Content uploaded by Tracy Durksen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tracy Durksen on Feb 10, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Exploring the Development of
Teacher Efficacy
Through Professional
Learning
Experiences
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
Final Report
January 2014
Research Team
Larry Beauchamp, PhD
Robert Klassen, PhD
Jim Parsons, PhD
Tracy Durksen, MA
Leah Taylor, MA
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
y
Exploring the Development of
Teacher Efficacy
Through Professional
Learning
Experiences
Final Report
January 2014
Research Team
Larry Beauchamp, PhD
Robert Klassen, PhD
Jim Parsons, PhD
Tracy Durksen, MA
Leah Taylor, MA
Dedicated to the memory of our dear friend and colleague
Larry Beauchamp
(1943–2013)
This longitudinal research project was carried out from September 2011 to October 2013 under contract from the
Alberta Teachers’ Association, funded by Alberta Education, with guidance from a provincial education stakeholder
steering committee with representation from
Alberta Education,
Alberta Assessment Consortium,
Alberta School Boards Association,
Alberta School Councils’ Association,
Alberta Regional Professional Development Consortia
Association of Alberta Deans of Education, and
College of Alberta School Superintendents.
Our goal was to conduct research in districts and schools where professional learning had reportedly made a
difference in professional practice, teachers’ beliefs about teaching and student learning/engagement.
This research report was prepared for the Alberta Teachers’ Association by the research team in collaboration with
the Research Advisory Committee and the Steering Committee.
For further information, please contact: pd@ata.ab.ca.
© Copyright 2014
ISBN 978-1-927074-23-7
Unauthorized use or duplication without prior approval is strictly prohibited.
Alberta Teachers’ Association
11010 142 Street NW, Edmonton AB T5N 2R1
Telephone 780-447-9400 or 1-800-232-7208
www.teachers.ab.ca
One copy of this publication is available free of charge to all ATA members. Non-ATA members or ATA members
who require more than one copy can view pricing and ordering information on the ATA website at www.teachers.
ab.ca. Click on Publications>Other Publications or contact ATA Distribution at 780-447-9400 (Edmonton);
toll-free within Alberta 1-800-232-7208.
Final Report Research and Findings 3
Contents
Foreword ....................................................................................................................... 4
Executive Summary
..........................................................................................................9
Chapter One: Introduction
...........................................................................................12
1.1 Study Overview .............................................................................................................................. 12
1.2 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................... 14
1.3 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................................. 19
Chapter Two: Who Participated in the Study?
........................................................20
2.1 Phase I Participants ........................................................................................................................ 20
2.2 Phase II Participants ....................................................................................................................... 20
Chapter Three: Mixed Methodology
.........................................................................23
3.1 Our Focus ......................................................................................................................................... 23
3.2 The Mixed Methods Research Design ......................................................................................... 23
3.3 Research Questions ........................................................................................................................ 24
3.4 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................ 24
3.5 Mixed Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 26
Chapter Four: Results
.....................................................................................................30
4.1 How was teacher efcacy enhanced through professional learning experiences? ............... 30
4.2 What were teachers’ perceived learning goals in their professional learning? ..................... 41
4.3 How did teachers explain their efcacy in relationship to professional learning? ............... 44
4.4 How were the sources of efcacy fostered through professional learning experiences? ..... 45
Chapter Five: Discussion ......................................................................................... 48
5.1 Teacher Efcacy and Collaboration ............................................................................................. 48
5.2 Essential Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 53
5.3 Models of Professional Learning .................................................................................................. 54
5.4 Practical Implications ..................................................................................................................... 55
Glossary ...................................................................................................................... 60
Appendices
........................................................................................................................62
References
.........................................................................................................................71
4 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
The History and Context of
Professional Development
in Alberta
The education landscape of Alberta as it relates to
professional development has undergone signicant
change in the past two decades. It is important to
acknowledge that in Alberta during this time a
culture of innovation and practice that enhances
teaching practice and school leadership was
developed.
In terms of structure,
similar to most North
American jurisdictions, Alberta’s teachers
attend professional development events such as
conventions, conferences, in-service workshops
and teacher institutes offered by both provincial
professional development organizations and
local authorities. Numerous Alberta teachers are
also actively involved in professional learning
communities. Many teachers also enroll in graduate
education, clearly a key opportunity for teacher
professional learning. Most Alberta teachers attend
professional development days (PD days) yearly or
semiyearly. In most districts, PD days have been set
aside in school calendars, and teachers attend these
days as part of their contractual obligations. In
some districts, teacher-led or joint district-teacher–
led professional development committees organize
the experiences, while in others such events are
organized by district leaders around broad themes.
