade,\Miss Doe; I just want to understand.
I don't understand why this is wrong."

Another studentS,Asks, "What is the grade scale

on the test?" The teacher says she doesn't remem-
ber and begint looking through the papers on her
desk. Another student says, "Forget it; let's go
on." But the teacher says, "No, you have the
right to know what the grade scale is. Let jne
find it." The teacher appears to be willing to
comply with students' requests but because she
-has said thatno one can leave for lunch until
they get through with the test, every student's
question is met with complaints from other
students.

As the teaCher is looking ler the grade scale she

says to the class, "I can't stand this stuff, can
you tell?" She finds the grade scale and reads
it to the class. Then she turns to Jessica and
says that there are differences of opinion on
what the right answer would be to the question
on the test. However, she indicates that her
Answer [the teacher's answer] is correct. [The
teacher reads the test question and then reads the
answer she contends is correct.] She then asks,
"Jessica, do you understand it now?"

The teacher has'not explained her answer, she has

merely asserted it. Jessica answers, "I just
think this is an adjective and that my answer is
correct."

Jessica was upset and looked down at her desk to hide her
face. Her fellow students were impatient. They wanted to go to
lunch and were not much interested in whether the teacher's answer or
Jessica's answer was correct. Jessica dropped the issue,and the
class moved on. A few moments later, however, the teacher brought the
class's attention back to Jessica:

The-teacher said7-"If you're going to cry and be

upset'about it, Jessica, I'm sorry." The teacher's
comment gave no hint of empathy. She has pointed
6ut to the class that Jeisica has been ,crying, a
fact that Jessica was trying to hide by keeping
her head down.

.9

276

294
 Another management device used by,low-efficacy teachers was
to socially separate "difficult students" from their classmates.
We call this process excommunicating. We only found this device
being used in low-efficacy classrooms. In its simplest form, ex-
communicating entailed sending potential trouble makensout of the
class. An example from field notes:

Students on the right side of the room are par-

ticipating in the . . lesson.
. Students on the
left side of the room are supposed to beimr-
ticipating but instead are engaged in their own
activities. The teacher ignore§ them. [when
the nofse level on the left side of the room gets
quite loud] the teacher tells three students,
"Any more trouble from you and youJre out."
Later she tells two of these students, "Go!"
One,asks, "Where?" The teacher answers, I don't
care, just go." The two students leave and the
third student decides to join them. A fourth
student asks if he may go to the lavatory and
then joini his friends outside the classroom door.

In another class a student tells the teacher that

a clissmate has snuck out of the room. The teacher
responds simply, "I'm happier with him outside.",

The excommunication deVice was often used during periods of

ins'truction, and it will be discussed again in the next section of
this chapter.

One low-efficacy teacher had almost no discipline problems in

her class. She maintained order by forming warm relationships with
students (so pupils were not prone to challenge her), by individualizing
instruction (so she almost never had to control students,(so pupils
experienced little academic frustration). Though this class was
relatively conflict-free, most of this teacher's time- and energy was
devoted to maintaining the warm environment that prevailed in her
room. She was constantly on the alert for potentially problematic
events and worked to intercede before'such problems took shape. As
we shall see in the next section of this chapter, there was little to
indicate that students progressed academically in this teacher's class.
The teacher's zeal for classroom harmony appearedto take precedence
over teaching and learhing.

he Classroom Management Strateaies of High-Efficacy Teachers

If most low-efficacy classrooms were characterized by an under-

current of tension, high-efficacy classrooms were characterized by
relative harmony. High-efficacy teachers in this study made fewer
and less negative comments about "problem students" and the trouble

111

277

295
 caused by such students.. High efficacy teachers were not likely to
use embarrassment or excommunication as tactics for classroom manage-
ment. One high-efficacy teacher explained that she strived to create
arelaxed situation" in her classes:

It has to be a relaxed situation. I don't ,

r like it ,when it's a strict regimentation type
of teaching. I think if students al4e
relaxed and a teacher is relaxed that there
is more learning [Link]. I read somewhere
recently in some paper or journal, that if
students laugh more they learn more.

Students misbehaved in classrooms run by high-efficacy teachers

just as they did in the classes of low-efficacy instructors. High-
efficacy teachers, like low:efficacy teachers, found it necessary to
correct misbehavior and keep students in line. However, high-efficacy
teachers were usually able to correct misbehavior directly without
negative affect, saftasm, embarrassment or humiliation. They were
not as likely to perceive students as desiring to misbehave and less
likely to interpret rule infractions as challenging thejr definition
of the classroom situation. As a consequence, high-efficacy teachers
were not as 1ikly as their low-efficacy colleagues to appear to be
angered or threatened by the misbehavior of students. Their correccive
remarks to students tended to be firm, to the point, and without
emotional embellishments. Some examples:

You're going to:Ot into trouble back there,

so please move up.

Ilove up a seat and stay there.

I want to see you after class.

You will not go until I finish giving you your

papers.

Those of you at the door, please come back and e,

sit down.

If you don't listen, you're going to miss this.

Now who's whistling? Cut it out, you'll 6ave all

week-end to whistle.

_You're late': Go get an Admit slip.

I'm not happy that so many people didn't meet the

deadline.

I'm waiting for everyone to get ready.

If teachers are to maintain their professional self-respect, they

must be able to maintain control of classroom situations. A high
percentage of both high and low-efficacy teachers appeared able

278
296
 . N
011,6.

to accomplish this goal. However, these two groups of teachers were

likely to define classroom events in somewhat different ways and to
respond to these events in a 'different manner.

Low-efficacy teachers were likely to define their classes in

.terms of potential disruption. They experienced many classroom
situations as being threatening to their self-esteem and took pride in
the'fact that they were able to control these threats by "keeping
students in line." Theirsciasses were often well behaved, but low-
efficacy teacherg were more likely to see routine classroom events in
problematic-terms and mildly problematic events as severely trouble-
some. As a result they reacted,tó problematic situations with more
negative affect and were more likely to embarrass or humiliate
students who misbehaved.

High-efficacy teachers defined student behavior in less threatening

terms and thus were less likely to react with negative emotion. Their
corrections and directions tended to be direct and non-hostile. As
a consequence, perhaps, they invited quicker,compliance from their
students and received less overt back talk from the pupils they re-
primanded. Slightly problematic situations seldom escalated into
major confrontations. Hid-efficacy teachers appeared to receive
fewer overt threats to their definition of the-situation.
a
The differences we believe exist between the classroom manage-
ment strategies of high and low-efficacy teachers are differences in ,

degree and not in kind. High-efficacy teachers do lose their tempers,*

do define some Students in negative terms and do occasionally speak
harshly or unkindly to their pupils. However,they appear to do so
less often. When systematic observation techniques were employed:in
basic skills high school classrooms to see if quantitative research
strategies would confirm the hypotheses generated by qualitative
methods, it was found that high-efficacy basic skills teachers were
more likely than their low-efficacy counterparts to run warm classrooms
characterized by a lack of negative affect. (See Chapter 5 ofsthis
report.)

Instruction

Instrdction and Professional Self-Esteem: Maximizing the Signs of Success

Instruction is central to a teacher's role. All of the teachers

we talked to claimed that one of their primary goals was to help
students learn subject matter and, in so doing, teach students how to
learn.

My major goal is to help students excel in academics

to the point where they are ab)e to get information'
for themselves. I want them to learn how to seek
information and learn how to select important informa.,
tion.

275

297
 My goal is to make students feelcomfortable with
themselves aril, with language arts.. I want
students to internalize the feeling that it's .

impärtant to learn. .

I want to help students makd normal progress and

to vork up to their potential.

041 'my objective is'to get [students] up tic) grade level.

a
I want to impart the' specific concepts and skills .

that students need in both the social studies and

, science. Along with that I want to be a friend to
them and to try to be [Link] understands them.-

My objective would be to plan [and preseptj material

so that students can get the knowledge.

[Link] students to ask questions that.

[demonstrate] their understanding of what va're
talking abput. I just Want them to understand the
content and to ast supplemental kinds of questions
.to make it even more interesting.

While teachers' gOals center around academic objectives, it is

difficult for teachers to know the degree to which they are achieving
these objectives. The question is not simply, Are the students
learning? becagse most-students learn something in every class they
take. The question teachers must answer is, ke students learning as
mush as they can or should be learning in my class? When the question
is asked in this way many variables come into thetpicture, such as
students' potential, their academic motivation, their aspirations and
family backgrounds. These factori are impossible to calculate with
yrecision. Yet without a knowledge of the impact these variables
have upon student achievement, teachers cannot be sure that they are
doing their jobs compe,tently.. As one teacher explained:
th
I can't say that every child will make a year's
progress by the end of school because some
students just can't thake a year's growth. OtherS
will really have a learning spurt. But it's
difficult to know if a student is achieving up
to his potential. I wish I could say I knew for
certain that all students were working up tO
their potential. [I don't,know that] and that's
'
frustrating and it's difficult. -But within my
human limitations I . . do the best I'can.
.

Teachers generally determine whether or not students are

learning,by administering tests. However, teacherstold us that
tests do not supply firm evidence that they have been teaching com-
petently and that test results do not always reflect real learning:

N.
280

298
 '

Lots of times students just study to answer ques-

I
tions [not to understand material]. They don't
retain as much tnformatiog asi wish they would.
There is very little I can do about that.'

I'm really not placing much emphasis-on tests.

The reason is that I knoW that sometimes a kid
/maphave a bqrday or he may not have studied.
. .

Teachers also report that they were often disappointed by

students' test performance. . AA

WHen,I tested my kids at the end of the school

year, it didn't seem as if they had learned any-
thing. And that's kida of depressing.

The test I'm gOing to give tothorrow,will be a

farce; a farce.

,Teachers need to believe that they [Link] effectively

if they are to maintain their sense of professional se1f-egeem. , ---
However, the teachers we talked to did not usually turn to test
results for evidence of their teaching effectiveness. Test scores,
it would appear, offered more threat than solace to teachers. Rather
than looking at test results for proof of their professiOnal com-
petence, teachers looked to responses from the student audience:

Sometimes stddents will come up and say, "This

was hard when we first started it, but now I
feel a lot better about it." Or, for instance,
if I'm teachfiTgNreading, one of my goals is
for students to enjoy reading and want to read.
'And. I'll see when I take them to 'the library
if they all go off on their own and bring-[books]
back:

If you see the lights turned on and if you notice

a child pursuing something [new], then you say,
"O.K., maybe we are making progress.4

If it's above their heads:half the class won't'

participate. If [the material] is at a low
level, the better [students] will be bored to death:
You can tell real fast,[if a lesson isn't working.]

You want,to know how I jgdge whether or not what

I'm doing is effective? I guess I just look at [the
students] and see if they're enthusiastic and
if/I thinkthey're really getting into the
-material and if I reafly think they're learning 4

something. ..

43,

- 281

2 99
 The most important [indicator] is if the student
has spent a lot of time working on his [assign-
ments]. If he has, I know he's serious.

I can telt [if students,are learning] from the

questions they ask dnd answer and from their
activities, their conv,ersation and expressions.
I pick up more information [about what'students
learn] from informal discussions [than I do
from testg.]

The finding that teachers assgs the effectivenesg-of their

instruction by referring to the immOlate reactions of students^
rather than the long-term performance of students on objective tests
is compatible wit'? the findings of Philip Jackson (1968) in a study
'of elementary school teachers:

.
Logically,at least, the conscientious teacher
ought to point with pride or disappointment to '

Oins or losses of students ds measured by teSt

perfprmance. But, as is often true in human
-4 affairs, the logical did not occe One of the
most interesting features of the interview -
material was the absence of reference to objective
evidence of schooT learning in contexts in which .

one might expect it to be-discussed.

Testing, when it is mentipned at all, is given

little emphasis. These teachers treat it as
. being of mjnor importance in helping them under-
stand how well they have done.
, -

The 'students'. enthusiasm and involvement seem

s
much more important,than do their performance on
,
' tests ... W.123)
.

, Jackson points out that teachers' evaluations of their own

performance are drawn from the fleeting cues embedded in the
immediate responses of students. Our own analxsis confirms and ex-
.ands upon this conclusion. If, as We contend, teachers are con- k
15 'nually working to prop up their professional self esteem, it is
o borrow Jackson's word) logical that they will look for evidence
..00. of competence where thex'are likely to find it in most abundance
and 'iere they are least likely to confront evidence of their, own
failures. It is also logical that teachers will employ instructional
techniques that maXimize\the positive feedback they get from students
and that teachers will concentrate on teaching those students who are
most likely to supply such feedback.

; s

"282
-300-
Instructional-Imperatives in School Structure

Thougfi teachers are free to choose their own methods of instruc-

tion, there are certain instructional imperatives that appear to be
built into the organizational arrangements of the typical school. 4For
example, the school day is segmented into units of time and the cur-
riculum is organized around subject areas. Students are assigned to
specific teachers and study specific subjects, in specific rooms,
during specified periods of the day. These taken-for-granted facts
of school life build rhythms of order and"disorder into the schooling
process. At the ringing of a bell all students in the school must
pick up their belongings, enter the corridors that connect classrooms
and make their way to the next class. .Between classes they may
socialize with one another, visit the lavatory or dash to their lockers
to retrieve a needed book. However, they must get to the next class
before the bell rings.

The structure and org(nizational arrangements just described

have behavioral and attitudinal consequences for students and teachers
alike. It falls to every teacher to insure that the commotion, noise
and movement that occurs between classes do not spill over into the
class period itself. Thus, teachers must begin each class by quieting
students down and reminding them that the class has officially begun:

All right folks, the beTl has rung. Let's begin.

You km:ft/where you are supposed to be.
6
In your seats now, please.

The bell has rung. Let's quiet down, guys.

There's too much noise, and there's a lot to do.

Let me have your attention.

Once the class is in order the teacher must take attendance to

insure that students who are supposed to be in class are in fact there.
This form of accounting is often completed quickly, but students seldom
remain quiet during the accounting process. Therefore, teachers must
again call for order after the attendance haS been taken.

Once the' class is in order teachers usually issue orienting

statements that inform students in a general way of what they will be
doing during the period:

Today we'll be working on noun-verb agreement.

We're going to do some writing today.

This is the last day you'll have sto work on your

projects.

283
301
 I.

After the class has been oriented to what will be done, the
teacher must begin the day's activities by issuing specific instruc-
tions to the class. We have labeled this process structuring.
Students are told what they need to do in order to get the day's
activity under way:

Please open your books to page 28.

You'll need to get your groups together now. It's

all right if you want to pull your chairs in a/
circle so you can face one another.

I'm handing out the work sheets now. Please leave

them face down on your desks until I tell you to
turn them over.

Structuring usually occurs just once during a class period.

However, sometimes an activity is completed before the end of the class,
and a new activity is begun. This calls for some restructuring com-
ments from the teacher:

O.K., students, stand up and stretch for a moment.

We'll be working in the Ginn reader next, so take
a moment to get your books out.

Periods of instruction may follow structuring comments. Teachers

may explain some information and check students" undrstanding of that
information by asking questions of the class. Such activities may take
up a whole period or may be followed-by assignments of work that
students Will do in class, at home or both (e.g., they will begin their
'work at school and finish it at home). As we shall see a little later,
instruction is not an organizational imperative. We observed in many
classrooms where little or no formal teaching took place.

Seat work may be assigned after structuring has occurred or

after instruction has taken place. When seat work is assigned,
teachers generally make some attempt to monitor students to be sure
that they stay on task or at lea'st stay quiet. At the end of the class .

_period, teachers usually monitor students' departures from the room.

Even though teachert employ a variety of teaching techniques

and display varying degrees of efficiency during classroom instruction,
all teaChers must adjust to the imperatives described above. Some
teachers make those adjustments more effectively than do others.

[Link] Strategy of Instruction

We suspect that teachers choose those instrubtione_strategies

that in their experience offer them the most evidence of success and
the least evidence of failure. lhis assertion has an important.b6ilt-
,

284
302
 in qualifier. We are saying that teachers choose instructional Methods
that appear to them to be successful. This is not to say that the strat-
egies they employ are in fact successful. Teachers tend to look for soft
(that is, impressionistic) signs of success, rather than the harder (that
is, more objective) signs that are available through the use of achievement
tests. They focus on short-term evidence of interest and progless rather
than on signs of long-term gaih. And they tend to avoid instructional
situations that challenge their sense of competence. If we are correct
that teachers generally employ those teaching strategies that they,find
maximize their sense of competence and minimize their sense of incompe-
tence, it Would go far to explain why so many bas-ic skills teachers we
observed did not assign homework, why so little formal ifistruction took
place in many classrooms anb why many teachers a4ked questions of tha
entire class rather than o7 specific students. We will deal with these
issues one at a time.

Only one of the high School teachers we interviewed assigned home-

work to her basic skills/students. When we asked teachers why they did
not assign homework they/told us:

I don't think [students] ere going to do it.

The kids dor*.. do it, so it's a burden to me. For that

reason I don t give homework in these slow classes.

About once week [I assign] a work sheet. Why only

once a week'? I don't know. I'm always working with
students in class, and that's just about all I can get
them to dol

I don't tell the students, "You must take this wdrk home."
I allow them to work in class. I don't [Link],[I don't
assign hoMe work]. I'm not sure I could.

I tried to assign home work at the beginning df the school

year, an6 it was futile. It was futile. Two people [in
the clasS] turned it in if I was lucky. If I counted home-
work, the whole class would have flunked. I believe in home-
work fot these students, but it just didn't work for me.

It could be argued that teachers choose not to assign homework be-

cause they want io avoid correcting papers or at least avoid the hassle
of enforcing the'homework requirement. We are not convinced by this
argument because! we found most teachers to be willing to work very hard
indeed. We met !English teachers, for example, who spent most of their
weekends gradin6 the compositions of students in their "regular" classes.
Given this 1eve,1 of dedication why didn't teachers work to enforce the
homework requirement for basic skills students, the students who presum-
ably are in the greatest need of academic practice and reinforcement?
The answer, we believe, lies in the fact that teachers generally employ
a mini-max strategy of instruction. That is to sy, they employ instruc-
tional strategies they believe will maximize the evidence of their

285
303
 competence and minimize the evidence of incompetence. To assign
homework to students who will vigorously resist doing it is to invite
evidence that the,teacher is not "getting results."