Although various local, district and provincial
professional development committees and bodies
meet regularly, historically it has been a struggle
to achieve a shared vision for teacher professional
learning in the province and to comprehensively
coordinate programs. As a result, great variation
exists in regard to the type of professional learning
methods and strategies used at these events.
In 1995/96 regional professional development
consortia were formed to broker, develop and
deliver professional development programs for
all education stakeholders, including teachers and
school administrators. In addition, in 1998 policy
relative to teacher professional development,
the Teaching Quality Standard and the Teacher
Growth, Supervision and Evaluation Policy were
implemented, requiring all teachers to develop
an annual professional growth plan. This policy
increased teachers’ attention to their individual
professional growth and development and set the
foundation in principle for teacher professional
autonomy—a key component for school
development and system improvement. Several
important strategic initiatives supported this
ground-breaking policy. Finally, a provincewide
initiative called the Alberta Initiative for School
Improvement (AISI), as described below, was active
for over fourteen years and is very much part of the
context from which teachers might be responding
to surveys and interviews in this research. From
AISI Clearing House on the Alberta Teachers’
Association (2014) website, we share the following:
Established in 1999, the Alberta Initiative
for School Improvement (AISI) is a program
designed to improve student learning and
performance by fostering initiatives that
reect the unique needs and circumstances of
individual school authorities. From the onset,
AISI has been a collaborative effort involving
the following education partners: Alberta
School Councils’ Association (ASCA), Alberta
Education, Alberta School Boards Association
(ASBA), Association of School Business
Ofcials of Alberta (ASBOA), Alberta Teachers’
Association (ATA), the College of Alberta
School Superintendents (CASS), University
Faculties of Education (University of Alberta,
Foreword
Final Report Research and Findings 5
University of Calgary, University of Lethbridge
and Campus Saint-Jean). To date [2012], there
have been four cycles of AISI funding. More than
$500 million has been invested in this initiative
to continuously improve student learning in
Alberta.
Key projects included collaborative development
of leadership, instructional practice, school climate,
assessment and accountability, building capacity
through professional development, student and
parent engagement and the integration of effective
practices.
Also, from 1999–2004, the Alberta Teachers’
Association initiated consecutive model
projects in eight elementary, junior and senior
high schools to support the development of
professional learning communities. More than
500 workshops were provided to schools during
this period to support the development of school-
based professional learning communities. The
Association, through its network of specialist
councils and research initiatives, continues to play
a key role in supporting the professional growth
of teachers and school leaders. Likewise, other
provincial educational stakeholders and partner
organizations, including professional development
providers, central ofce and the ministry of
education, contributed to and continue to support
teacher and school leader growth.
In addition, the nal report (2003) of Alberta’s
Commission on Learning (ACOL) inuenced
the professional development landscape. It
recommended that school districts develop annual
comprehensive professional development programs.
The Association responded by collaboratively
participating with education partner organizations
to develop A Guide to Comprehensive Professional
Development Planning (2006) and later A Guide to
Support Implementation: Essential Conditions (2010).
Some school districts have adopted the professional
planning process outlined in these guides. There
has been increased collaboration amongst education
partners to work together in partnership to support
teachers, school leaders, district leaders and all those
who inuence student learning.
It is also important to note throughout this time
access to technology has signicantly changed the
teaching and learning process. The completion of
SuperNet made it possible for teachers to access
professional development resources and programs
as well as develop and participate in online
learning communities using the Internet.
Currently, Alberta nds itself in the midst of
signicant curriculum reform. In 2010, Albertans
put forward a vision of the “Educated Albertan of
2030.” This vision is articulated in the document
Inspiring Education, which was generated through
extensive consultations with Albertans from
every corner of the province. In May 2013, a
new Ministerial Order on Student Learning was
implemented, advancing a new set of student
learning outcomes, each of which is aligned with
the vision and goals of Inspiring Education.
The complexity and depth of change articulated
in Inspiring Education and the Ministerial Order
on Student Learning will require all partners
(including parents, teachers, principals, school
superintendents, trustees, business leaders,
postsecondary leaders, public servants and their
respective representative organizations) to consider
their practice and the way in which future learners
will be supported to realize their full potential.
The work of Hargreaves and Shirley (2009, 2012)
helps to further understand the context. When
examining Alberta as one of six high-performance
international systems, they found the following
within Alberta’s educational system:
1. An inspiring dream that moves a system forward
and pushes educators to the forefront of shaping
that system’s future. They noted Alberta’s widely
shared commitment to innovation, stimulated
by Alberta’s ministry of education and teachers,
which led to fourteen years of continuous
government funding for innovation and
increased teacher satisfaction levels.
2. Local authority that in Alberta meant teacher-
designed innovations were clustered at the
district level in shared mutual-learning networks
with other schools and divisions, against the
6 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
typical Canadian practice of merging districts
into large administrative units that become
puppets of centralized ministry policy.
3. Innovation with improvement, through initiatives
such as AISI, which increased connectivity
between schools and teachers through forming
networks (professional learning communities)
that were focused on student learning and school
improvement. The transfer of knowledge and
innovations in teaching practice escalated, leading
to improvements on local and district levels.
4. Professional capital, where teachers in 95 per cent
of Alberta’s schools involved themselves in
continuous and routine research as a part of their
professional practice.
5. Collective responsibility, where schools became
high performance because teachers experienced
and exercised shared responsibility for all
students and for the improvement of their
teaching.
The above historical changes within Alberta have
contributed to a move away from the language and
practice of providing and attending “professional
development” to a culture of “professional learning
within learning communities,” involving teachers
and school leaders as well as education stakeholders,
with a focus on improving professional practice and
enhancing student learning.
Limitations
Since our research study employed both qualitative
and quantitative designs (mixed methods), we
faced a number of limitations inherent to both
designs. We chose both qualitative research (focus
groups) and quantitative research (questionnaires)
to broaden our base of data collection and
better increase the insights we might gain from
participants. Specically, our quantitative approach
focused on numerically or statistically signicant
differences while our qualitative process involved
seeking thick and rich detail in relation to particular
questions, phenomena or groups of people.
Qualitative research presents challenges in
terms of generalizable results, validity, wider
implications and reliability. One limitation with
qualitative research is that it often depends upon
the individual judgments of researchers and is
heavily dependent upon researcher interpretations.
Although our study sought to interpret data
“blindly,” (ie, we asked three researchers to
independently review focus group data and
interpret themes), there is no doubt that our
analyses and interpretations were inuenced by
our previous research with AISI (Parsons, McRae
and Taylor 2006) and our study of instructional
leadership (Parsons and Beauchamp 2011). It
would be almost impossible not to be inuenced
by ndings from these studies as we read
participants’ responses. Although our research
attempted to reect the complexities brought forth
by the particular sites and participants, previous
researcher knowledge certainly played into
our interpretations, and our subjective research
opinions no doubt inuenced our process of
drawing conclusions. As systemically as we tried,
our study reects researcher inferences of what our
data might have meant. Obviously, such previous
research knowledge presents validity issues.
A second limitation with qualitative research is the
ability to generalize results to other populations.
Alberta teachers have been immersed to some
degree in a funded educational improvement
initiative for over fourteen years—AISI. After
over a decade of experiencing various types
of professional development and professional
collaborations under the framework of AISI, the
term AISI became ubiquitous in the language of
the teachers in our study—particularly throughout
the second year. While AISI may mean many
different things to many different people, it was
synonymous with professional learning for most
teachers.
Our research study was tailored to the needs of
Alberta’s teachers within their context of two
academic years (2011/2012 and 2012/2013).
Specically, aside from what might typically be
contextual issues in any qualitative or quantitative
study, Alberta’s context included provincial budget
implications that shrank school district budgets—
including the impending dissolution of AISI. Many
Final Report Research and Findings 7
teachers in our sample had experienced AISI and
had been impacted by problems brought from
AISI’s dissolution. Thus, it is difcult to extrapolate
our research ndings to broader populations or to
draw generalized conclusions from the qualitative
aspect of our research study—even throughout
Canada. Although our research ndings’ validity
increases for school divisions throughout Alberta,
it is impossible to clearly extrapolate these ndings
to broader contexts or to draw wider conclusions
for teachers elsewhere. Thus, our study might
only be valid to our own provincial context. Since
qualitative research is specic to one setting
(or, in our case, a small set of ten settings in ve
school districts) and is not generalizable to all
teacher populations, it is also difcult to make
broad recommendations. Similar to all qualitative
research, our research provided in-depth answers
about a small, specic group of participants
without assurance that these ndings transfer to
other groups of teachers.