'Other evidence that amini-max strategy governs the instrdc-

tional decisions of teachers is found in the fact that we observed
very little instruction in either high school or junior high school
classes. Teachers assigned'projects, handed out individual work
sheets, reviewed answers on work sheets, showed films, kept order,
kept Tecords, corrected papers, and so on, but they seldom engaged
in formal instruction on'a regular basis. We did not formally time
'class activities because we did not anticipate this finding, but
classroom protocols suggest that no more than 10 to 15 percent of
a typical teacher's class timewas devoted to formal instruction.
Some teachers engaged tn no instructional activities at all while
their classes were being observed.

Why did we observe so little formai instrktion? Again, we

suspect that the answer lies in teachers' mini-max strategies.
Teachers are at a high risk during the periods of instruction. It is
difficult to hold students' interest and attention, to keep students
on task and to maintain classroom order. Thus, the chances of
encountering negative evidence is heightened while teachers teach.
At the same time, the soft signs of successful teacbing do not come
as easily during periods of instruction as they might during class
discussion, for example. A behaviorist's explanation for the apparent
avoidance of instruction would be that teachers get more rewards for
avoiding teaching in low-achieving classes than they receive when they
attempt formal instruction.

One more piece of evidence reinforces the argument that

teachers employ a mini-max strategy of instruction. Whe teachers do
engage in formal instruction, they almost always ask questions of
students, presumably to see if their pupils understand what is being
taught. Substantive coding revealed that teachers employ two types
of questions. The first, what we call spotlighting, is asked of a
specific student:

Tom, what was the main idea of this paragraph?

Name one of the major industries of Brazil. Can

you,do that, Betty?

The second type of question, what we labeled shotgunning, is

asked of the entire class. Students called out responses or raised
their hands and Waited-to be called on by the teacher. By far the more
frequently employed type of question was of the shotgun variety.
Among the teachers we observed,shoigunning questions were used much
more frequently than spotlighting questions. Teachers using shotgun
questions only received responses from students who thought they knew
the correct answei.. Shotgun questions did not [Link] teacher to

gre

286

304
test the understanding of specific students and virtually guaranteed
that the least'able students would not be actively inyolved in the
class or identified as needing help. Shotgun questions maximized
the teacher's exposure to evidence that he or she was "getting through"
and minimized exposure to evidence that some (or many) students were
missing the point.

When spotlighting questions were employed, they were often

asked of the more academically able students in the class. Low-
achieving students were called upon, but often questions were directed
at 'these students because the teacher observed that a student was not
paying attention but wat distratting*other students from the lesson.
Thus, spotlighting questions can also be used to facilitate the mini-
max strategiet of teachers. Able students provide evidence that the
teacher is getting through,and less able students are called upon so
they will stop engaging in behavior that signifies that the teacher
is not holding their attention or helping them understand.

1:e are not suggesting that the mini-max strategy we have been
describing is employed consciously by teachers. On the contrary, we
suspect that it is a prereflective activity that comes about because
teachers are sensitive to signs of their professional failings and
get into the habit of looking for success wherever it can be found.

The Instructional Techniques of Low-Efficacy Teachers

No single variable distinguishes the instructional techniques

of low-efficaty teachers from their .high-efficacy colleagues. However,
certain patterns are discernible in the instructional behaviors of
each group of-teachers.

Low-efffcacy teachers, as we saw in a previous section of this

chapter, tend to perceive low-achieving students as presenting a
threat to the teacher's definition of the classroom situation and to
the order of the class. This attitude colors the teaching strategies
employed by low-efficacy teachers. They are likely to view their
task as one of containment rather than instruction. They tend to
believe that low achievers do not learfi either because they Won't
("thinking is just something,they're too lazy to do") or they can't
("I'm sure [some students' failUre] has to do with a lack of mental
ability. I'm sure of that.") Thus, low-efficacy teachers do not tend
to devote time to trying to help low achievers improve academically
because, in their-view, such an effort would produce few positive
results and many,frustrations. A classroom observer reported a con-
versation [Link] topic in her field notes:

The tea4er-told me how difficult it is to teach

[students who are at] different levels. She
feels she has to ignore'those who won't learn
and try to teach those who will. This, she said,

287
305
 was the advice of her principal which at first
was shocking to her, but now she realizes [contains]
a great deal of truth.

Other low-efficacy teachers put it this way:

I guess it is a first-year mistake [to think]

that you have to reach everybody. But there's no
, way you can,and you've got to realize that.

I'm not going to reach them all. I think an awful

lot of teacher energy is wasted on those [students]
who don't want to do anything.

It didn't take me long after I came to this school

to see that students were slOwer [than average].
So I didn't try to accomplish a great deal. I don't
feel the students listen or care.

The teacher said that her main concern was jusi

controlling disruptive students. At this point\
(3 weeks before the end of school) she's not
real concerned about their getting work done as
long as they don't disrupt the rest of the class.

Low-effidacy teachers were likely to define students primarily

in terms of their ability:

The way we have classes set up makes [instruction]

really hard. We've got total illiterates sitting
[Link] people who are gifted,and we're supposed
to teach them all.

I have everything from the very bright to the very

dull here. The white boy in the brown shirt over
there is almost LD (Learning Disabled).

Low-efficacy teachers were likely to suggest dither that low-

achieving students should not be in school,

I don't think they belong in school. I think they

need an alternative.

or they believe such students should be in some other teacher's class-

room:

The teacher said that next year she would not teach
a class like this [with many low-achieving students].
She said she told the principal that she would work
at the school again only if she could teach' French
or another foreign language for several periods

288
306
 during the day. She explained that she did not
want to work with the kinds of students she is
working with now.

Low ability students tended to be left alone by low-efficacy

teachers as long as such students were not disrupting the class.,
Though classroom observers did not objectively measure student-teacher
interaction during ethnographic observations,a review of observer field
notes indicates that low-achieving students in low-efficacy classrooms
were balled on less often and were seldom pushed or encouraged to com-
plete their work, do it compatently orto hand it in on time. 00n
frequent occasions the work assigned to low-achieving students appeared
to be designed to keep the students out'of the teacher's way while he
or she worked with the rest of the Elass. An example:

The teacher divided the class into two groups. One

group is working on diagramming sentences while
the other group is working on [an,exercise dealing
with] irregular verbs. She describes an assignment
and tells the students that they can go to the
library to do their work. . . The nine students
.

. in the group leave the class. All six of the black

students in the classtare in this group.

At the end of the class period the observer spoke with the teacher
and recorded her comments-in his field notes:

I asked what assignment she gave the library group.

She responded, "I gave them an assignment on
irregular ,erbs. It's hard and they won't get it,
most won't'even do it. And that's OK with me. I
just had to give them something to do so I could
work with the rest of the class on diagramming
sentences."

I asked"Will you teach diagramming to these

students during another class?" She responded,,
"Are you kidding? They can't learn that. They
can't learn verbs either, for that matter."

On the following day the teacher leads a lesson in diagramming

sentences. The group that had been sent to the library the day before
sat quietly in the back rows of the,classroom but were not involved
in the class discussion:

All the interaction between students and the teacher

comes from the students in the first three rows.
Students in the back rows hardly participate at all.
They are not disruptive, but they are not a part
of what's going on,in the class either. The teacher
sets the first three rows to work on a .grammar

289
307
 .1

exercise related to the material they have just

'covered. She then turns to Esther, a black
female, and says, "You will be the teacher today
for your group." She gives the Warner's text
[Link] Esther and sends the group to the back
table.

These are the same students who left the class

for the library yesterday, the group the teacher
said would not be able to do the work she had
assigned. They have received no instruction on
irregular verbs and are now grading their own
work. Esther reads the answers,and each student
corrects his or her own paper. I can't tell
from where I'm sitting if they are correcting
their work, doing it for the first time or
changing the answers.

We have called the process of dividing the class into ability

groups sorting. We use the label excommunicating to describe what
occurs when two groups receive markedly_different instructional treat-
ments from the teacher. In many ihsfance law-4ffiCRY tea-alert will
only teach to and expect work from higher-achieving students.
Students of less ability are either given less attention or totally
excotmunicated from the dailS, round of classroom wients.

As if by-tecret agreement some students were never called upon

by low-efficacy teachers and-were seldom pushed to complete their
work. In fact, low-efficacy teachers-paid very little attention to
such students so long as they remaine0 retittvely_silent in the class
and did not cause trouble fo the instructor. An examidie:---___

The teacher is leading a lesson. The bo'y the

teacher identified during lunch as "illiterate"
sits silently in the back of the room. He takes
no part in the class, speaks with no one, and is
not called upon [Link] teacher., He merely looks
into space. Finally he puts his head down:on
his desk and goes to sleep.

When asked about this student the teacher commented:

I can't get through to some students. He can't read at all.

Well, maybe he reads at the third-grade level. I tmied to
'help and when my intern was here she tried, too. But we
just couldn't do anything. I'm going to try And get him
switched to another class.

Low-efficacy teachers tend to concentrate their efforts, con-

cerns and affection on high-achieving students. An observer described
how such preferential treatment takes place in a low-efficacy teacher's
classroom:

290

308
 The teacher says, "Ladies and gentlemen, I would
like to get started." The noise continues. "You
people working on grammar, let me give you one more
thing to do. It's a little [Link]."
She hands out the assignment to the students who
the teacher told me were in the deepest academic
trouble. She set them to work on their own.
These "slow kids" are being:OA/en-son-le-thing to do
so the teacher-cen-wdfk with the "faster group."
-The-Slow group has been''given an exercise, has
been asked to correct it on their own and is now
being given another exercise on the same topic.
The teacher has given them no guidance, no instruc-
tion and no feedback ontheir revious work.

Not all low-efficacy teachers e communicate low-achieving

students as blatantly as the teacher described above. Some low-
efficacy teachers simply stopped trying to teach low-achieving
students because these students had not responded to"the teacher's
efforts in the past. An example:

A white mile at the head table talks to a black

ma:le next to him. The teacher asks if the white
male has turned in his assignment. He gives her
a blank look. The teacher asks, "Don't you know
if you've done your work in the past week. . .?
.

Don't you care?" The student says, "No." The

teacher, responds, "Then sit quietly,and don't
disturb anyone else because they do care. . . ."
The student takes out a paperback book and flips
through its pages, closes it and starts tapping_
quietly on the 'table with the head of his pencil.
,

'In the classes of some low-efficacy teachers the sorting

process stratified students according to the teacher's assessment of
their ability. Students in the lower group were considered to be
less interesting and less worthy of the teacher's attention than
students in the upper groups:

The students are given an exercise that they must

complete in parts. If it is completed correctly,
nonsense sentences will be developed,and the
students will read their sentences to the class. .

N, While the students are working,`the teacher moves

Nover to the and says, "The sad thing is they don't
even know enough for the exercise to be fun.
They can't even identify the parts of speech [and
it4t's a vital part of the game]. My gifted students
do't is with a real flair. you know that special
gift getting the sense of something in giving

291 So 9 ,
 your all? They come up with some wonderful
sentences. These kids won't get sentences like
that. Those two students over there are pretty
bright (she points to two Aite males),and they
may get some good ones.

The teacher has had a slight altercation with a

student. After the class is over,he [Link]
to where I'm sitting and says, "Can you tell
I really dislike that girl?" "Which one?" I
asked. The teacher responds, "The one that
was whining. She's always whining and com-
plaining." I asked, "Why do you suppose that is?"
The teacher answers, "She thinks she's brighter
thakshe really-is."

When low-efficacyteachers sort and stratify their classes

according to ability and give preferential treatment (more instruc-
tion, more interaction, more appropriate praise and feedback, more
assignrnents, and so on), students soon learn where they stand in the
teacher's pecking order. For example, the teacher who was just
quoted taught one class of gifted students. A sign on the teacher's
'door read "Gifted." Some edited excerpts from the observer's field
notes:

The gifted cla just completed some mosaics

representing Greek myths,and the teacher suggested
that students go to other classes to show their
mosaics and explain their me#ning. When the
students resisted the idea of performing before
their friends, the teacher encouraged them by
g4ing, "But they're your peers." A student
spoke up to say, "Yeah, you've got to prove you're
above them." The teacher nodded in agreement.

Soon after this indiOnt a visitor entered the

gifted classroom and in the course of his discussion
with the teacher said to the students, "This is
the best class in the school. You're all lucky to
be here."

Later in the year the gifted dlass put on afestival

in which they,dressed in costumes that they had
made themselves, danced dances and sang folk songs
they had learned, played games and ate,a meal
students and parents had prepared for the occasion.
The festival took place during morning classes out-
side on the school's'front lawn. Students in regular
,
classes could observe the festivIties through class-
room windows. At lunch time the festival moved into
a decorated classroom.

292

31.0
 The principal comes into the room. She leans
over to me and says, "Most kids [in this school]
don't realize that teachers would allow them
to do these activities if-they would just
behave. But students hers won't do that.
It's a shame."

A black child from another class walks by the

room, looks in the door and observes the all white
class. The students are dancing,and parents are
returning to the room witb platters of turkey and
ham. The child surveys the scene. The principal
says, "You looking for someone?" The girl looks
up at her but says nothing and quickly leaves.

A week later the same teacher was working with a heterogeneously

§rouped social studies class. The teacher asked a shotgun question;
and a low-achieving student volunteeerqd an answer. The teacher indi-
cates that'the student's answer was correct. The student replied,
."See, we're not so dumb." The teacher responds, "I didn't say you
were."

0 In another class a student was summoned to the guidance coun-

selor'S office:

The teacher says, "You might as well go, Jimi you're

not learning anything anyway.", The student leaves
and another student asks,4"Are you calling us dump?"
The teacher replies sarcastically, "No, you're
_wonderful."

Statements and practices such as those 'discussed above serve to

stigmatize low achievers [Link] encourage them to think of themselves
as being slow and perhaps uneducable.

Up to this point we have been discussing low-efficacy teachers

who are not talented at or much interested in helping low achievers
achieve. However, these same teachers often performed adequately
when teaching middle or high-achieving students. Another group of
Tow-efficacy teachers, however,appearedto [Link] teaching
students of any ability level. We call this group low-,efficacy,
generally ineffective teachers, or LEGITS for short. LEGITS had dif-
ficulty accommodaling the institutional imperatives of instruction.
For example, LEGITS had difficulty establishing control at the
beginning of their classes. Sometimes it took ten or fifteen minutes
before these teachers copld get the class settled and under way. An
example from fiêldnotes:

The teacher sends Sam out of the room to find ,out

the lunch menu. Most students are chatting
among themselves. The teacher says, "As soon as
Sam returns with-the lunch menu, we'll go over

293
311
 the assignMent. In the meantime, let's take
roll. . ."
.
The students continue to talk among/
themselves. The teacher converses with them
about the school's field trip to Silver Springs;
and the conversation turns ;to alligators and croco-
diles. StuOents are ladghing and enjoying the
conversation. Sam rgturns and announces the menu
to the class,. The teacher thanks him and tells
the class that now they,'ll return to their work:
The students keep talking.
)
When LEGITS allow classroom conversations [Link] social
rather than academic, they often found jt difficult [Link]
students' attention back to the academic taskatshand,
1

The classes of low-efficacy, generally ineffective teachers

tended to wind down rather than end. It often appears,as though
LEGITS worked for five or ten minutes to get students to be semi-
engaged in a class activity, held students' attention for as long
as they could and then gradually lost1control of their students.
Ten or fifteen minutes before the end of the period such teachers
were forced to stop teaching because students were no longer paying
attention. Somp,examples:

It's now 2:40,and the class is not scheduled to

dismiss for another ten minutes. Essential y,
the dais has ended. The teacher has disco tinued
the lesson bebause students are talking and ts
now speaking tio Sam and Sheila. The teacher
out of her seat. The class is beginning-to become
chaotic. Eddie is literally running around
chasing Betty.. Harry sprays a poster with a
bottle of windoy cleaner which he haspsnuck
out of the filing cabinet located near the door.
Announcements begin to come over the P.A.,and
students cont1n3e to run around the room. No one
is listening to the announcements, including the
teacher. Mut students are now by the dopr waiting
for the bell. The teacher is at her desk. Four
students continue to scramble around the room, .

kmewhat more slowly now. It is 2:50,[Link] bell

rings. The class is over, and the students leaye.

Students sense the end of the class,and ftlking.

gets louder. A few students bring papers' to the
,front table where the teacher is s,itting. From
°time to time students come to the table to talk
with the teacher. 'One student is singing.
Another student grabs something from his neighbor.
Most class members are sitting at their desks
chatting. A few girls "are brushing theirhair.
Eddie pokes Linda who says in an annoyed tone,

294
4
 ),

.4 I
'Come on I'm getting sick of thit." Eddie
continues,and the teacher says, "Come on, Eddie."
The teacher is talking with a few students. She
is smiling and ignoring most of the activity in the
room. She then looks up and watches the class.
She gontinues talking, looks at the,class, continues
talking, etc. The bell rings,and students leave.

LEGITS seldom greeted students when they entered the room.

They seldom provided orienting or structurihg statements at the start
of the, class, did nOt give clear assignments and had great difficulty
in managing the class especially during moments of transition. They
seldom engaged in formal instructional activities, preferring instead
to lead"discussions, monitor seat work or show films. Such activities
often appeamdto be designed to fill time rather than to develop skills
or impart knowledge. ST examples from field notes:

When I arrive at school, Ifind that the teacher's

room is locked. I stand outside for a moment,
and when a woman walks by I ask her if she'knows
where the teacher and her class have gone. The
woman indicates that they are in hercclassroom
watching a movie. I follow her into the class-
room across the hall. The teacher is standing at .
the back of the room. .She,turns to me and says
that she meant to call me and tell me that all-
her claPses would be seeing a movie,today. She
apologizes but told me that I was welcome to stay
and watch it. I suggest that we use this time
for me to interview her. .She agrees,and we go
to her room. Twenty minutes later the woman from
across the hall comes into the classroom looking
a little pale.. She asks the teacher if she has
seen 'the film. The teacher says no. The colleague
says, "Well, I think you'd,better cbme and see it.
It's dealing with prostitution,and some guy is
teasing a boy about "going all the way." I ac-i
company the teacher to the library where we cheok
to see for what grade level the movie is recom%
mended. We find that it is recommended for high
school students and not junior high students.
The teacher indicates that she will showthe movie
to other classes even though she has not yot seen
it.