Qualitative research also presents issues of
reliability, which is dened as the ability to
reproduce studies that would show consistent
results. As noted earlier, qualitative research
depends upon researcher knowledge, insight and
interpretation. Thus, it is unlikely that any other
group of researchers could replicate the qualitative
aspects of our study and achieve the same
results—even with the same population. Other
researchers might make different interpretations
or decisions; they might ask interview questions
in different ways; or, they might even augment
a research design during the study, based on
different perceptions of participants’ needs. Time
and insights change, especially given any number
of differences in participants’ and/or researchers’
lives and/or context. For example, we have
learned that things have changed based upon
budgetary impacts within one school division
that participated in our research. Such variations
radically impact a study’s results or can make
study results inconsistent even when two studies
consistently attempt to engage a similar design.
A crucial limitation of qualitative research is
that ndings cannot be generalized to larger
populations, and our participants were not selected
randomly. Those who participated were recruited
from ve school districts and schools from
within those districts. Our recruitment strategies
introduced a selection bias that we, as researchers,
had no control over. This selection bias created a
specic sample of a larger population. As well, the
number of participants in the qualitative aspect of
this research study was too small to represent the
population. Our focus groups contained between
eight and fty members (fewer than 300 teachers
in total) of a teacher population that numbers in
the thousands, ergo the qualitative aspect of our
research study (similar to other studies) cannot
meet statistical assumptions that might project
our results accurately or reliably to an entire
population of teachers. These limitations are no
surprise. Qualitative research does not set out to
collect statistical data from a representative sample
of the target audience. Therefore, qualitative
research can never be statistically analyzed to
estimate to what extent the ideas expressed by our
participants reected opinions of the population
we studied. As a result, we have refrained from
drawing conclusions we believe represent the
specic concerns, attitudes or beliefs of teachers
everywhere.
A fourth limitation is that participants of focus
groups often express views consistent with social
or cultural norms of their schools in ways that do
not present them negatively to their peers. Social
and cultural desirability presents a potential bias
that might encourage participants to self-censor
their actual views, especially in group settings. As
researchers, we must assume
that the data given
to us by participants, and the recommendations
we make from these data, broadly represent other
contexts, but we cannot be certain. Likewise,
the quality of the data we collected was highly
dependent upon the skills of our facilitators
when moderating the focus groups and the
skills of our researchers in ensuring rigorous
analyses. The quality of our data depended
upon both the methods we used to collect that
data and the interpersonal exchanges we had
with participants. For example, one researcher
was well-known by teachers, principals and
8 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
superintendents and probably had an impact on
data collection. The qualitative data was likely
inuenced by other variables, such as the dress,
demeanor and communication pattern of the
researchers involved in data collection. Finally,
as noted earlier, the skill and experience of the
researchers and their previous experiences
doing research also inuenced how data was
summarized, how well data t the themes created
and the resultant insights and inferences.
Quantitative research also comes with a number
of limitations. For example, the power of our
statistical analyses was dependent upon the
specic size of the sample that completed the
questionnaires. In any quantitative research,
large sample sizes are required. The logistical
difculties of gaining large sample sizes and a
sufciently large number of participants makes
any research suspect. Did we gather a large
enough sample size? Were we able to ask enough
questions? Did we ask the right questions?
Unfortunately, our sample size (for Phase II) was
too small to calculate self- and collective-efcacy
trends or trajectories over the two-year period.
Although 758 teachers completed at least one
questionnaire during Phase II, only 13 completed
all four. Some teachers who participated in Phase
II may have also engaged in Phase I focus groups,
which likely inuenced some of the responses
we received. As researchers, we understood that
communication between members within focus
groups likely impacted questionnaire answers;
however, that was a limitation we embraced
given our choice of a mixed-methods research
design. Our mixed approach also required an
adaptation of questionnaire items in Year Two
in order to adequately address the teachers
within our educational context of Alberta and,
as a result, may have altered the reliability
and validity of some scales used in Year One.
Therefore, we cannot generalize our results to
past or future contexts or settings.
Limitations were also inherent in the formatting
of our online questionnaires, and may have
inuenced the quantity and quality of the data.