The teacher tells the class that she has found out
that another teacher will be showing a movie
during the period. She says she has not seen the
movie,but she will let her class see it if they
pay attention for the next minutes. Later she
takes the class into a neighboring room. It is
clear that she has not previewed the movie. She

295 313
 is using it to fill time or perhaps to reward
4., students for previo good behavior. She --
'clearly has no edu ive end in view. It is not
clear if the te her is giving students a break
from the daly grind or giving herself a break.
The movie is an obtuse exploration of four sur-
-.
vivprs of a nuclear holocaust. It is made in
t
England,and the actors have British accents
that the students find difficult to understand.
The characters talk of Shakespeare's Tempest,
Shelley's poetry, Beethover0.s sonatas played
by Oscar Levant aria more. The movie has little
action,and its message appears lost on the students..
,

Mother teacher presentdd a,film to her class explaining that

'she -hadn't seen it because "it is new." During the film she sat in
the back of the room correcting papers and only occasionally looked
up to see the moyie.'

After spending three weeks in one teacher's classroom, a

researcher wrote in his fiel notes:

I can't grasp this teacher's method of instruction.

She introduces the day's work at thebeginning of
tho period. However, she does not get specific ,
about 'anything save perhaps procedural matters
(the page the'assignment is on, and so on). She
will tell students to "Jdrite a good and complete
.sentence." But she does not explain what she means
by a dood-sentence or how a student could tell if
a sentence was complete.
le
'
Low efficacy, benei.i14y ineffective teachers had other failings
as well. They often appeared to have neglected to plan adequately
for their-casses:

The teacher goes on with the test. She reads

seven questions. Before long there is confusion
as to how many questions she has dictated. :The
teacher doesn't knoyi becauee whe has,not numbered
her questions. They are scribbled in the maegin
of a paper she brougWwith her back from lunch.,
I suspect that the questions [Link] together
quickly during the lunch brea0.

The teacher announces that it's'time to hand in

their papers. She indicates that the students will
spend time reading from a magazine she will .hand
out. She looks around the class-trying to find
her material's. She can't find them, and there is
general disorder in the room. She firplly findS

296
,

3.14
 the material she is looking for and begins to
hand it out. A student says, "But I'm sorny,
forgot." She goes back to the book shelf
and looks forother material. Finally she
disCovers an activity. The!noise level is
loud. The teacher was in a tdnd because she ,

could not stop looking'for the material ldng

enough to quiet students down.

LEGITS:sometimes engaged in activities that devalue or

sanction the devaluation of students' work:

Eddie w,ants to read next and raises his hand.

The teacher acknowledges Eddie,and he begins to
read aloud. Linda goes up to the teacher with
papers in her hand. They talk in very loud
Voices while Eddie is tnying to read to the class.
Eddie stops, frustrated because he can't be heard.
The teacher then says to Eddie, "We can't hear
you." And he proceeds_to_read.

The teacher calls on Caroline saying to the cjass,

"Listen, this is the best parte the stony.
Caroline reads but she can't be heard over the
noise. The teacher does not quiet the class.

In one class students were giving oral reports. The teacher

did not monitor student noise,and the class could not hear the report.
The-student attempted to quiet the class on his own. Finally he
said, "Oh, to-heck with it," and sat down.

LEGITS often had great difficulty managing their classrooms.

Disruptions occurred frequently,and these teachers tolerated (or
were forced to ignore) a conspicuous amount of off-task behavior.
Some exampTeS:

Betty has been off task most of the time. The

teacher has-put her back on task once, but she is
no longer aware of what Betty is doing.

Eight students are off task. They'are whispering

quietly to one another. The teacher works at her
desk undistdrbed. . .
.

Students are getting noisy. A white male walks in and

calls a black male student over to himond they
confer in the back of the room. The teacher seems
unaware of [Link]. Two other students are
out of their'Seats talking [Link] another.

297
315
 The teacher is circulating around the room. She
points to writing on Sally's desk. The student
sitting in front of her goe's to the file cabinet
and getsome cleaning fluid and a cloth. Sally
r responds, "You put that on my desk,and I'll
shoot you." The teacher does not intervene.
-'Sally -goes-to-the-file-cabinet- and-gets-seme--
liquid. spray cleaner and sprays her desk heavily.
She procdiai to move to other students' desks
and sprays them as well. The teacher is talking
to another student in the front of the room and
does not notice this behavior Until four or five
desks have been sprayed. . . .

Harry slips out of the room while the teacher

has her back turned. He is gone for four minutes.
He elips back into the room. The teacher never
notices that he is missing.

Dotty begins her report,and the teaches interrupts

Ay asking-Rick-if-he-wants-to-go-into-the hall.:
A. femaleteacher enters the room and asks for Tom.
They leave. Dot begins to read her report. Two
students are punching each other. Emmett has
gotten up from his chair ahd is sitting on the
, corner of the table. Tom returns to the room
and §oes'over to the teacher. Students are getting
noisy while he talks with her. Another student
leaves the room. Betty returns to the room, walks
[Link] back door and looks outs then returns to
her seat. Another student gets up from tris desk
to retrieve a wad of paper he has thrown across
the room. A ttudent tickles Dot a$ she reads her
report. Two students throw papers at one another.
Some other students are talking loudly at the back
table. The teacher does not respond to any of this
activity. Dot sits down.

The teacher sits at her desk going through papers. , I.

The students at the, table [Link] talking,
fooling around, laughing. The teacher looks their
way but says nothing.

The teacher is at her desk. : . . 'She looks up and

says, "I need it pretty quiet, so I. can get through-
your report cards. . . ." One boy walks over to
talk to another boy. They talk loudly for a few
minutes. The teacher looks up from what she is
doing and watches for a moment.

I asked the teacher if she was aware that two of

her students were rolling dice in the aisle during
the test. She responded that she knew they were
fooling around and probably weren't working, but
she couldn't make them work.

298

31
 Low-efficacy, generally ineffective teachers were often
observed instigating off-fask behaviors themselves. One teacher had
a habit of interrupting students while they were working quietly on
assignments by drawing their attention to events that could be seen
through the clatsroom window. Low-efficacy, generally ineffective
teachers were also more likely than other teachers to praise inaccurate
answers from students. Some examples:

When the teacher has a correction to make, she only

makes it after a statement of praise. ("That's good,
but I want an answer that incorporates all the
information."). She has asked students to write
"good sentences" but when students read run-on
sentences or sentence fragments., the teacher makes
thehtlop-of these problems. She says simply,
.-------TYiliegot-:an-excel-lent-answer there."
,t,1
i

Studenti read an'awkward sentence. The teacher

esponds, "That's good, but make sure you write a
sentenoe that makes sense because you're going to
_have i.(orl the test.
. . . ."
e
_
A studeni\responds to the teacher's questions,and she
accepts his\answer. But she goes on to another
student for'the correct answer she is looking for.

The teacher complimented the class on how well they

worked todai ,_though more students appeamito be
off task than I had observed at aly time in the past. .

To sum up, low- fficacy teachers perceived low-achieving students

as difficult if not i possible to teach and as a threat to their
control of the classro m and their sense of professional competence.
They tended to ea-11-0,9 low-achieving students less often than other
students. They give s ch students less personal attention, tended
to excommunicate them from class activities and to generally com-
municate the low exPectations they had for the performance of such
students. When Imp-efficacy attitudeswere combined with generally
poor teaching (low eff ctiveness) a new set of classroom difficulties
emerged. Low-efficacyl, generally ineffective teachers had difficulty
maintaining order and Iirection in their classes. The beginning and
ending of the class'pe iod werenot clearly delineated. Orienting and
structuring behaviors Were often obscure or altogether absent.
Instructions were often unclear and sometimes non-existent. Off-task
behavior was tolerated and sometimes instigated by the teachemthem-
selves,and studentwork was generally devalued. Praise was sometimes
used inappropriately. J Teaching appeared to be a strain for such
teachers,and they repo, ted that they got little reward from their work.
Many said they had considered:leaving the profession.

299
317
The Instructional Techniques of High-Efficacy Teachers

High-efficacy teachers in this study had less trouble managing

their classes than did low-efficacy teachers and appeared to have
fewer altercations with students. They tended to run warmer, instruc-
tion-oriented classes.

Most high-efficacy teachers had clear expectations for the

beginning and endings of class sessions and constant procedures for
enforcing those expectations. They expected students to be seated and
settled at the start of period, to-have materials ready, and to get
ready to leave the class only when directed to do so. Students under-
stood these expectations,and teachers reminded p4ils when they were
not doing what was expected of theM.

O.K., put away your annuals, your books, and all

that kind of thing.

The first thing we're going to do is to work on

the final draft of your papers. I know these
papers are going to be wonderful. Today we're
going to practice the skill of writing a good
paragraph.

The bell has rung. Everybody should be in their

seats.

Messages such as those qtioted above communicate that class time

is valuable, that it is not to be wasted, and that it should be devoted
to instruction and learning. Closing remarks reinforced the expecta-
tions of order and academic performance:

Your deadline is approaching. When is, your paper

due? I'm not going to give you additional time
in class on Friday. It's due at the beginning
of the period.

O.K., you may clean your desks now and then you
may go.

Do you have any questions you want to ask before

you go home today?

High-efficacy teachers tended to exhibit in most areas of class-

room life what has been called "withitness" (Dunkin and Biddle, 1974).
They seldom overlooked infractions when they occurred and took action,
both subtly and overtly, to curb inappropriate student behavior.
They corrected misbehavior and often stayed on the scene of an infrac-
tion for long enough to insure that reprimanded students stopped mis-
behaving and got back to work.

300
3 1.8
 ,High-efficacy teachers were more likely to keep students on
[Link] to stay on task themselves. They did not grade papers
during class, did hot leave the class frequently, did not socialize
with other students or teachers during the,class, [Link] not often
engage in behaviors that were not related to instruction. They
worked with students from the time the class began until the class
wasover. They frequently walked around the room to monitor seat work,
check students' progress on written assignments, help individual
students, and offer encouragement. High-efficacy, "withit" teachers
initiated instructionally oriented interactions with students in the
-course of a class period.

The teacher went to the board and began to illustrate

a point she was making about a particular aspect
[of [Link]' assignment]. She moves from
the board to two students and talks briefly with
.them. She moves over to Tom, speaking along the
way and observing and checking the students' work
as she moves around the room. She went from Harry
to Betty to Paul to John. She said to Emmett,
"How are you doing?" She looked at his paper and
moved on to Emmett. On her way she stops by Sally's
desk and answers a question. She moves td her own
desk, looks through a folder and answers another
student's question while she does so. She's looking
for a paper that is related to the report Harry is
writing. She seems to be unable to find the paper
and tells Harry to look in his locker. The teacher
[Link] to Harriet. Another student asks a ques-
tion,and the teacher moves on to Barry. Ellen goes
over to Barry's desk and leans across to say some-
thing to Betty. Theteacher looks Up, looks around
the room and says, "I like the way John, BeVerly and
Rod are working." Ellen goes back to her seat.
The teacher continues to work with two [Link].

High-efficacy techers appeared to instruct their classes more

often, coach their students more carefully and monitor their students'
behavior more rignüsly. They continually demonstrated their Concern
for student learning. Effective monitoring should not be confused
with reprimanding. Statements like, "I like the way Sally is
working," enable the teacher to reward appropriate behavior, keep
students on task, and extinguish negative behavior without negative
affect.

Student-Teacher Relationships

All of the teachers we interviewed said they derived their

greatest professional satisfaction from working with young people.
Students are a teacher's primary audience,and it is from that audience

301
31.9
 that teachers must ultimately gather their sense of professional
success or failure. They desire to enteh situations with students
in which they share goals, have similar definitions of the roles
each will play, support one another in the pursuit of these shared
goals and, ultimately, achieve [Link] they have set for
themselves. In practice, however, teachers must settle for realities
that fall short of this ideal. The kind of reality teachers settle
for'is mediated by numerous factors. One important factor appears
to be the efficacy attitudes that teachers establish as they struggle
to maintain a sense of competence in an endemically uncertain
profession. Nowhere is the power of efficacy more apparent than in
the domain of teaching we have labeled Student-Teacher Relationships.

As we have already seen, some teadhers developed a general

distrust of students, or at least of low-achi6ing, misbehaving
students. These teachers attempted to deal with the threat that
students posed to their professional self-esteem by emphasizing the
importance of classroom discipline. This is not to say that the low-
efficacy teachers in this study were necessarily ineffectiye class-
room managers. We are merely suggesting that low-efficacy teachers
defined classroom situations in terml of an inherent conflict between
students and teachers. They perceived students in general and/or
some types of Students in particular as potentially threatening and
saw it as the teacher's task to manage tfiese*threats effectively.
When teachers were successful in this regard, they took pride in their,
success. When they were unable to control the class, they were likely
to blame their failure on the incorrigibility of their pupils. In
any event, the primary definition of the situation in loii-efficacy class-
rooms was one of conflict.

Max Weber made a useful and now classic distinction between

personal and professional authority. According to his analysis these
two types of authority grow from different sources and are maintained
by different methods.' Positional authority resides in the status an
individual holds within an institution. It is not earned by status
occupants but comes with the jobs they hold. ,Low-efficacy teachers
.found some security in the positional authority of the teacher role.
They therefore were uneasy about establishing relationships with
students that might jeopardize their hold on [Link] authority
of their professional role. Field notes on a conversation between a
classroom observer and a teacher make this point:

The teacher commented that she felt that building

a rapport with students was essential. However,
she said that sometimes she had to get herself out
of conversations; otherwise, she might "incriminate"
herself. She said that personal relationships
sometimes interfere because some students try and
get [Link] things. She said sometimes close
relationships with students made it difficult for
'her to know what it was she was to do.

302
320
 Another low-efficacy teacher explained; "I started /
off like a sweet angel and had all these wonder-
ful ideas,but they laughed me out of the room.
So I cried a lot my first year because I was 5o
upset. I finally realized that the fewer times
I would smile the better off I would be. To
them, smiling is a sign of weakness.

Low-efficacy teachers generally saw discipline as Important

in and of itself but also as a means for establishing an environment
in which orderly instruction and effective learning coul take place.
F(
,
Represented diagrammatically, the logic of their thinking looks like
this:

Some students Therefore, effective . in order to

will disrupt --) classroom management f4cilitate
the class if and discipline prac- learning.
. they are tices are necessary
allowed to.

Hfgh-efficacy teachers had a more benign view Of students.

Though they agreed that students can and will disrupt a class if
they are allowed to, they also believed that such activities can be
avoided if teachers establish friendly relationshipswith their
pupils. If low-efficacy teachers can be said to have relied on ins-
titutional authority, high-efficacy,teachers relied on personal
authority. Personal authority is not bestowed by the institution; it
grows from an individual's personality. We do a pellson's bidding
because we trust his or her judgment, experience and expertise. We
know the person, trust them and are willing to work' with them. While
positional authority demands social distance, personal authority
requires something close to the intimacy of a primary relationship.
Teachers explain:

I appreciate students that initiate conversations

with me and that I really get to know. They know
me as a person and talk about things you don't have
to talk about with your teacher. They don't talk
about their homework or their assignments; they talk
about what happened to,them at home or a movie they
saw, or they ask me if I had a nice week end. I
appreciate students who initiate conversations with
- me.

I try to impart concepts to studentsbut along with

that I try and be a friend to them. I try to be
someone who understands them.

High-efficacy teachers'tended to handle the threats that students

posed to their professional self-esteem by building personal relation-
ships with their pupils. They attempted to define the classroom situa-

303
321
 tion not in terms of a conflict model but in terms of primary
relationships. They perceived students as being potential friends
and saw it as their task to build strong relationships with the
pupils of their class. When they were successful in this regard
the9 took pride in their accomplishments. When they were unable to
bujld relationships with a particular student, they tended to blame
themselves and to work harder to achieve that goal.

. Though high-efficacy teachers generally saw the establishing

and maintainance of personal relationships as an important end in
itself, they also saw it as a means of establishing an enVironment
in which orderly instruction and learning could take place.

Studenti will learn if .

Therefore, teachers must in order to
given an opportunity to build strong inter- facilitate
establish friendships,----* personal relationships.---4 learning.
confidence and self- with their students
.respect.

One low-efficacy teacher we observed worked hard to build per-

sonal relationships with students. However, her goal_ was_not so much
to establish an environment in which learning could take place but
rather to avoid confrontations with students. Thus, this teacher spent
most of'her class time maintaining the teacher-student relationship and
almost no-class time instructing the class.

Summary

We have used this section of the chapter not so much to intro-

duce new findings as to bring together various lines of analysis that
have run throughout the chapter. It has been contended that teaching
iS an uncertain profession and that eachers have difficulty maintaining
an image of competence among colleagues and a sense of professional self-
esteem for themselves. The teachers we studied were isolated from their
peers and vulnerable to the criticisms from multiple publics. They held
lofty goals for themselves but were deprived of ways to measure if they
were advancing toward those goals.

The grounded theory presented in this chapter asserts that the

central social-psychological problem facing teachers is the establish-
ment and maintenance of a sense of professional self-esteem in an oc-
cupation that affords few'concrete assurances that they are competent,
doing What needs to be done or making a difference in the academic and
social growth of students. This need for self-respect and the endemic,
uncertainties of the teaching [Link] inhibit the fulfillment
of that need insure that teachers must constantly be on the lookout
for small signs of success. "They present themselves to others in such
a way as to maximize the appearance of competence while minimizing the
appearance of mediocrity. They choose teaching strategies, classroom
management tactics and develop relationships with students that provide

304
322-
them with the most signs of success and the fewest' signs of failure. ,

However; what they see as a sign of success and what they'define as

a sign of failure appear to be mediated by their efficacy attitudes.
Teachers with a high sense of efficacy employed a pattern of'
strategies that in most cases minimized negative affect, promoted
an expectation of achievement and provided a definition of the class-
room situation that centered around warm interpersonal relationships
and academic work. Teachers with a low sense of efficacy established
[Link] of strategies that heightened negative affect and promoted
an expectation of failure for low-achieving students. It stratified
students into categories of competence and incompetence and defined
the classroom situation in terms of conflict"rather than warm inter-
personal relationships. Academic achievement was often'emphasized
but only for those students whom the teacher defined as able and
[Link] teacher's attention.