For example, some participants felt our rst
1 To learn more about the work-life balance of Alberta
teachers, see Duxbury and Higgins (2013).
questionnaire was too long, with too many
drop-down menus (ie, using ve models of
professional learning for each efcacy item). It
was also difcult to choose just one professional
learning activity to associate with each efcacy
item, because the ve models were not mutually
exclusive. The way in which we used the ve
models to dene professional learning may
have been constraining to some participants. For
example, one teacher noted, “relationships are
the key to student motivation [and I found] it
disappointing that student relationships wasn’t
listed as a professional learning activity.” The six-
month framing of our questionnaire items was
also questioned because “an improvement that
results from a professional learning experience
may take years.” Contextually, many changes
occurred provincially within the six-month
intervals of quantitative data collection. However,
culturally, not much change occurs in teachers’
lives in six months. Some participants simply
expressed that they were “tired of responding to
all the different surveys we are asked to complete
by Alberta researchers.”
Although we added additional questionnaire
items in Year Two that were specic to the
affective source of efcacy, we did not capture
the complexity of teachers’ emotional lives and
their work-life balance
1
. For example, when
asked to select one emotion from a drop-down
menu, one participant replied, “one emotion
can’t describe my feelings towards professional
learning.” We recommend future research explore
the relationship between teachers’ emotion
regulation and professional learning.
Final Report Research and Findings 9
Executive Summary
Abstract
Our research sought to better understand the
relationship between teacher professional learning
and teacher efcacy. The research was carried
out from 2011 to 2013 in districts and schools
where professional learning had reportedly made
a difference in professional practice, teachers’
beliefs about teaching and student learning. Our
research employed a mixed-methods design:
over two years, four surveys collected data from
800 teachers in ve school districts, and 400
teachers were interviewed from two schools (one
elementary and one secondary) in each district.
This research asked what professional learning
works well, how it inuences teacher efcacy
and professional practice and what effective
professional learning supports look like. Among
our ndings: teachers reported (80 per cent) their
best professional learning as “collaboration with
colleagues.” Secondary teachers reported higher
self-efcacy than collective efcacy; elementary
teachers reported both high self-efcacy and
high collective efcacy. Teachers reported a need
(89.3 per cent) to focus professional learning on
becoming better teachers (develop classroom
resources, support for their subjects, classroom
management, technology skills and instructional
strategies to better meet the needs of diverse
students) and less focus on students’ needs/
student learning (21.4 per cent). Our ndings
contribute to greater insight into how to engage
teacher education at the school, district and
organizational level.
Purpose
Our research reports ndings from Alberta-wide,
longitudinal research carried out from 2011 to
2013 in districts and schools where professional
learning had reportedly made a difference in
professional practice, teachers’ beliefs about
teaching and student learning/engagement. The
research examined relationships between teachers’
professional learning and self- and collective-
efcacy beliefs. Self-efcacy refers to individual
condence to teach all students, whereas
collective efcacy refers to a school-level belief
about capabilities to reach students. Working
with teachers to discover why and under what
conditions professional learning worked best,
our research asked what professional learning
works well, how it inuenced teacher efcacy
and professional practice, and what effective
professional learning supports look like.
Theoretical framework
We used Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory
that suggests that what we do (eg, how we
teach) inuences and is inuenced by personal
factors (such as self-efcacy) and environmental
factors (such as school context). Specically, we
proposed that teachers’ professional learning
enhances efcacy beliefs through four sources:
mastery experience, verbal persuasion, vicarious
experience and affective states (Bandura1997).
We believe these personal and environmental
inuences encourage professional growth.
Dening what constitutes professional learning
is challenging. We initially used Joyce and
Calhoun’s (2010) framework: (1) models that
support individuals, (2) collaborative personal/
professional direct service models (mentoring
and coaching), (3) collaborative and cooperative
models, (4) models designed to achieve curricular
and instructional change and (5) traditional
workshop models to better understand teacher
professional learning. As the research progressed,
we adapted our denition based on feedback
10 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
from teachers. We consider teacher professional
learning to include formal and informal
opportunities teachers have to increase their own
learning and linked teacher professional learning
to student learning.
Methodology/ Research
Design
Our research used a mixed-methods longitudinal
approach, employing four different large-scale
surveys during Years One and Two (in ve districts)
and two individual and focus-group interviews (at
10 schools). Because little research has examined
how professional learning contributes to teachers’
beliefs, we wondered what kind of professional
learning teachers felt best met personal, student and
school needs? Specically, we asked the following
questions:
1. How is teacher efcacy enhanced through
professional learning as (initially) outlined by
Joyce and Calhoun (2010)?