305
323
 CHAPTER 10

Teachers: Professionals at Risk

Recommendations for Research to Increase Teachers' Sense of Efficacy

The uncertainty, the isolation, the negative public image of

teaching, the conflicting expectations that pervade the teacher'
professional life have been widely documented in our Efficacy Study as
well as in other studies of teaching (Eddy, 1969; Jackson, 1968;
Lortie, 1975; Metz, 1978). The impact of these ,negative characteristics
of the profession is undoubtedly reflected in the attrition among
teachers, a rate unparallelled in any other profession.

Teachers' sense df efficacy has been demonstrated to be an

important factor in teacher attrition. According to Chapman and
Hutcheson (1982) about one of every four teachers eventually leaves
the teaching profession for another career. In a study designed to
identify characteristics that discriminate between those leaving and
those staying in teaching, Chapman and Hutcheson found that attrition
is not explained by personal characteristics of teachers but rather is
related to teachers' self-rated perceptions of their skills and abilities
(that is, their sense of efficacy). In their study of teacher attrition,
Glickman and Tamashiro (1982) reported that teachers who left the
profession were significantly lower in sense of efficacy, as measured by
the Rand efficacy items, than either first or fifth year teachers.

The relationship of teachers' sense of efficacy to teacher attrition

as well as to student achievement (Armor et al., 1976; Berman et al., 1977)
indicates that further research of the sense of efficacy construct may be
influential in improving teacher job satisfaction and student achievement,
In this chapter, we will outline characteristics of research studies of
teachers' sense of efficacy that are likely to contribute to the
improvement of teaching as a profession and the advancement of equal
educational opportunity for all students.

Transforming Experiments

Traditional educational res\ergh has been very limited in its

positive impact on educational practice. After nearly a century of
classroom research, teachers report that their classroom behavior is
relatively unaffected by the educational\research literature that
represents an enormous investment of resouTces in the study [Link]
(Lortie, 1975). The failure of research to\have more of a positive
influence on schooling is due, in part, to the conservative nature of
the research and the narrow psychological peripective guiding the
research. If educational research is to providylirection for the
changes needed to enhance teachers' sense of efficacy significantly,
bold new visions of schooling based on a comprehens ve interdisciplinary
perspective are needed.

306
324
 The Need for Bold Visions

Most educational research, particularly the research conducted

within the influential process-product paradigm, is inherently
conservative, because it is conducted in "typical" classrooms. This
research may identify the most effective teaching procedures occurring
in these classrooms, but the discovery of powerful, new approaches to
teaching and learning of real consequence for educational policy-making
is unlikely for two reasons: (1) the similarity among classrooms and
(2) the 1a4 of classrooms based on a conceptually consistent theory of
teaching and learning. Observation of classrooms [Link] present-
day classrooms are more similar than different. Becau-se statistical
analyses require variance among behaviors in order to reveal relationships,
the probability of identifying effective innovative strategies in current
classrooms is quite limited. As Mitzel (1977) pointed out, schools and
classrooms tend to consist of many contradictory elements_lack of a
coherent, conceptually pure theory of schopling leaves teachers
floundering amid conflicting notions of effective teaching, as they
attempt to apply a little of Skinner here and Piaget there, for example.
In reaction to this confusing situation, teachers tend to assume an
intuitive, trial-and-error approach to teaching. With no guiding
framework to structure teaching strategies, classrooms become an
.expression of the idiosyncratic synthesis of the teacher's own personal
experiences as a student and teacher .(Lortie, 1975). Research conducted
in such contexts is not likely to yield meaningful information. Thus,
as Bronfenbrenner (1976) concluded: ",Most of our scientific ventures
into social reality perpetuate the status RE." Conceptually pure
prototypes of teaching approaches are essential in order for current
research strategies to provide interpretable results that can be
useful to policymakers.

Teachers are generally frustrated and dissatisfied with their

profession (McPherson, 1972; NEA, 1981). Research designed to alter.

the conditions that contribute to teachers' disillusionment with teaChing

is urgently needed to respond to this growing dissatisfaction; however,
to improve teachers' sense of efficacy significantly, bold new conceptions
of teaching and learning are needed. To achieve this aim, Bronfenbrenner.
(1976) recommended the design of "tranforming experiments, to radically
restructure the environment, producing a new configuration that
activates previously unrealized behavioral potentialities of the subject"
(p. 14).' Bronfenbrenner (1976) promoted the idea of the "transforming
experiment,q because of its scientific as well as social implications.
From the perspective;of science, the transforming experiment is'a
powerful approach, because it is an effective means for illuminating
causal relationShips,. As noted by Lewin in his often-cited observation,
"If you want to understand something, try to change it." From a social
perspective, the transforming experiment has potential for discovering
tmportant, new approaches, for fostering human development.

Before such bold experiments are likely to be supported, Bronfenbrenner

(1976) advised that the basic philosophical approach to social science
research must be altered:

307
325
 To the extent that we include ecological contexts in our
research we,select and treat them as sociological givens rather
than as evolving social systems susceptible to significant and
novel transformation. Thus We study social class differences,
ethnic differences, rural-urban differences--or, at the next level
down, children from one-vs. two-parent homes, large vs. small
families--as if the nature of these structures, and their
developmental consequences, were eternally fixed and unalterable,
except, perhaps, by violent revolution. We are loath to experiment
with new social or educational forms as contexts for realizing
human potential. '.'After all," we say, "you can't Change human
nature." This precept underlies our national stance on sociil and
educational policy,iand much of our educational science as well.
(p. 14)

Brim and Kagan (1980) have acted that the American intellectual.
community has lent scientific support to the stoic acceptance of the
status quo by its too ready acceptance of the assumption of constancy anc
stability in human development. Holding to this presupposition has led
social scientists to accept as fact weak evidence supporting the belief
in constancy. Commitment to this conviction has serious implications
for the direction of research and sociai policy. As summarized by Brim
and Kagan:

If society believes that it is all over by the third

.year of fife, it can deal harshly with many people in later
life because nothing more can be done, and social programs
designed to educate, redirect, reverse, or eliminate unwanted
humna characteriptics cannot be justified.

The failure to develop vigorous educational programs and research

beyond the early [Link] is indicative of the negative effect
that basic assumptions about human nature have had on research agenda
and social policy.' Brim add Kagan (1980) presented a large voldme. of
research supporting research efforts to transform human experience.
According to Brim and Kagan, the, commitment of social scientists in
the United States to the c6ncepts of constancy and stability are currently
unwarranted by the research literature.

Given the current educational scene, in which schools have been

repeatedly indicted for their failure to make a significant impact on
student achievement (Coleman et al., 1966) or equality of opportunity
(Bowles & Gintis, 1976) and teachers are overcome with self-doubt,
imaginative visions are needed to counteract the alienating rigidity
of the educational status quo. Therefore, we recommend that researchers
in collaboration wjth teachers engage in vigordus searches for_promising
"transforming experiments" to serve as educational antidotes to the
anxiety and apathy that characterize the lives of many students and
teachers in today's public schools.

1.0

308
326
\,1
Gross Categories vs. Specific Dimensions

If we are to design research with significant potential for transforming

human experience the use of the broad, general categories of social class,
race, sex, and so on, must be replaced by a search for the more specific
modifiable variables that they subsume. For example,,in a recent review
article, Shade (1982) suggests that the,"academic achievement deficit" ,

of many bladechildren is attributable to their preference for "socio- 9

centric, field-dependent, nonanalytic categorizing information processing
'Strategies" (p. 233). 'While adaptive for minority survival in the
majority culture, their cognitive style places black childttn at [Link]
disadvantage, givea traditional instructidnal strategies requiring an
analytical information processing strategy. Research designed to investigate
the,effect'of,children's'cognitive style preference on academic achievement
will have direct implications !or transforming childre0 whereas research
on the effect of race on achievement will not. Similarly, a study of the
effeCt of specific child-rearing [Link] school performance will have
practical implications for educational improvement while studies of the -

effect of socioeconomic level on schooling do not.

In sum, effectixe transforming experiments will focus on specific,

manipulable dimensions that offer the potential ;:orsignificant development.
!t

An Interdisciplinary Perspective,

Most educational research has been conducted within the narrow

perspective of psychological models. The limited effectiveness of this
research in improving the quality of schooling may be, at least in part,
attributable to the inadequacy of psychologi,cal interpretations for
explaining teacher and student behavior. Eddy (1969) described thefl
tendency of educational researchers to focus on the psychology of the
teacher as the key to eduCationaleffectiveness:

The educational research concerned with classroom dynamics

has focused on the teacher'S pellsonality, background, and
behavior as an important vai-Table in the classroom butMas
seldom considered the social situation within whfch the class-
room is found or the teacher's lack of power, in the educatTonal
system. Similarly, teacher training institutions and programs
devote most of their work to attempts to mold and change the
behairior of teachers'but comparatively little effort to
change the educational system within which they work.
I

In order to deveiop-"transforming experiments" that take 'into account

the complex social realities impinging on teachets' sense Of efficacy, :
research should be deyeloped by interdisciplinary,teams of researchers.
Anthropology, sociology, organizatlbnal theory, economics and political
science each offer valuable insights essential to an adequate understanding
of the dynamics [Link] sense of efficacy. Anthropology offers
an awareness of the role of culturj in influencing human behavior. George
Spindler (1963) outlined the specl'al contributiOn of anthropology to an
adequate understanding of educati nal processes: "

309
327 ,
V.

The aim is to [Link] in the teacher an awareness of how

his culture influences ipecifically what he does as a teacher
and how his students' culture influences what they do, and
how to think about, observe ahd analyze these influences:
Cultural [Link] ,one goal is particu-larly important for ,

the administrator, since he manipulates the setting in which

the teacher interacts with students and parents. He Must not
only display cultural aWareness but must also understand the
mechanicsgi culture change, the cultural expectations affecting
the leader's role, the concrete as well as idealistic meaning '

of cultural values, and the social system of the school in the

setting orthe encompassing community and national Social ,
structure. (pp. 65-66)

Sociology offers social awareness, defined by Rannheim (1971) as

the readiness to see the whole situation in which one finds

oneself, and not only to orient one's actions on immediate
tasks and purposes but to base them on a more comprehensive
vision. (p. 374). ,

The danger of ignoring the influence of organizational structures

on teacher and student behavior is vividly portrayed by Eddy (1969):

The professional training of teachers often prepares them to

accept Ihepresent organizational struCtUre of the educational ,

system as "naturaln and something thai cannot be changed. It

is after -all, the system in\eich many of them have been
educated,and which has proven successful Tor them and their
teachers. By emphasizing techniques of educationmhich are ,
functional for the System and psychological interpretations
cf child,behavior, the training tends to render teachers
incapable of viewing themselves, their pupils, parents, school
administrators., and the school itself within§ the context of
the comMunity and sobiety in which eclucatioh supposedly takes
place. /In this way the professional ideology transmitted in
the training school may perpetuate the traditions of a
bureaucratic approach to education in an urban world which
deman0 other approach6s, if children are to be educated and
not merely managed. (p. 124)-
1

Awareliess of the political nature of schooling and'the impact, of

politics ch-educational decision-making is critical to an understanding
of the factors affecting teachers' sense otefficacy. Rist (1972)
emphasized the importancecf analysis of the politics of education in
the procgs of seeking solutions to the problem of schooling:
! .

A crucial reason schools fail is that they neither

retognize nor come to grips with the essential political
nature'of schooli6 in American society. Ignoring the
political,diMension of education and educational sytems
has placed an undue and [Link] ameliorative
approaches which assume that somehow the problems are external

310
3 28
 tb the schools themselves. The parameters which define the
schooljng experience in this country are-in large measure the
result of various political decisions, from compulsciry
attendance to state certification of-teachers and the
curriculum they teach, to modes bf citizen'taxation and the
loCation of the scilbol buildings themselves, To assume that.
schooling is a cop-Sequence of'a seriesof
-administrative-decistais necessarily results in large and
vital gaps in the analyiis of the role and function,of Schools
as an [Link] Ameritan society. . It does not take
great insight to'[Link],atterripts to alleviate-the problems
of schools based on the apolitical [Link] above would
not provide the [Link]. (PP. 8-9)

Thus, research comprehensive [Link] represent the complex

relationships between teachers' sense of efficacy and the=context in
which it develops require'S-an interdisciplinary perspective. In the '

pages that follow, we will suggest'specific"contexts that seem

particularly appropriatejor interdisciplinary, transforming experiments ,

'designed to increase teaders' Sense of efficacy.

1:1

Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Education

Teacher efficacy, as measured by the Rand efficacy items, is at

its highest during the time teachers are in preservice training in'
university settings. In a comparison of 61 preservice and 38 high
school-basic-skills teachers, we found that-the-efficacy-scores'of
preservice teachers were significantly higher than those of the
inservice teachers (Rand Efficacy 1, t -7 5.06, p<001; Rind Efficacy
2, t = 3.23, p<.005).

It might be argued that this finding is indicative of the

cffectiveness of teacher education in inculcating positive attitudes
towards teaching and one's ability to influence students. However,
the rapid deterioration of efficacy during the first years of teaching
experience suggests that efficacy is only weakly developed in teacher
education programs. Teacher efficacy extinguishes so readily when
exposed to the "reality shock" of real students that teacher educators
need to devise "transforming experiments" to identify effective strategies
for inoculating teachers against the ravages of the real-world classroom.
A number of problems in teacher education that have implications for
teacher efficacy have been identified in the literature. Identification
of strategies to deal with these concerns may provide the basis for the
design of "transforming" teacher education programs.

With high expectations, new teachers confront a classroom reality

which gives them little feedback of success and much experience of
failure. Current teacher education programs do not prepare teachers
to cope with these threats to their professional self-esteem. In defense
of their professional egos, teachers seek protection of their sensebf
efficacy through explanations that permit them to absolve themselves of
responsibility for student failure.

311

32..9
 Our Efficacy data offer strong support for this conclusion. When
asked to explain why their students failed, the majority of our
respondents attributed student failure to the student. (See page 23.)
By placing total responsibility for failure on the student, teachers
are likely to succumb to a sense of inefficacy or helplessness in over-
coming student failure. Teacher education programs contribute to this
tendency to blame the students by providing preservice teachers with
psychological and sociological explanations for student failure that
relieve the teacher of responsibility. In the next section, the role
of psychology in contributing to teachers' sense of efficacy will be
discussed, followed by recommendations for transforming teacher
education experiments designed to enable teachers to overcome the beliefs
that are likely to have a detrimental effect on their sense of efficacy.

Trait Psychology: An Impediment to Teacher Efficacy

One of the most studied topics in educational research in recent ,

years has been the effect of teacher expectations on student achievement.
Innumerable studies have reported a significant relationship-between
teachers' expectations and student achievement (Brophy & Good, 1974;
McDermott, 1977; Rist, 1972; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). In our model
of teacher efficacy, negative expectations derive from the teachers'
sense of efficacy. To the extent-that a teacher believes certain
students cannot be motivated, expectations for those students will be
reduced.

In a repent review of teacher expectation research, Good (1981)

described a,five-step model of how teacher expectations become
translated intO student behavior:

1. The teacher expect5._speoific_behaylor ancLachiememPnt from

particular-students.
2. Because of these varied expectations,-the teacher behaves
differently toward different students.

3. This, treatment communicates to the students what behavior

and achievement the teacher expects from them and affects
their self-concepts, achievement motivation, and levels of
aspiration.

4. if this treatment is consistent over time, and if the students

do not resist or change it in some way, it will shape their
achievement and behavior. High-expectation students will be
led to achieve at high levels, whereas the achievement of -low-
expectation students will decline.

5. With time, students' achievement and behavior will conform more

and more closely to the behavior originally expected of them.
(p. 416)

Based on this model, research and teacher education programs have

begun to emerge that are designed to increase studentachievement and
reduce educational inequities by making teachers aware of their

312

330
differential treatment of students and training them to give all students
equal opportunity to recite, ask questions, and to obtain teacher
assistance and attention (Good, 1981). Such efforts are likely to be.
ineffective in discouraging teachers from developing and communicating
negative expectations to students, unless the habitual process underlying
the development of teacher expectations is confronted and counteracted.

Expectations of student behavior derive, in part, from teachers'

habitual tendency to view students in terms of static, unchanging traits.
"Johnny is lazy," "Mary [Link]," Tommy is slow," "Janie is bright,"
"Sam is creative" are typical comments teachers make in describing their
students. Such statements embody the teachers' assumptions about the
consistency and predictability of human behavior.

Social psychological researchers have been unable to detect sufficient

stability in human behavior to warrant such simplistic conclusions about
human behavior (Brim & Kagan, 1980). But teachers are operating on a
naive trait [Link] typifies the traditional Western mentality.
Fritz Heider (1958) formalized this naive psychology in his work, The
Psychology_of Interpersonal Relations. Heider recognized that basiTon
their experiences with others and the environment, individuals develop
an intuitive psychology to reduce the complexity of human relations.-
With development, the identification of "dispositional properties," that
is, traits, in individuals becomes a major means of reducing interpersonal
complexity. If I am able to identify a personality trait on the basis
of my experience with another, I can plan future interactions on the
basis of that trait, thereby greatly reducing the uncertainties of my
interaction_with_that person. _Teachers takethis_habitual way of
functioning, that is, ascribing traits to individuatafid treating them
as immutable, into the classroom and,find that it is useful in reducing
the 'complexities of human relations that confront them. In fact, research
suggests that teaching experience increases teachers' tendency to be
negatively influenced by biasing labels or traits (Foster, 1980).

Our own efficacy data provide considerable evidence of teachers'

tendency to attribute behavior to stable traits. When we engaged-
teachers in analysis of the origins of their own behavior, theyfocused
on a search for the traits that explain their behavior. For example,
when we asked teachers what enabled them to be effective as teachers,
the majority responded with personal traits, for example, "my intelligence,
py creativity, my love of students," and when asked about what contributes
to their ineffectiveness, they again responded with personal qualities,
"my impatience, my disorganization."

The problem lies not in the concept of trait itself. The search for
consistencies can help us explain behavior. The problem lies with the
way we think about traits and the way they come to dominate our
perceptions of others. In practical usage particularly among teachers,
traits have lost their interactive, developmental nature and have become
rigidified into "immutable traits." Much of the theoretical and research
literature with which teachers are thined supports this tendency.
PsychologiSt pay lip serylce to the notion of interaction and situational
determinants of behaVior, but our textbooks attest to our biases. A

313 331
 review of the majority orpsycho)ogy and educational psychology texts will
readily reveal that they are by and large organized [Link]--like $ntel-
ligence , self-concept, anxiety, locus of control, achievement motivation,
and creativity. Only Bronfenbrenner (1979) has broken dramatically with
this tradition in his recent book on human development.

Trait thinking among educatial researchers leads to research that

is inherently conservative. Rather than exploring ways to alter the
ecology of the classroom and the school to enable children to overcome
present problems, research tends..to focus on questions that foster trait
thinking and unquestioning acceptance of the status quo. Questions, such as
what are the characteristics of problem students, or what are the
characteristics of ineffective teachers, implicitly assume that the
problems are inherent in the individuals. The oVeremphasis on identifying
individual traits related to behavior prevents researchers from designing
research capabTe of discovering more fundamental causes of student
learning problems and perpetuates adversarial relationships in which
administrators blame'teachers,_teachers blame students, and students blame
themselves.

Supported by psychological theory and educational research, teachers

accept the situation and classroom as given and deal with the types of
students who respond poorly in [Link] by classifying them with
"psychological" labels, such as hyperactive or retarded or field dependent,
or aggressive or passive, with a peculiar blindness to the possibility
of changing the learning situatThn. Once the offending trait and its
origin have been identified, teachers cease looking for explanations of
_the_behaxior,_and_depending On their energy, commitment, and belief
regarding the immutability of traits, may attempt to identify ways to
change Johnny--but the focus will be on what's the matter with Johnny
rather than on what's the matter with the school situation that may
contribute to his reading problem. Within this framework, the work of
the teacher is to find out what a student is (introverted, mentally .

retarded, poverty-stricken, hyperactive, and so on) and then to fashion

instruction which fits the student's being. Instruction is not meant
to alter the child (traits, after all, are inalterable) but to help the
student make the best of his or her situation. Teachers' naive
psychology of human behavior buttressed by psychological theories that
emphasize trait rather than situational interpretations of behavior lead
teachers to a fatalistic acceptance of children's low achievement. Popular
sociological explanations of the impact of socioeconomic class on
educational achievement are also useful to teachers in relieving anxiety
about their failure_to-motivate poverty students.

Thus, psychological and sociological perspectives provide teachers

with "scientific" rationalizations of their failure with low-achieving
students. Attributing school failure to students' personal inadequacies
or a home circumstance beyond their control, teachers are not likely to
overcome the tendency to react to students in terms of the negative
expectations that such attributions engender.

If teacher education institutions are to be successful in enabling

teachers to respond effectively to low-achieving students, they must

314
332
attack directly the belief system, the intuitive psychology of teachers,
that produces the negative expectations that contribute to the perpetuation
of inequalities in educational opportunity.

Little is known about how to induce significant attitude change in

the context of teacher education programs. The educational literature
is replete with documentation of the failure of teacher education to
influence teacher practices in the classroom (Jackson, 1958; Lortie, 1975).
Teachers readily indict their teacher education courses for failing to
prepare them for the realities of the classroom, for being too abstract
and theoretical (that is, too idealistic) to be useful in guiding their
classroom behavior. Teachers' assessment [Link] educational training
as irrelevant and trivial offers...a critical challenge to teacher
educators to design experiments that transform ineffectual programs into
experiences that enable teachers to cope with the exigencies of their
work. Several ideas having potential for increasing the efficaty of
teacher education' will be proposed in the pages that follow.

Teacher Efficacy: A Central Organizing Construct for Teacher Education

The attitude change program developed by McClelland (1965) could be

adapted to form the basis of a teacher education program with the potential
to provide an effective challenge to the naive psychological beliefs of
the stability of ability that reduce teachers' beliefs in their ability
to motivate their low-achieving students. According to McClelland (1965),
four components are essential to effect change in attitudes and motivation:

(1) conceptualization of the attitude

(2) self-study in relation to the attitude
(3) planning and goal-setting
(4) group support

In an article in 1978, McClelland indiclated that a number of

Motivational change studies incorporating the four components have been
effective in producing significant contributions to "social betterment,"
including raising the standard of living of the poor, facilitating?
compensatory education, and improving business management. Of speial
relevance to the issue of teachers' efficacy is the motivation change
project conducted by deCharms (1976). In his study, deCharms trained
teachers to facilitate their students' sense of personal causation,
that is, their feeling of being in charge and responsible for their own
behavior. The success of deCharms' approach was evidenced by the fact
that in the control group of poverty children, scores on the Iowa Test
of Basic Skills (ITBS) declined from grades six to eight, while in his
experimental group of poverty children, scores began to approach the age
norms for the ITBS.

The power of self7study, goal-setting, and group support to generate

significant and long-term change has been demonstrated. But these elements
have not been systematically applied in the development of a teacher
education program. Training programs, using McClelland's model, have

315
333
typically been intensive, thort-term interventions. If tihese components
were adapted to develop a strong sense of teacher efficacy and incorporated
programatically into the two-to-three year experience of preservice
teachers, it is possible that they could provide the powerful inoculation
teachers need to sustain their sense of efficacy through the frustrations
and disappointments of classroom teaching.

Conce tualization of the attitude. While our understanding of the

impact of attitudes on behavior-TT-TTEited, it is clear that attitudes
do influence behavior (Weiner, 1980). However, the relationship between
attitude and behavior varies depending on the individual's awareness and
commitment to the belief. Attitudes can be expected to correlate highly
with behavior only in situations in which the individual has a well-
or9anized condeption of the attitude and how it relates to behavior and
is committed to action derived from the belief (Snyder, 1977). For this
reason, it is not surprising that the relationships that we obtained
between teachers' sense of efficacy and'their behavior were only of
moderate magnitude. If teachers are only vaguely aware of their beliefs
regarding their sense of efficacy, have not thought through the behaviors
that are consistent with their beliefs and have only weak commitment to
their low-achieving students, the relationship between their reported
sense of efficacy and their classroom behaviors is likely to be weak.
Consequently, a teacher education program designed to help teachers
clarify their efficacy beliefs, develop a well-organized conception of
how these beliefs would be represented in behavior, within the context
of a collegial group supportive of students' developing commitment and
enthusiasm for efficacy beliefs should result in increased relationships
between efficacy beliefs and teacher behavior.

From our analysis of TAT-type responses of our middle school

teachers (see Appendix p) identified as high and low efficacy on the
Rand measure, we identified the following dimensions that distinguish
the high from the low efficacy teachers:

(1) A Sense of Personal Accomplishment

Teachers with a high sense of efficacy feel that their work

with students is important and meaningful; they feel that
they indeed have a positive impact on student learning.

Teachers with a low sense of efficacy feel frustrated and

[Link] teaching. They feel that they are not
making a difference in their students' lives and question
the value of their work.

(2) Positive Expectations for Student Behavior and Achievement

Teachers with a high sense of efficacy expect students to

"progress and, far the most part, find that students fulfill
nett-expectations.

Teachers with a low sense of efficacy expect their students

to fail, to react negatively to their teaching effort, to
misbehave.

316
334
(3) Personal Responsibility for Student Learning

Teachers with a high sense of efficacy feel that it is their

responsibility to see that children learn, and when theiir
students experience failure they examine their own performance
for ways they might have been morq helpful.

Teachers with a low sense of efficacy place the responsibility

for learning on their students, and, when they fail, they look
for explanations in terms of the students' ability, family
background, motivation, or attitude.

(4) Strategies for Achieving Objectives

Teachers with a high sense of efficacy plan for student learning.

They set goals for themselves and their students and identify
strategies to achieve them.

Teachers with a low sense of,efficacy tend to lack specific

goals for their students. They are uncertain about what they
would like their students to achieve and do not plan teaching
strategies according-to identifiable goals.

(5) 'Positive Affect

Teachers with a high sense of efficacy feel good about teaching,

about themselves, and their students. They are enthusiastic
about their students',progress.

Teachers with a low sense of efficacy are frustrated with

teaching and often express discouragement and negative feelings
when talking about their work with students

(6) Sense of Control -

Teachers with a high sense of efficacy are confident that they

are able to influence student learning.

Teachers with a low sense of efficacy experience a sense of

futility in working with students, often expressing the feeling
that no matter how hard they try, they, are unable to influence
or motivate many of their students.

(7) Sense of Common Teacher-Student Goals

TeachersIlith a high sense of efficacy feel that they are involved

in a joint venture with students to achieve goals that they
share in common.

Teachers with a low sense of efficacy feel that they are engaged
in a struggle with students whose goals and concerns are in
opposition to theirs. While they are concerned about teaching
and student achievement, they feel that their students are interested
in avoiding work and resisting their efforts at motivation.

317
335
 (8) Democratic Decision-Making

'Teachers with a high sense of efficacy involve students in

decision-making regarding goals and strategies for
achieving them.

Teachers with a low sense of efficacy impose their decision

regarding goals and learning strategies on students without
involving them in the process of decision-making.

These dimensions could form the basic structure for designing a

McClelland-type teacher education program firmly grounded in self-
analysis of sense of efficacy. In fact, sense of efficacy, defined
in its more general sense, as teachers' beliefs about their abilitp,
to perform all the duties comprising the teacher role, could form
the organizing framework for the design of the total teacher
educational program.

The Philosophical Foundation. If an attitude is to assume an

influential and consistent role in a person's life, its relationship
to other beliefs and its implications for behavior must be clearly
conceived. Thus, an adequate understanding of the attitude of
efficacy involves more than a delineation of the dimensions underlying
the construct., It must-also include analysis of the
philosophical
foundations of efficaey beliefs and the behaviors consistent with a
sense of efficacy. In this sedtion, the philosophical foundation
for
a teacher educaton program designed to develop sense of efficacy will
be proposed.

-To-provide the intellectual support for a strong sense of efficacy,,

a teacher education program would need to introduce and foster
commitment to conceptions of ability that recognize the human potential/
_for-growth and development. Teachers' belief in intelligence as a
fixed and stable trait is one of the most serious obstacles to increasing
their sense of efficacy. The pervasiveness of this belief in the
educational system and its obstruction of the goal of equalizing
educational opportunity werenoted by Brookover and Erickson (1969):

The assumption of fixed ability continues to dominate

the practice and organization of American education. The
emphasis on the identification of people with various learning,
"abilities" or "talents," and through this the selection of /
people for various types of education and training, have overt-
shadowed any efforts in American schools to,cultivate the
appropriate social climates or environments which would develop.
the academic abilities of children in appropriate fields. The
emphasis is, therefore, on identifying and selecting so that
the round pegs are appropriately placed in the round holes,/
rather than on,creating the appropriate environment and /

providing the experience that' would produce the kind of ciitzens

needed in a highly technical and literate society. . In Most
.

discussions of the goals of education, educational leaders tend

to emphasize the importance of educating the individual to the
limits of his capacity. .
we have [Link] which plosits
.

the concept of change or expansion or development of intelligence

318
336
 I
through the creation of appropriate environmental experiences.
The concept of a varying and pliable lehrning ability is 1
therefore very difficult to introduce, and it is not easy for
us to comprehend such an idea without a vocabulary with which
to discuss it. . . Prior to the advent of the concept of
intelligence, the responsibility for failure to learn in
school was ascribed to either the child's willful abstinence
or the teacher's incompetence. The concept of fixed and limited
intelligence excused both from any responsibility. (pp. 5-9)

Dewey's (1939) conception of creative intelligence could be very

effective in combatting the sense of fatalism induced by teachers'
naive psychology, if it were used as the philsophical underpinning
of a teacher education program based on the development of teachers'
sense of efficacy:

Dewey believed intelligence is largely a social product.

He did not see it as a native capacity but rather as a,habit
of mind which must be learned in interaction with others.
Intelligence involves powers of observation that allow
individuals to recognize and define problems. It involves
reasoning and judgment. It demands that we learn from
experience and put what is learned in our stock of knowledge
where it can be called on when needed in the future. 0
(Webb, 1981, p. 29)

If teachers were encouraged to abandon the naive notion of intelligence

as a fixed trait and began to see themselves as responsible for providing
experiences to their students that could develop or inhibit the growth
of intelligence, teachers would be unable to absolve themselves of
responsibility,by attributing student failure to low ability. One
way to instill a sense of responsibility for developing students'
intelligence is through teachers' role definition of their job.

The Need for a Powerful Role Definition--Teacher as Change Agent.

Teachers perceptions of appropriate role-related behavior have a
particularly powerful effect on teachers' sense of efficacy. In an
effort to determine "why teachers are so dissatisfied with themselves,
so discontented, and so ineffectual," McPherson documented the subtle
yet potent influence of role expectations and pressures that shaped
the attitudes and behaviors of th,e teachers,who were her colleagues
in a small school in a northeastern town (McPherson, 1972, p.13).
The focus of McPherson's analysis was on the teacher role-set, that
is, the .

cluster of changing, often conflicting pressures. . .

which makcg it impossible for all but the most unusual

teacher in the public schools to "teach," to do other
than show children how to fail, to do other than push
the children into the accepted mold and damage in more
or less serious ways the ones who do not fit. (p. 12)

319.
1
337
 Insight into the processes contributing to teachers' failure
to
maintain their idealism and enthusiasm is provided in a study conducted
by Johnson, Baldwin, and Wiley (1969). In an experimental teaching
situation, Johnson et al. found that in contrast to college students,
experienced teachers did not tend to view themselves as strong causal
agents of the performance of students they had instructed; they attributed
most of the causation underlying the pupils' performance to factors
internal to the students themselves. A very dramatic change in
performance
was required before the teachers assumed responsibility for the student's
performance. Johnson et al. concluded that teachers
do not perceive
much of a causal relationship between their behavior and their students'
intellectual performance, while they do assume responsibility for
classroomhmanagement. Johnson et al. attributed this result
to the
"rapid flux" (Smith & Geoffrey, 1968) of the classroom situation which
'makes it very difficult tojsolate relationships between specific
instructional activities and students' achievement; while relationships
between the teacher's classroom management behaviors and students'
compliance are more readily observed. This inability to see causal
relationships between instruction and achievement, coupled with a belief
in stable traits of ability and potential, may account for thefinding
that in many urban schools with low income children(the teacher's
primary focus is on the socialization of compliance behavior rather than
on substantive learning (Cohen, 1972).

Research is needed to identifY ways in which teacher education

programs can promote development of a strong role definition of teaching
that can help teachers withstand the conflicting pressures that lead
many teachers to succumb to a sense of helplessness. Development of
successf61 programs is dependent upon prior research that identifies
the specific presdures and contradictory role expectations,that lead
to a low sense of efficacy. Role theory with its emphasis upon "the
processes and phases of socialization, interdependences among
individuals, the characteristics and organization of social positions,
processes of conformity and sanctioning, specialization of performance
ahd the division of labor" can provide a framework for initial design of
research and teacher education experiences to support teachers' sense
of efficacy (Biddle & Thomas, 1966, p. 17). A conceptual model derived
from role theory could enable teachers to analyze the conflicting;
pressures on their Sense of efficacy and identify methods of coping
with them. On the basis of such a model, inservice and preservice teachers
could be engaged in experienced that encourage a strong role definiton
of the teacher as a potent motivator of student learning.
 The Behavioral Connection: Teacher-Student Relationships. Attitudes
are of interest because of their role in-influencing behavior. Consequently,
an adequate conceptualization of an attitude must include a description
of the behavioral correlates associated with the attitude. Similarly,
if teachers' understanding of their sense of efficacy is to have practical
value, they must be aware of how it affects their behavior. In both
our quantitative and qualitative observations of middle and high school
teachers, the primary difference between high and low efficacy teachers
was in teacher-student relationships. High efficacy teachers maintained
more positive, accepting relationships with their students. Our
observations offer support to McDermott's (1977) contention that a trusting
relationship between teacher and student is a prerequisite for effective
teaching and learhing. However, McDermott's conception of trust high-
lights the vulnerability of teacher's sense of efficacy:

I am talking about trust as a'quality of the relations

among people, as a product of the work they do to achieve a
shared focus. Trust is achieved and managed through inter-
action. . .It takes constant effort for two or more people
to achieve trusting relations, and the slightest lag in that
work can demand extensive remedial efforts. . Trust is not
.

a property of persons but a product of the work people do to

achieve trusting relations, given particular institutional
contexts. (p. 199)

teac:_rs must be ever vigilant in their interactions with students,

if they are to maintain the trusting relationship that supports student
l*ning and, thereby, sustains their sense of effficay.

The second major difference in classroom interaction observed between

high and low efficacy teachers was the greater openness of the high
efficacy\ teacher to student ideas and feelings. The high efficacy
teacher was more likely to accept students' suggestions and initiations
and, [Link], their students were more enthusiastic and spontaneous
in their classroom interactions. The interactions that we observed
between high\efficacy teachers and their students seem to correspond
to the description of the origin classroom climate recommended by
deCharms (1976)\and Deci (1975) as likely to foster motivation and
self-efficacy in students.

In order for teacher efficacy to [Link] than simply an ideology

teachers can articulate, a teacher education program designed to foster
teacher efficacy must include training experiences enabling preservice
students to develop itie human relations skills essential for establishing
and maintaining trusting relations and encouraging autonomy in students.
A particularly important\ aspect of the human relations skills needed
by teachers to enhance thgir sense of efficacy is the ability to
maintain supportive attituqes when students become hostile and express
negative feelings toward the teacher. Brophy and Evertson (1981)
observed that teachers tend to engage in consistently negative (rejecting)
response patterns with hostile students, creating a "mutual negativism"
that renders teachers ineffectual with such students. Specific

3 21 339
educational experiences are neede8 [Link] teachers to the harm
inflicted on the teacher-student relationship and the student's potential
for learning when they are rejecting and hostile to,students, and
alternative approaches to expressing frustration 4nd anger in constructive
ways that do not endanger the relationship should be taught.'

Context-Based Teacher Education: A Structure for Goal-Setting. From

our analysis of teacher interviews, i,t is clear that teacher efficacy
is highly dependent upon the specific teaching situation. Teachers may
feel qUite confident about their ability to motivate [Link]
or some students while feeling less competent with others. Consequently,
students in teacher education programs are in need of training that
provides a wide range of experience in the many contexts they are likely
to confront as teachers. Recognizing the "multimethod, multiperson,
multisituation, multivariable" (Smith, 1978) nature of teaching, Tikunoff
and-Ward (1978) recommended a "context-based" approach to teacher
education in which a stadent teacher's performance would be analyzed
in terms of the multiple contexts of teaching. A serious attempt to
develop a context-based [Link] teacher education would require
a systeMatic analysis of the tasks and responsibilities of teaching,
and the development of a hierarchy of skills, such that students would
be gradually introduced Into the role of teaching in terms,of the
difficulty level of the skills and contexts involved. The,hierarchy
of skills could form the basis for the goal-setting and self-evaluation
with regard to efficacy that McClelland has contended is essential
to the motivation change process.

Like Lortie (1975) and Jackson (1968); we found that teachers tend
to be surprisingly unreflective about their work. It was not uncommon
for them to comment that they had never thought about the issues we
raised with them (see Appendix S, p. 479). Popular conceptions of
teachers' thinkin6 as a rational decision-making process represent a
goal to be achieved rather than an accurate depiction of the typical
behavior of classroom teachers. Langer (1978) suggested that "most
behavior may be,epacted without paying attention to it, even complex
social interaction" (O. 38). Teaching seems to be among the behaviors
that are often conducted in a habitual rather than reflective manner.
Jackson (1968) argued that the demands of the classroom virtually
require spontaneous, nondeliberative behavior from teachers:

The personal qualities'enabling teachers to withstand the

demands of classroom life have never been adequately described.
But among those qualities is surely the ability to tolerate
the enormous amount of ambiguity, unpredictability, and
occasional chaos created each hour by 25 or 30 not-to-willing
learners. What is here called the conceptual simplicity
evident in teachers' language may be related to that ability.
If teachers sought a more thorough understanding of their
world, insisted on greater rationality in their actions,
were completely open-minded in their consideration of
pedagogical choices, and profound in their view of the human
condition, they might well receive greater applause from
intellectuals', but it is doubtful that they would perform
with greater efficiency in the classroom. (p. 149)
 or

While Jackson (1968) is no doubt cOrrect that spontaneity and ability

to act decisively is essential during the interactive phase of teaching,
teachers are not adequately trained in the reflective, self-analytical
thinkins necessary for effective planning. Teachers', failure to think
analytically is, in laege measure, attributable to,their prgerence for
a field-dependent cognitive style in dealing with the envirdnment (Witkin,
Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977); that is; they tend to respolid intuitively -

rather than analytically to problem situations. As [Link] of their

field-dependent style, teachers are likely to assume a passive, spectator '
approach to problem-solution rather than an actile hypothesis-testing
approach (Witkin et al., 1977):

A context-based program in which teachers are encouraged to analyze

the specific aspects of their teaching performance in relation to the
context in which it occurs would enable teachers to develop a more
analytical apprbach to their teaching. Trained to engage in context-
specific self-analysis, teachers would have a powerful technique for
identifying the sources of their sense of inefficacy. Operating from
an analytical Perspective, teachers would be less likely 0 succumb to
a sense qf helplessness due to the ina,bility to isolate the factors J.
contributing to their feelings of inefficacy.

As part of the development of teachers' analytical thinking processes,

techniques would be needed that enable teachers-in-training'to evaluate
their effectiveness. 'As indicated in Chapter 7, a majdg influence on
teachers' sense of efficacy is the uncertainty mist teachers feel about
whether or not they are having an effect on student learning. Simple ,

and specific procedures for-self-evaluation of their effectiveness are

needed. The contextual hierarchy of skills devised to organize the
. students' program would provide an outline of skills to be evaluated.
Since our research suggests that teachers evaluate their effectiveness
in relation to the effectiveness of other teachers, it would be important
to provide teachers with frequent opportunities to observe and compare
themselves with the performance of others, so that a realistic standard
of comparison Gould be developed. (See Chapter 4, pp. 99-102.)

, Group Support. Lortie (1975) noted that in their education programs

teachers did not have the experiences they needed to enable them to provide
collegial support for each other to combat the negative influences of
classroom isolation and uncertainties abouL personal teaching effectiveness.
Strong student groups organized to provide peer support to bolster
enthusiasm and maintenance of teachers' sense of efficacy could serve
as the trainingin establishing :ollegial relationships that Lortie felt
was missing in traditional teacher education program's. As suggested in
McClelland's motivation change prugram, group support for the concept of ,

creative intelligence and the role definition of teacher as change agent

and context-based self-evaluation may bedielpful in maintaining motivation
and commitment to a strong sense of efficacy.

323
341
 Organtzational Approaches to Increasino Teachers Sense of EffiCacy

The recommendations prOppsed for the design Of transtorming experiments

have up to this point been *used on transforming the teacher. However,
our analysis suggests that the major Contributors to teachers' sense of
inefficacy are organizational [Link]. To focus exclusively on
changing the teachen leaving the structural organization of the school
intact, is not likely to have aq enduring effect on teachers' sense of
efficacy. If structural supports are not devised to provide teachers
with the collegjal, supervisory, community and-económic assistance'
required ,tp resist the many challenges to sense of efficacy, efforts to
change teachers attitudes and behmiors toward their students are likely
to [Link] transitory effects, atbest. In the following sections,
a number of the most debilitating structural factors influencing teachers'
sense of efficacy are discussed, and,suggestions for transforming them
through imaginative research endeavors are considered.

Is
SocializatiOn-of Teachers into the PrOfession

the most powerful negative influence on new teachers' sense

Perhaps

ofefficacy,is thb informal process by which experienced teachers socialize

new teachers [Link] professional role (Lortie, 1975). Hargreaves (1972)
identified five teacher norms that exert pressure on new teachers to lower
their expectations of themselves and their students: (1) autonomy,
(2) loyalty to the staff group, (3) mediocrity, (4) cynicism, and (5) a
degree of anti-intellectualism. In Hargreaves' study, new teachers who
arrived early; obviqusly worked hard,:and stayed late were [Link]
teasing frOrthemdre experienced staff. New teachers quickly learned
that public enthusiasm [Link] violated the school norma for appropriate
teaCher behavior.'
I.
9
In her study,of 22 beginning teachers in an urban slum area,'Eddy
(1969) [Link] anthropological concept of "rites of passage" to
the official and covert socialization practices used by experienced
teachers to induct newcomers into the teaching profession. In Eddy's
study, teachers becaMe socialized to the norm that the most *portant
sign,..,of success as a teacher is

. .a classroom of pupils who follow elaborate ritualistic

patterns of behavior which,express their subordinate positiOn. .

the solutions [to instructional problems] of the old-timers

stress thé importance of keeping pupils qujetly occupied
and forcing them to respond to the activities of teachers, the
common belief is that teachers can teach and pupils can learn
only when pupil-initiated-activities toward [Link] and
the [Link] stopped. Those pupils who do not sit
silently at their desks', listen to what [Link], and do
the work asiigned to them notonly cannot be taught but do
not deserve to be, (pp. 44 and 118)

,Beginners pressured by more experienced teachers to "control

their classes" py whatever means necessary often alienate themselves

342
from their students, thus initiating the process that leads inevitably
to the deterioration of their sense of efficacy.

The need for effectiife socialitation processes tq combat the ever-

present threats to new teachers' sensepf efficacy is dramatized in
Fuchs' (1969) description 'of the symptoms of "culture shock" typically
experienced by new teachers in the first weeks on the job:

With few exceptions, beginning teachersduring their first days

and weeks-in their classrooms exhibit symptoms of severe emotional
and physical stress . Most of us are aware of the tensions
and strains accompanying unfamiliar routines or activities . .

However, the symptoms expressed by beginning teachers . . . go

far beyond the ordinary fatigue associated with a new mode of
employment. They are surprisingly similar to the phenomenon
t described by anthropologists as "culture shock." . .One of the
.

symptoms is a ludicroustendency to raise-one's voice to a shout

when one finds a foreigner unable to understand simple English.
How many new teachers:exhibit this same tendency to shout at theTr
youngsters. Other reactions include numbing fatigue, anger against
the strangers confronting one, or a frenzied retreat into the
familiar. There is often, in addition, a feeling of helplessness
and a desire for company of one's own kind.,. For the new teacher,
.

the first few weeks [Link] the schooldare critical, for her
attitude toward the children and her occupation can be set positive-
ly or negatively during this time. Contempt for the children is
one unfortunate possibility. Other reactions may result in serious
self-doubt, resulting in the abandonment of teaching completely.
(pp. 21-22)

In light of the trauMatic effect that the first weeks of teaching

can have on teachers' sense-of efficacy, the process of teacher
socialization seems to be'a particularly important area for research
collaboration between teachers and teacher educators. Clearly, current
informal peOcesses of socialization tend to be detrimental to the
enthusiasm and idealism of the new teacher. Fuchs (1969) argued for
formal socialization processes involving the teacher education institut-
ionsto combat the debilitating influences of classroom culture shock.
2

Too frequently the teacher [Link] by those who

basically have no respect for the poor and their children,
who accept rationalizations for the failure of the institution
to achieve ideal goals, and who operate as bureaucratic
functionaries rather than as educators. Thus, the claiming
institution, the school in which the teacher actually wbrks,
has a responsbility to be aware of its function to,provide
the beginning teacher with a constructive educational milieu
in which to develop professional competence . . .those concerned
with the preparation of teachers need to recognize that only
with strong and consistent support from the teacher education
institution during the beginner's period of induction into her
position as teacher can those who enter schools in the ghettos
and slums translate and stabilize their ideals into practices

ft
325
343.
 which can contribute to the revitalization of education for
the children of the inner city. . . The power of the employing
school, its bureaucratic structure and procedures, and the
status system among teachers--based primarily upon tenure--
tend to cause the neophyte teacher to modify and in some
instances to abandon whatever she was taught during her
pre-service education. For this teason, the teacher education
institution which hopes that its graduates will realize in
their teaching practices the principles, attitudes, and
methods it advocates must be prepared to invest a major portion
pf its expertise and efforts in intensive programs for new
'teachers in service. (pp. 214-215)

Based on his study of teacher socialization in Great Britain, Lacey

(1977) suggested that socialization should be conceptualized as a
"complex, interactive, negotiatedi provisional process" (p. 22).
Lacey's approach to socialization reflects the need for collaboration
among teacher educators,,experienced and beginning teachers and other
school officials to desijh experiments to transform the teacher
socialization process intO a supportive-function that offers protection
to teachers sense of efficacy when threatened by the difficult realities
--____Gf_the school.

Problem areas needing special attention in the design of effective

socialization strategies include the following: (1) how to-reduce the
responsibilities of beginning teachers to enable them to assume teaching
responsibilities gradually, avoiding the trauma of the abrupt transition
from student to full-time teacher, (2) how to foster teachers' analysis
of classroom experiences to enable them to maintain their motivation
and enthusiasm and that of their students, (3) how to create professional,
collegial relations among new and experienced teachers that support
rather than discourage their sense of efficacy, (4) how to design
evaluation strategies that bolster rather than threaten teachers' sense
of efficacy, (5) how to sensitize teachers to the social and cultural
forces that impact on the school, endangering their sense of efficacy.

Collegial Commitment arid Student Decision-Making

Lortie (1975) pointed out that the major rewards teachers can expect
from teaching are psychic, primarily the satisfaction derived from feeling
responsible for student learning and the appreciation that students express
to teachers for their help. Unfortunately, most teachers are disappointed
to find that such feelings are much ftrer than they expected; appreciative,
responsive students are the exception not the rule in urban classrooms.
The rarity of the motivated student is due, in part, to the few psychic
rewards that the urban school offers students, particularly poverty
students.

The alienation felt by poverty students, especially poor minority

students, is a major obstacle to successful teaching (Metz, 1978).
Students resist teachers' effcrts with hostility, and passive or active
aggression, because they find no personal rewards to be gained by their
educational endeavors. In fact, [Link] try and fail, they risk

326 //
344
 irrefutable proof of their inability and if they succeed, they risk
rejection by their peers and lost of social status. Faced with the
hopelessness of fulfilling their aspirations for the future by the
disheartening evidence of their families' circumstances, children
of povetty may understandably react with anger at the injustice of
the schO1 system that perpetuates inequality by rewarding the
childreni of plenty and ignoring or punishing children of poverty.
Metz suggest;that only by developing these students' commitment to
the school can teachers hope to overcome the alienation that deprives
them of the sense of efficacy that would make teaching worthwhile.
Individual teachers working alone cannot make the impact needed to
change the inertia of student alienation; school faculties must form
a consensus committed to the objective of developing a sense of
educatiodal purpose and commitment among the hostile, the angry, the
apathetic, the alienated. To reach these disenchanted requires a
school-wide effort to provide rewards for learning for students who
in the past have seen no benefit in their academic effort. For students
as for teachers there must be reward for their efforts. Thus, Metz
(1978) recommends that teachers must first convince their students of
the value in academic efforts either-by starting with strategies and
goals that match the needs and interests of the students as they are or
by creating interests and needs in the students that can be met by aca-
demic effort. To overcome student resistance, however, teachers must
develop an extensive program of communication between faculty and students,
which gives students a role in educational decision-making; in addition,
teachers must be united in their commitment to the process and be willing
to experiment and accept legitimate student challenges.

Teacher Efficacy and Educational Bureaucracy

and the Illusion of Professional Autonomy

The high incidence of student alienation may be, in large part,

a reaction to teacher alienation. When teachers are enthusiastic and
committed to student learning, it is difficult for students to remain
hostile and aloof. Given the large numbers of teachers who seem to
have lost their enthusiasm for teaching and the contagious effect that
their apathy is certain to have on their students' attitudes, it is
crucial to identify the factors that contribute to teacher alienation.

Teachers enter the profession with expectations,that they will

exercise responsibility, self-determination, and professional autonomy
(Anderson, 1968). Confronted with school and district regulations
'regarding curriculum materials and administrative procedures, teachers
are likely to be surprised and upset by the number of bureaucratic
constraints restricting their "professional autonomy." Status
insecurity (see Chapter 8 of this report) and sel,-doubt,induced by
uncertainty about their effectiveness (see Chapter 7 of this report)
interact to induce teacher conformity to the bureaucratic regulations
of the school (Anderson, 1968; Presthus, 1960).

Organizational theory (Merton, 1957) suggests that when bureaucratic

constraints become oppressive, organization members are likely to lose
sight of the primary aims of the organization in favor of an unquestioning

327
34 5
adherence to the means of attaining them--a phenomenon referred to as
"goal displacement." In such circumstances, rules are likely to be
applied rigidly with no consideration of their appropriateness for the
specific situation, and organization members will tend to assume an
impersonal, even condescending attitude toward clients. Rigid adherence
to rules and fear of the consequences of violating them reduce the
likelihood that teachers will risk the dangers of innovation. In this
way, many teachers develop a "bureaucratic mentaTity," characterized
by their resistance to change, treating students impersonally, and
emphasizing procedures and routines for their own sake rather than for
the purposes they were intended to serve. The pervasiveness of the
bureaucratic mentality of teachers was captured in a study of,teacher
behavior in first and fifth grade classrooms by Blumenfeld, Hamilton,
Bossert, Wessels, and Meece (1980).

. .our data so far indicate that it is the everyday

demands of the institution rather than the long-term
goal of socializing that receive emphasis in teacher
communication to children about the student role. The
teacher is a manager of activities and immediate
institutional imperatives of conducting those
activities and preventing chaos override what might
be ideal-typical sotializing practices. Instead, the
teacheris a manager who mainly reacts, and reacts to
things she does not like. Those things are mostly
violations of the procedures that probably must be
maintained if the show is to go on Relatively rarely,
and,primarily when spurred by a negative event, is
the teacher prompted to provide further socializing
information involving her expectations, attributions
of causality, or sanctions themselves. The student
is essentially a socializee who absorbs on-the-job
experience geared to passive citizenship in an ongoing
institution. (p. 50)

Thus, the institutional expectations of the teacher and student roles

force the teacher into a managerial role rather than the instructional role
the teacher expected on entering the profession. Blumenfeld [Link]. conclude
that perhaps this is not a negative outcome:

Theteacher who focuses on the central task to be done,

whq emphasizes issues of effort, who insists on keep-
ing on task--such a teacher produces students more
convinced of the importance of the central academic
aspects of the role. The citizenship thus presented
might be a relatively passive one, but the scholarship
will get accomplished. Such a picture [Link]
relatively similar to that of a good manager in any area.
7he American school is thus much like the American
factory, in that the small workers whose product is them-
selves need good managers in order either to turn out a
good product or to care about the production process.
(P. 55)

328
346
 Our research on teacher efficacy cannot support the Blumenfeld et. al.
conclusion. The factory production model has
failed to provide a sustain-
ing sense of efficacy to factory workers and managers (Bramel & Friend, 1981)
and is even less likely to promote a sense of efficacy in teachers and
students (Wise, 1979). Teachers tend to enter teaching with
strong social
needs and expectations (Holland, 1973). When these needs are frustrated
and they find they must Assume an impersonal attitude with students to
maintain the bureaucratic rules of the institution, teachers experience
a loss of the sense of control essential to their motivation (Deci, 1975 ).
This loss of control, similar to the loss of control experienced by
factory .

managers and workers, culminates in teachers' alienation from their students.

In a perceptive analysis of the implications of the results of the

"Effective schools" research, Cohen (1981) suggested that several alterna-
tive interpretations of the data can be defended. Effective schools were
found to have

(1) strong administrative leadership of the school

principal, especially in regard to instruction-
al matters;

(2) a school climate conducive to learning; that is,

a safe and orderly school relatively free of
discipline and vandalism problems;

(3) schoolwide emphasis on basic skills instruction

(which entails acceptance among the professional
staff that instruction in the basic skills is
the primary goal of the school);

(4) teacher expectations that all students, regardless

of family background, can reach appropriate levels
of achievement;

(5) a system for monitoring and assessing pupil

performance which is tied to instructional
'Objectives. (p. 59)

These factors, Cohen suggested,could be characteristic of an effective

bureaucracy or, alternatively, an effective community based on the
principles of shared values. Many theorists have argued that the character-
istics of bureaucracy are inimical to effective schooling (Buford, 1968;
Goodman, 1970). From the answers of the teachers in our study to the question,
"What gives you the most satisfaction from work?" it is clear that more
than anything else teachers want positive relationships with students.
The impersonal norm of the bureaucracy is antithetical to the personal
concern for individuals that prompts most teachers' choice of teaching
as a profession. The good teaCher-student relations essential for
teachers to maintain a high sense of efficacy are in serious jeopardy in
the bureaucratic realities of the urban school. Thus, it seems untenable
to conclude that the succets of the schools described in the Effective
Schools research is attributable to effective bureaucratic functioning of

329
347
those schools. It is more likely that the success is due to the shared
values, the sense of mission that unites and empowers a community.

From their study of teacher burnout, Farber and Miller (1981)

concluded that teachers' dissatisfaction is often attributable to the
school organizational factors that lead to a lack of a "psychological
sense of community - a lack that produces feelings on the part of
teachers of both isolation and inconsequentiality" (p. 238). In a
focused ethnography of four relatively successful and two relatively
unsuccessful schools, Little (1982) described a number of organizational
characteristics conducive to the development of a sense of community
and shared work. Norms of collegiality and experimentation prevailed
in the successful schools, while the unsuccessful schools,were more often
characterized by isolation. Little concluded that continuous professtonal
development is dependent on four critical practices:

(1) frequent, concrete, precise, coherent discussions

about teaching practice (thus, building a shared
language of teaching); s

(2) mutual observation and critique;

(3) shared efforts to'design and evaluate curriculum;

and

(4) shared participation in the process of instruction-

al improvement.

In summary, our analysis of teacher attitudes toward their school

organization suggests that the bureaucratic structure of most public
educational institutions is a major factor in the alienation of teachers
from their students. If teachers are to regain a sense of efficacy,
efforts must be made to transform the impersonal bureaucratic school
structure into a living community of committed individuals with a sense
of mission with shared goals and shared responsibilities for decision-
making.

Our description of the middle school in Chapter 3 outlines some ways

that.a sense of community can be fostered,including the following:
(1) principal leadership in promoting shared goals and a sense of mission;
(2) team planning and team teaching; (3) cqllegial decision-making;
(4) multi-age, multi-ability grouping of students; and .(5) involvement
of students in curriculum planning.

The typical urban public school offers teachers only the illusion
of professional autonomy, but teachers' need to maintain a sense of
professional self-worth encourages them to accept the illusion as real
and submit to the bureaucratic constraints imposed by'the institution.
Individual teachers acting alone are unable to influence the bureaucracy
in significant ways. The most hopeful approach for teachers to gain a
real sense of control over their professional lives is through concerted

330

348
C

effort through their professional organizations. To date, these organiza-

tions have not offered bold proposals for enriching the professional lives
of teachers. Retsinas (1982) offers limited hope that teacher unions may
be able to wrench a modicum of control for teachers -- as a concession
when fiscal demands cannot be met. However, she concluded that the
concessions of control are likely to be minimal, given the bureaucratic
structure of education, for after all:

Teachers are proletarian professionals. They have

bargained for economic concessions, as well as
concessions of control. At the bargaining tables,
teachers are unlikely to win major economic gains,
but they may win control. That voice in policy,
however, is weak. It will not be sufficient to
transform schools into models of worker democracy,
with teachers running the educational systems in which
they work. Similarly, unions of social workers,
librarians,,and nurses may, like teachers, win input
into policy. In and of itself, however, that input
will neither erode the democratictmandate, nor
redress workers' alienation. -For proletarian
professionals, collective bargaining victories may
be only a half-step in winning substantive job control.(pp; 369-370)

Collaborative efforts of schools of education, teacher organizations, and

school districts could result in6transforming experiments designed to
challenge the educational status quo. John Dewey (1939) proposed such
a model for sustaining teacher professionalism, but it has yet to be put
to rigorous test in the urban school district. Dewey believed that his
conception of hUman intelligence could be fostered in instituiions that
"allow all those affected by [the social institution to] have a share in
producing and managing themlp. 401).

While perhaps not feasible on a large-scale,a small-scale transforming

experiment that allows teachers the autonomy and responsibility they
expected to assume when they chose teaching as a profession and, that
provides them with the time and resources and expert support they need to
maintain their sense of efficacy may provide the evidence the public needs
to regain confidence in education. Successful transforming experiments
could provide the impetus for greater support and commitment to education,
thus, enabling the experiments to then be carried out on a grander scale.

Teacher Efficacy and Parent-Teacher Relations

A major source of teachers' sense of inefficacy is their relations

with the families of low-achieving students. As teachers engage in inter-
actions with parents that have negative outcomes, they feel less effective
as teachers, and their resulting low Sense of professional self-esteem
reduces their willingness to risk further loss of esteem,in future inter-
actions with parents. After such experiences, teachers are likely to decide
to protect their remaining sense of efficacy from further assault by ceasing
to initiate contact with parents;.thus, the process,of alienation is complete.
As long as teachers feel alienated from the families lof their students,
they will experience a serious threat to their sense/of efficacy.
i

The lack of information and training helpful iq facilitating

relations between poverty families and the classroom teachers is reflected
in the attitudes typically expressed by middle-claSs teachers. Our
interviews with teachers provide sad testimony that:most middle-class
teachers continue to operate on the basis of the iMpoverished stereo-
type of the poor family as-Uncaring and unsupportiè of the educational
needs of children. Such stereotypes breed alienatlbn between teacher
and student and between teacher and family and ult'mately between student
and family.

In a perceptive analysis of the conflictual rjelations between parents

and teachers, Lightfoot (1978) identified the problem\as misperceptions
between parents and teachers rather than conflictiAg values:

The literature shows overwhelmingly that blacks

(regardless of social status) universally vidw
education as the most primising means fbr
attaining high socioeconomic status. The
dissonance between black parents and teachers,
therefore, does not lie in the conflicting
values attached to education but in the mis-
perceptions they have of one another. Despite
the passionate and often unrealistic dreams of
black parents, teachers continue to view them ;

as uncaring, unsympathetic, and ignorant of

the value of education for their children and
unconcerned about their children's academic
success in school. Often they perceive thd
parents' lack of involvement in ritualistic
school events and parent conferences as apathy
and disinterest and rarely interpret it as the
inability to negotiate the bureaucratic maze of
schools or as a response to a long history of
exclusion and rejectiOn at,the school door.
Their lack of success in effectively partici-
pating in the relatively superficial and peripherai
roles allowed ghetto parents is perceived by
teachers as a lack of interest and concern in their\
children's education. The irony, of course, is
that they care too much - a kind of caring that
limits their view of alternative strategies for
movfhg forward; a blinding'preoccupation that makes
black parents and children more vulnerable to the
modes of subtle and explicit exclusion they face
in relation to schools. (p. 166)

Lightfoot concluded that successful schooling for minority \children

is dependent on the development of effective home-school collaboration:

332
350
 Schools will only become tomfortable and productive
environments for learning when the cultural and
historical presence of black families and communities
are infused into the daily interactions and education-
al processes of children. When children see a piece
of themselves and their experience in the adults that
teach theM and feel a sense of constancy between home
and school, then they are likely to make a much smoother
and productive transition from one to 'the other. Black
,famIlial and cultural participation will require pro-
found changes in the structural and,organizational
character of schools, in the dynamic relationship
between school and community, in the daily, ritual-
istic interactions between teachers aricrchildren, and
finally, in the consciousness and articulation of
values, attitudes, and behaviors of the people involved
in the educational process. The irony of the academic
and sociopolitical assaults on black families lies in
the fact that historically black families have been
the central sustaining force of black culture; that
black families have been [Link] educational environ-
ments, teaching children survival strategies and the
ability to negotiate dissonant cultural sphere; and
that the collaboration of black families and schools is
the only hope for the successful schooling of black
children. (p. 175)

A major research effort in the form of transforming experiments to

,facilitate home-school relationships would offer the potential for dis-
covering a significant source of support for teachers' sense of efficacy.
Bronfenbrenner (1976) has emphasized the importance of research to
improve home-school relations for the solution of current social problems:

This dissociation of social structures has been increasing

rapidly in recent decades and has been accomplished'by
a parallel deterioration of socialization processes and
outcomes. Hence experiments that undertake to reverse
the process by constructing and strengthening inter-
connections between ecological systems offer promise
both for scientific understanding and for social policy.
(p. 14)

If teachers and parents were provided wfth the transforming experiences

needed to correct the misperceptions that alienate them, socialization for
the child of poverty could become a continuous,supportive process from home
to school rather than an antagonistic process requiring the child to,choose
.between home and school. Improving relations between teachers and parents
of children from low socioeconomic backgrounds would probably have a more
dramatic impact on teachers' sense of efficacy than any other single
transformation, because teachers' deeply held beliefs about the futility of
motivating children from "uncaring" homes of [Link] families provide a
strong defense for a low sense of efficacy.

333
351
 Conclusion

Our cultural belief in the stability of human traits tempts us to

conceive of teachers' sense of efficacy as a character trait that has
potential for the screening'and selection of candidates for teacher
education andteaching positions (Trentham, Silvern & Brogdon, 1981).
Our research suggests that such an expectation is unwarranted.
Teachers' sense of efficacy is fiegotiated daily in their myriad trans-
actions with students, parents, peers; and administrators. It is
situation-specific, dependent on the individuals and interactions
involved in each transactibn. Thus, the teacher is ever vulnerable to
self-doubt induced by the unpredictability and uncontrollability of human
interaction. Given this uncertainty, teachers' sense of efficacy is in
continual jeopardy, in danger of attack by resistant or hostile students,
angry parents, demanding administrators and dissatisfied colleagues.
Even the most self-assured teachers admit to periods of frustration
and discouragement in response to certain classes or specific students,
or ocdasional "bad days." Thus, teachers' sense of efficacy is faced
with continual challenge from multiple threats. Teachers who succumb
to feelings of inefficacy are likely to suffer debilitating stress and be
less effective with students. Yet with a supportive administrator, a change
of circumstances, a different class, or a new perspective, such teachers
may renew their enthusiasm and their effectiveness. Rather than focus
on the identification of efficacy as a characteristic internal to the
teacher, future research should explore the processes by which teacher
education and socialization practices, organizational structures,
instructional techniques,administrative strategies and home-school
relations can reduce the threats and increase the support of teachers'
sense of efficacy.
 References

Abramsdn, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J.D. Learned helplessness

in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 1978, 87, 49-74.

Algina, J. Comment on Bartko's "On various intraclass correlation

reliability coefficients." Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 85,
135-138.

Alschuler, A.S., Tabor, D., & McIntyrp, J. Teaching achievement

motivation. Middletown, Conn.: Education Venturet, 1971.

Anderson, J. . Bureaucracy in education. Baltimoreg Johns Hopkins

University Press, 1968:

Anderson, L.M., Evertson, C.M., & Brophy, J.E. First grade reading
study. Elementary School Journal, 1979, 79, 193-233.

Arikado, S., & Musella, D.F. Status variables related to team teaching
satisfaction in the open plan school. Paper presented at the
American Educational Research'Association, New Orleans, Louisiana,
1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 130 243)

Armor, D., Conry-Osequera, P., Cox, M., Kin, N.,-McDonnel, L., Pascal,
A., Pauly, E. & Zellman, G. Analysis of the school preferred
reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools.
R-2007-LAU5D. Santa Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corporation, 1976.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 130 243)

Ashton,P.T., Doda, [Link], R., Olejnik, S., & McAuliffe, M. ,Middle

school organization, teacher job satisfaction and school climate.
Middle School Research. Selected Studies, 1981, 48-58.

Averch, H.A., Carroll, S.J., Kiesling, H.J. & Pincus, J. How effective
is schooling? A critical review of research. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Educational Technology, 1974.

Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change.

Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. ,The self system in reciprocal determinism. American

Psychologist, 1978, 33, 344-358.

Bartko, J.J. On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients.

Psychological Bulletin, 1976, 83, 762-765.

335 353
Bartunek, J.M., & Keys, C.B. Power equafization through organizational
development training. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association meeting, Bost* Mass., 1980. (ERIC Document
Reproduction,Service No. 185 694) /

Berger, P.L. Invitation to sociology:/ A humanistic perspective.

Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1963.

Berger, P., & Kellner, H. Sociology reinterpreted: An essay on method

and vocation. Garden City, 1,1,Y. Doubleday, 1981.

Berman; P., McLaughlin, M.W., Bass,IG., Pauly, g., & Zellman, G.

Federal programs suppärting edUcat4onal change. Vol. VII: Factors
affecting implementation and cOntinuation. Santa Monica, Calif.: The
Rand Corporation, 1977. (ERN Document Reproduction Service No. 140 432)

Biddle, B.J., & Thomas, E.J. (Eds:.). Role theory: Concepts and research.
New York: Wiley, 1966.
1

Bidwell, C. The school as a formal organization. In J.G. March (Ed.),

Handbook of organizations. /Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965.

Bidwell, C., & kasarda, J.D. Sichool district organization and student
achievement. American Sociological Review, 1975, 40, 55-70.

Blauner, R. Alienation and fneedom. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1964. ,

Bloom, B.S. New views of th /learner: Implications for instruction

and curriculum. Educati nal Leadership, 1978, 35, 563-576.

Blum, F. Toward a democrati,c work process. New York: Harper and

Brothers, 1951.

Blumberg, P. Inequality in an age of decline. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1980.

Blumenfeld, P.C., Hamilton, V.L., Bossert, S., Wessels, K., & Meece, J.
Teacher talk and student thought: Socialization into the student
role. Ann Arbor: Un versity of Michigan, 1980. .
1
Bossert, S.T. Tasks and social relationships in classrooms. A study of
instructional organiiation and its consequences. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1979. e

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H.I Schooling in capitalist America: Educational

reform and the contnadictions of economic life. New York: Basic
Books, 1976: 1

Bramel, D., & Friend, F2 Hawthorne, the myth of the docile worker, and
class bias in psychOlogy. American Psychologist, 1981, 36, 867-878.

336

354
Bredo, E. Collaborative relations among elementary school teachers.
Sociology of Education, 1977, 50, 300-309.

Brim, 0.G., Jr., & Kagan, J..,(Eds.). Constancy and cliange in human
development. Cambridge, Mass.:. Harva'rd University Press, 1980.

Bronfenbrenner, U. The experimental ecology of education. Educational

Researcher, 1976, 5(9), 5-15.

Bronfenbrenner, U. Toward an experimental ecology of human development.

American Psychologist, 1977, 32, 513-531.

Bronfenbrenner, U. The [Link] human development. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press, 1979.

Brookover, W.B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J.
School social systems and student achievement. Schools can make
a difference. New York: Praeger, 1979.

Brookover, W. B., & Erickson, E. L. Society, schbols, and leargilia.

Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1969.

Brookover, W. B., Gigliotti, R., Henderson, R,, & Schneider, J.,

Elementary school environment and achievement. East Lansing, Michigan:,
1
College of Urban Development, Michigan State Untversity, 1973.

Brookover, VI,B., & Lezotte, L. W. Changes in school characteristics

coincident with changes in student achievement (Executive sbmmary).
East Lansing, Michigan: College of Urban Development, Michigan
State University, 1977.

Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H.,"

Flood, P. K., & Wisenbaker, J. M. Elementary school social climate
and school achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
1978, 15(2), 301-318.

Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. M. Student characteristics and teachina.

New York: Longman; 1981..

Brophyl J. E., & 'Good, T. L. Teacher-student relationships: Causes

and consequences. New Yoft: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1974.

Brown, B. B. The experimental mind in education. N4w York: Harper

& Row, 1968.

Buford, R. Institutional paternalism in the high school. Urban

Review, 1968, 2, 13-15.

Campbell, D. T., & FiSke, D. Convergent and discrimtnant validation by,

the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959,
56, 81-105.

337

355
11111.1.11.1.
Carew, J. V., & Lightfoot, S. L. Beyond bia's:. Peezpectives on
classrooms. CambrAge, Mass.% Harvard University Press,-.1979.

Chapman, D. W., & Hutcheson,o.S. M. Attrition &Om teacher careers:

A discriminant analyais. American Educational Research Journal,
1982, 19, 93-106.

Cichop, D., & Koff, R. H. The teadhing events stress inventory.

Paper presented at the American Educatjonal Research Association
meeting, Toronto, Canada, 1978 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. 160 662)

Cichon, O. J., & Koff, R. H. Stress and teaching. NASSP Bulletin,

1980, 64, 91-104.

Cohen, E. d. Sociology and the classroom: Setting the conditions

for teacher-student interaction. Review of Educational Research,
1972, 42, 4411452'.

Cohen, E. G. The desegrepted schonol: Problems in'status, power and

interracial climate. oaper [Link] the American Psychological
Association, New York, 1979.

Cohen, E. G., Bredo, A., & Duckweirth, K. Organizaiional support'for

the teacher's rble. In E. Cohen, T. Deal, J. Meyer, & R. Scott (Eds.),
Organization and instruction in the elementary school. (Technical
Report) Stanford, Ca.: Stanford Center for Research and Development
on Teaching, 1976.
4
I

Cohen, M. W., Emrich, A. M., deCharms, R. Trainiq teachers to'enhance

personal causation in students. Interchange, 1976/77, 7, 34739.

Cohen, M. Effeatiie schools: What the research says. Today's iducatjon,

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartiand, J., Mood, A..,
Ainfeld, F., & York, R. Equality of educational opportunity..
Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

Coleman; R. P., & Rainwater, L. Social standing in America; Nel York:

Basic Books, Int., 1978. NP.

Conrad, C. F. A grounded theory of academic change. Sociology af

Educatian, 1978, 51, 101-112:' e

Cooley, C. H. [Link] and the social order. New York: ".Schocken

Books, Inc., 1964. (Originally published, 1902)

Cooper, H. M. Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectation

communication and performance influence. Review of Educational
Research, 1979, 49, 389-430.

338
356
 Cooper, H. M., Burger, J. M., & Seymour, G. E. Classroom context and
student ability influences on teacher perceptions of classroom
control. American Educational Research Journal, 1979, 16, 189-196.

Corwin; R..G. Militant professionalism: A study of organizational

conflict in high schools. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970.

Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. As failures mount: Affective and

cognittve consequences of ability demotion in the classroom.
Journal bf Educational Psychology,,1981, 73, 796-808.

Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 297-334.

Cruickshank, D. R. Teaching is,tough. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall; 1980.

- Dearman, N. B., & Plisko, V. W. (Eds.). The condition of education.

Washington, D. C.: U. S. 'Government Printing Office, 1982.

deCharms; R. Personal causation. N.Y.: Academic Press, 1968.

deCharms, R. Enhancing motivation in the classroom. New York:

Irvington; Halsted-Wiley, 1976.

Deci, E. Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press, 1975.

Denzin, N. [Link] act-. Chicago: Aldine, 1970.

Dewey, J: Intelligence in the modern world. New York: Random

House, 1939.

Doyle, W. Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. In

L. Shulman (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, Vol. 5,
Itasca, Ill.: Peacock,1978.

Draud, J. E. The relationship between the organizational structure

of middle school and junior high school and its effects on the
attitude of teachers and students toward the school. The Middle
School Research Annual. Laramie, Wyoming: Center of Research,
Services, and Publication, 1977-78.

Dreeben, R. The nature of teaching. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman

& Company, 1970.

Dunkin, M. J. & Biddle, B. J. The study of teaching. New York:

Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1974.

Durkheim, E. The rules of sociological method. New York: The Free

Press,,1966.

Eddy, E. M. Becoming a teacher: The passage to professional status.

Teachers College, Columbia University: Teachers College Press, 1969.

-339
357
Edwards, A. L. The measurement of personality traits by scales and
inventories. New York: Holt, 1970.

Ellett, C. D., &.Masters, J. A. The structure of teacheroattitude

towards dimensions of their working environment: A factor analysis
of the School Survey and its implications for instrument validity.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Georgia Educational Research
Association, Atlanta, 1977.

Ellett, C. D., & Masters, J. A. Learning environment perceptions:

Teacher and student relations. Paper presented at the rinual
meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto,
Canada, 1978.

Etzioni, A. The semi-professions and their organization. New York:

The Free Press, 1969.

Evertson, C. M., Anderson, C. 41., Anderson, L. M., & Brophy, J. E.

Relationships between classroom behayiors and student outcomes
in junior high mathematics and English claSses. American
Educational Research Journal, 1980, 17, 43-60.

Evertson, C. M., §anford, J. P., & Emmer, E. T. Effects of class

heterogeneity in junior high school. American Educational
Research Journal", 1981, 18, 219-232.

Evertson, C. M., & Veldman,1D. J. Changes over time in process

measures of classroom behavior. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1981, 73(2),156-163.

Farber, B. A., & Miller, J. Teacher burnout: A Rsychoeducational

perspective. Teachers Ccillege Record, 1981, 83, 235-243.

Fenstermacher, G. D. A philosophical consideration of recent research

on teacher effectiveness., In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of
Research in Education, Volt, 6, Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock, 1978.
\

Foster, G. Classroom teacher and teacher-in-training susceptibility

to stereotypical bias. Personnel and Guidance Journal,, 1980,
59, 27-30.

Fowler, J. W., & Peterson, P. L.\ Increasing reading persistence and

altering attributional style of learned helpless children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1981, 73', 251-260.
\
Fox, R. C., thing, R. A., Schmuck, E., Van Egmond, E.,& Ritus, M.
Diagnosing_the professional clithate of your school. Portland,
Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1970.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Servi,ce No. 042 708)

Fromm, E. Escape from freedom. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &

Winston, 1963.

340
358
 Fuchs, E. Teachers talk: Views from inside city schools. Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1969.

Gage, N., & Coladarci, T. Replication of an experiment with a

research-based inservice teacher education program. Center for
Educational Research, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif., 1980.

Gallup, G. H. Taking education's pulse: The 13th Annual Gallup

Poll of the Public's Attitude toward the Public Schools. Principal,
1981, 61(1),.21-36.

Gerth, H., & Mills, C. W. Character and social structure: The

psychology of social institutions. New York: Harcourt, Brace
and World, 1953.

Glaser, B. Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, Calif.: The

Sociology Press, 1978.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. The discovery of grounded theory:

Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.

Glass, G., & Smith, M. Meta-analysis of research on class size and

achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1979,
1(1), 2-16.

Glickman, C. D., & Tamashiro, R. T. A comparison of first-year,

fifth-year and former teachers on efficacy, ego-development,
and problem-solvidg. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New Yorky 1982.

GOffman, E. Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior.

Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, Inc., 1967.

Goffman, E. Presentation of self in eve6day life. Garden City,

N.Y.: Doubleday, 1959.

Good, T. L. Teacher expectations and student perceptions: A

decade of research. Educational Leadership, 1981, 38, 415-522.

Good, T. L., & Grouws, D. A. Teaching effectiveness in fourth-grade

mathematics classrooms. In G. D. Borich (Ed.), The appraisal
of teaching: Concepts and process. Reading, M8ss.: Addison-
Wesley, 1977.

Good, T. L., & Grouws, D. A. The Missouri Mathematics Effectiveness

Project. An experimental study in fourth-grade classrooms.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979, 71, 355-362.

Goodlad, J. I. The dynamics of educational change: Toward

responsive schools. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Goodman, P. New reformation. New York: Random House, 1970.

341
359
 Greene, C. N. The satisfaction-performance controversy. In
R. M. Steers & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Grouws, D., & Good, T. Teaching manual: Missouri Mathematics

Effectiveness Project. (Technical Report 132).. Columbia:
University of Missouri, Center for Research in Social Behavior,
1979.
Hargreaves, D. H. Staffroom relationships. New Society, 1972,
434-437. .

Harre, R., & Secord, P. F. The explanation of social behavior.

Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell, 1972.

Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal

relations. New York:
Wiley, 1958.

Herzberg, F. Work and the nature of man. New York: Crowell, 1966.

Herzberg, F.,.Mausner, R. O., & Snyderman, B. B. The motivation to

.work. New York: Wiley, 1959.

Hewitt, J. P. Self and society: A symbolic interactionist social

psychology.. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1979.

Hodge, R. W., Siegel, P., & Rossi, P. Occupational prestige in the

United States. In R. Bendix & S. M. Lipset (Eds.),
Class, status,
and power. New York: Free Press, 1966.

Hodge, R. W., Treiman,'D. J., & Rossi, P. A comparative study of

occupational presitge. In R. Bendix & S. Lipset (Eds.), Class,
status, and power. New York: Free Press, 1966.

'Holland, J. Making vocational choices: A theory of careers.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

Hornstein, H. A., Callahan, D.M., Fisch, E., & Benedict, B. A.

Influence and satisfaction in organizations: A replication.
Sociology of Education, 1968, 41(4), 380-389.

House, E. R. The politics of educational innovation.

Berkeley,
Calif.: McCutchan, 1974.

Huitt, W. C., & Rim, E. A basic skills instructional improvement

program: Utilizing research to improve classroom
practice.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Boston, April 1980.

Huitt, W., Traver, P., & Caldwell, J. Improving instruction by

monitoring time-on-task. Philadelphia: Research for Better
Schools, 1980.

342

360
Hutchinson, S. A. Coverin : A self- rotective rocess among rescue
workers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,
1979.

Inkeles, A., & Rossi, P. National comparisons of occupational prestige.

American Journal of Sociology, 1966, 61, 329-339.

Jackson, P. W. Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &

Winston, 1968.

Jencks, C., Smith, M., Aclund, J., Bane, M. Cohen, D. K., Gintis, H.,
Inequality: A reassessment of the effeft of family and schooling
in America. New York: Basic Books, 1972.

Jensen, A. R. Straight talk about mental tests. New York: Free

Press, 1981.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. Instructional goal structure:

Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic. Review of
Educational Research, 1974, 44, 213-240.

Johnson, T. J., Baldwin, T., & Wiley, D. E. The teacher's perception

and attribution of causation. Final Report, Project No. 5-1068,
U. S. Office of Education, 1969.

Kalis, M. C. Teaching experience: Its effect on school climate

and teacher morale. NASSP Bulletin, 1980, 64,-89-102.

Koehler, V. Effective schools research and teacher change. Paper

presented at the meeting of tbe American Educational Research
Association meeting, Los Angeles, April 1981.

Kyriacou, C., & Sutcliffe, J. Teacher stress: A review. Educational

Review, 1977, 29, 299-306.

Kyriacou, C., & Sutcliffe, J. Teacher stress: Prevalence, sources,

and symptoms. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1978,
48, 159-167.

Lacey, C. The socialization of teachers. London: Methuen, 1977.

Langer, E. J. Rethinking the role of thought in social interaction.

In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions
in attribution research. Vol. 2. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 1978.

Leacock, E. Teaching and learning in city schools. A comparative

study. New York: Basic Books, 1969.

Lerner, M. America as a civilization. 2 Vols. New York:

Touchstone Books, 1967.

Lewis, M. The culture of inequality. New York: New American

Library, 1978.

343
361
 . .
Lightfoot, S. L. Worlds apart. Relationships between families and
and schools. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1978.

Little, J. W. Norms of collegiality and experimentation. Amerlican

Educational Research Journal, 1982, 19, 325-340.

Lortie, D. C. The teacher and team teaching: Suggestions for long-

range research. In J. T. Shaplin & H. F. Olds, Jr. (Eds.),'Team
teaching. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.

Lortie, D. C. School teacher. A sociological study. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1975.

McClelland, D. C. Toward a theory of motive acquisition. 'American

Psychologist, 1965, 20, 321-333.

McClelland, D. C. Managing motivation to expand human freedom.

American Psychologist, 1978, 33, 201-210.

McDermott, R. P. Social relations as contexts for learning in school.

Harvard Educational Review, 1977, 47, 202-215.

McDonald, F., & Elias, P. Beginning teacher evaluation study. Phase II:
1973-74. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1976.

McHugh, P. Defining the situation: The organization of meaning in

social interaction. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968.

McLaughlin, J. W., g Shea, J. T. California teachers' job dissatisfactions.

California Journdl of Educational Research, 1960, 11, 216-224.

McPherson, G. H. Small town teacher. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press, 1972.

Mannheim, K. Education, sociology, and tile problem of social awareness.

In K. Wolff (Ed.), From Karl Mannheim. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1971.

Marram, G. W. The impact of teaming and the visibility of teaching

on the professionalism of elementary school teachers. Stanford
University, Palo Alto, Calif., 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 072 040)

Medley, D. M. Alternative assessiiient strategies. Journal of Teacher

Education, 1978, 29, 38-42.

Meichenbaum, D. Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative

approach. New York: Plenum, 1977.

Merton, R. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, Ill.:

Free Press, 1957.

344

362
Metz, M. H. Classrooms and corridors. The crisis of authority in
desegregated secondary schools. Berkeley, Calif.: University
of California Press, 1978.

Meyer, J. The impact of the open-space school upon teacher influence

and autonomy. The effects of an organizational innovation.
Stanford University, Stanford, California. Washington, D. C.:
Office of Education, HEW, October, 1971.

Meyer, J., & Cohen, E. The impact of the Oen-space school upon
teacher influence and autonomy: The effects of an organizational
innovation. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, 1971.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 062 291)

Mills, C. W. White collar: The American middle class. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1951.

Mills, C. W. The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1959.

Mitzel, H. E. Increasing the impact of theory and research. Journal

of Teacher Education, 1977, 28, 15-20.

National Education Association. Status of the American Public School

Teacher: 1980-81. Washington, D. C.: National Education
Association Research Division, 1982.

Nunnally, J C. Psychometric theory. New Yor McGraw-Hill, 1978.

Pedersen, E., Faucher, T. A., & Eaton, W. W. A new perspective on

the effects of first grade teachers on children's subsequent
adult status. Harvard Educational Review, 1978, 48, 1-31.

Powell, A. G. The uncertain rofession: Harvard and the search for

educational authority. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1980.

Prawat, R. S. Affect stressed over cognition. Communication

Quarterly, 1981, 4(4), 1; 3.

Prawat, R. S., & Jarvis, R. Gender differences as a factor in teachers'

perceptions of students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1980,
72, 743-749.

Presthus, R. Authority in organizations. Public Administration

Review, 1960, 20, 86-91.

Price, G. Organizational features of IGE schools as correlates of

teacher job satisfaction. University of Wisconsin, 1979. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 186 416)

Rasmussen, G. R. Perceived value discrepancies of teachers and

principals: A threat to creative thinking. NASSP Bulletin,
1962, 45, 272.

345 363
 Rawls, J. A theory of justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1971.

Rayder, N. F., Larson, J. C., & Abrams, A. I. The effect of socio-

contextual variables on child achievement. Unpublished paper,
Far West Educational Laboratory, San Francisco, 1977.

Retsinas, J. teachers: Bargaining for control.

American Educational
Research Journal, 1982, 19, 353-372.

Rist, R. C. Restructuring American educAtion: Innovations and

alternatives. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1972.

Rist, R. C. The invisible children. School integration in American

society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Rohrkemper, M., & Brophy, J. Teachers' general strategies for dealing

with problem students. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association meeting, Boston, March 1980.

Rose, J. S., & Medway, F. J. Measurement of teachers' beliefs in

their control over student outcome. Journal of:Educational
Research, 15L1, 74, 185-190.

Rosenholtz, S. J., & Wilson, B. The effect of classroom structure

on shared perceptions of ability. American Educational Research
Journal, 1980, 17, 75-82.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the classroom. New York:

Holt,linehart, & Winston, 1968.

Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external,

control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80,
1-28.

Rotter, J. B. Individual differences and perceived control. In

L. C. Perlmuter & R. R. Monty (Eds.), Choice and perceived control.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1979.

Rowley, G. L. Reliability,of observational measures. American

Educational Research Journal, 1976, 13, 51-59.

Rudd, W. G., & Wiseman, S. Sources of dissatisfaction among a group

of teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1962,
32, 275-291.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., with Smith, A.
Fifteen thousand hours. Secondary schools and their effects
on children. Cambridge, Mass,: Harvard University Press, 1979.

Sanders, D. P. Educational inquiry as developmental research.

Educational Researcher, 1980, 10, 8-13.

346
364
 6.

Sarason, S. Problems of change and the culture of the school.

New
York: Allyn & Bacon, 1971.

Schlecty, P. Teaching and social behavior. Toward an organizational

theory of instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1976.

Schmuck, R. A., & Schmuck, P. A. Group processes in the classroom.

Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, 1975.

Schunk, D. H. Modeling and attributional effects on children's

.achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1981, 73, 93-105.

Schutz, A. Collected papers Vol.1: The problem of social reality.

(M. Natason, Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1962.

Schutz, A. Collected papers Vol.2: Studies in social theory.

(A. Brodersen, Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1964.

-Schutz, A. Collected papers Vol.3: Studies in phenomenological

philosophy. (I. Schutz, Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966.-

Schutz, A. Reflections of the problems of relevance. (R. Zaynerp

Ed.). New Haven, Conn.: Yale'University Press, 1970.

Sergiovanni, T. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction of teachers. Final

Report. University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1977. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No.: 011 089)

Shade, B. Afro-American cognitive style: A variable in school

success. Review of Educational Research, 1982,,52, 219-244.

Shavelson, R., & Stern, P. Research on teachers' pedagogical

thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of
Educational Research, 1981, 51(4), 455-498.

Shulman, L. S., & Lanier, J. E. The Institute for Research on

9 Teaching: An overview. Journal of Teacher Education, 1977,
28, 44-49.

Smith, L. An evolving logic of participant observation, educational

ethnography, and other case studies. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.),
Review of Research in Education. Vol 6. Itasca,.I11.: F. E.
Peacock, 1978.

Smith, L., & Geoffrey, W. The complexities of an urban classroom.

New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968.

Smith, L., & Pohland, P. Grounded theory and educational ethnography:

Methodological analysis and critique. In J. Roberis & S. Akinsanya
(Eds.), Educational atterns and cultural confi urations. New York:
David McKay, 1976.

365
347
Snyder, M. When believing means doing: A cognitive social psychology
of action. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Psychological Association, San Francisco, August 1977.

Soar, R. S., & Soar, R. M. Reliability and validity: Florida Climate

and Control S stem FLACCS). Unpublished manuscript, University
. of Florida, 1975.

Soar, R. S., & Soar, R. M. Setting variables, classroom interaction,

and multiple pupil outcomes. Final Report. National Institute
of Education Grant No. NIE-G-76-0100, Gainesville, FL.: University
of Florida, 1978.

Soar, R. S., & Soar, R. M. Emotional climate and management. In P. L.

Peterson & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts,
findin s, and im lications. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1979.'

Soar, R. S., & Soar, R. M. Setting variables, classroom interaction;

and multiple pupil outcomes. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents
in Psychology, 1980, 10.

Soar, R. S., & Soar, R. M. Climate and control system. Unpublished

manuscript, University of Florida, Gainesvilleo Fl., 1981..

Soar, R. S., & Soar, R. M. Measurement of classroom process. In

B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research in early childhood education.
New York: The Free Press, 1982.

Sparks, D. C. A biased look at teacher job satisfaction. Clearing

House, 1979, 52, 447-449.

Spindler, G. Anthropology and education: An overview. In G. Spindler

(Ed.), Education and culture. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston, 1963.

Spradley, J. The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart,

&.Winston, 1980.

Stallings, J.A., & Kaskowitz, D. Follow-through classroom observation

evaluation, 1972-73. Menlo Park Ca., Stanford Research Institute, 1974.

Stallings, J., Needles, M., & Stayrook, N. How to chan e the process
of teaching basic reading skills in secondary schools. SRI
International, Menlo Park, Calif., 1979.

Stern, P. Grounded theory methodology: Its uses and processes.

Image, 1980, 12(1), 20-23.

Strauss, A. Mirrors and masks: The search for identity.. Mill

Valley, Calif.: The Sociology Press, 1969.

348

366
Super, D. E. Work values inventory. Boston: Houghton Mifflein, 1970.

Tikunoff, W. J., & Ward, B. A. Insuring reliability and validity in

competency assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 1978, 29, 33-37.

Trentham, L., Silvern, S., & Brogdon, R. Teacher efficacy and perfor-
mance ratings by administrators. Paper presented at the meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, 1981.

Vanfossen, B. The structure of inequality. Bostbn: Little, Brown, 1979.

Vroom, V. H. Work anemotivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Waller, W. The sociology of teaching. New York: Wiley, 1932.

Webb, R. B. The presence of the past: John Dewey and Alfred Schutz
on the genesis and organization of experience. Gainesville, FL.:
2
University of Florida Press, 1976.

Webb, R. B. Schobling and society. New York: Macmillan, 1981.*

Weiner, B. The role of affect in rational (attributional) approaches

to human motivativ. Educational Researcher, 1980, 9, 4-11.

Wellisch, J. B.., MacQueen, A. k., Carriere, R. A., & Duck, G. A.

School management and organization in successful schools.
Sociology of Education, 1978, 51, 211-226.

Wise, A. Legislated learning: The bureaucratization of the American

classroom. Berkeley, Calif.: University of ,California Press, 1979.

Witkin, H. A Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. Field-

dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their
educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 1977,
47, 1-64.

Wittes, S. People and power. A study of crisis in secondary schools.

Ann Arbor, MI.:Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan, 1970.

Zavala, A. Development of the'forced-chcice rating scale technique.

Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 63; 117-124.

367 9

349