2. What were teachers’ perceived learning goals in
their professional learning experiences?
3. How do teachers explain their efcacy in relation
to professional learning?
4. How are the sources of efcacy (mastery
experiences, verbal persuasion, vicarious
experience and affective states [Bandura
1997]) fostered through professional learning
experiences?
Data source(s)
Four surveys—at midpoint and end point over two
years—were used to collect data from ve Alberta
school districts. In addition, we interviewed
teachers from two schools (one elementary and
one secondary) in ve districts at two time periods.
In total, we surveyed more than 800 teachers and
interviewed more than 400 teachers. Four schools
were rural, four were located in medium-large
cities and two were located in smaller cities. The
smallest school had a teaching staff of fewer than 10
teachers; the largest school had a staff of more than
50 teachers. Eight schools were public schools; two
schools were Catholic separate schools.
Results
• Teachers (80 per cent) reported that their most
valuable professional learning was collaboration
with colleagues.
• Year One: Teacher-initiated professional
learning was the strongest inuence on self-
efcacy; professional learning communities (ie,
collaboration) were the strongest inuence on
collective efcacy (ie, beliefs about school-level
efcacy).
• Year Two: Collaboration was the strongest
inuence on self- and collective efcacy.
• Secondary teachers reported higher self- efcacy
than collective efcacy; elementary teachers
reported high self-efcacy and high collective
efcacy.
• Teachers preferred to focus their professional
learning on teachers’ needs/teacher learning
(89.3 per cent) as opposed to students’ needs/
student learning (21.4 per cent).
• The top three foci for professional learning were
- share curriculum ideas and best practices,
- co-create and share learning and teaching
resources, and
- learn new teaching strategies.
Educational importance of
the study: significance of
the work
Building a more nuanced understanding of how
teacher professional learning inuences self- and
collective efcacy can improve schooling in Alberta.
Our ndings can help schools and districts better
consider ways to develop professional learning
initiatives to build teachers’ self- and collective
efcacy. Results from this research provide insight
into the impact of professional learning on efcacy
beliefs and teacher practice at the individual, school
and organizational levels of teacher education
partners.
Final Report Research and Findings 11
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
Recommendations
• Provide autonomy and choice to teachers in
professional learning activities to increase
teaching self-efcacy.
• Explicitly provide time and space for
collaborative professional learning activities to
build collective (school-level) efcacy.
• Tailor professional learning to different cohorts
(eg, teaching stage). For example, beginning
teachers and experienced teachers have different
professional learning needs; single-subject–
area teachers (eg, second language) desire
collaboration with other single-subject–area
teachers.
• Invite teachers to collaboratively outline the
professional learning they need to become better
teachers and work to specically connect these to
instructional strategies that better meet students’
needs/student learning.
• Build opportunities for professional
development/professional learning around
sharing curriculum ideas and best practices,
co-creating and sharing learning and teaching
resources and learning new teaching strategies.
Bibliography
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efcacy: The Exercise of
Control. New York: Freeman.
Joyce, B, and E Calhoun. (2010). Models of
Professional Development: A Celebration of Educators.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin.
12 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
1.1 Study Overview
Professional learning has the potential to
inuence teachers’ beliefs and practices, which
in turn
inuences student engagement and
learning. The overarching goal of our research
was to understand how professional learning
inuences teachers’ beliefs in their capabilities
to effect change, in short, their individual- and
collective-efcacy beliefs. The specic purpose of
this study was to examine the relationship between
teachers’ professional learning and individual- and
collective-efcacy beliefs
2
over a two-year period in
Alberta schools within ve school districts.
When interacting with teachers (via focus groups
and online questionnaires) we used the term
professional learning to encapsulate the wide
variety of formal and informal opportunities for
enhancing teaching practice while reciprocal forces
engage teachers to remain centered on student
learning. We did not provide a denition of
professional learning, nor did we ask for teachers’
understanding of the term. Instead we intentionally
had conversations with teachers through focus
groups—free of outside denitions—about what
they felt were the most impactful professional
learning experiences. Through questionnaires, we
did however frame professional learning for teachers
by intentionally presenting Joyce and Calhoun’s
(2010) ve types of professional learning as a
guideline.
Alberta teachers are more familiar with the use
of the term professional development, typically
dened as the wide range of programs, activities
and services that teachers identify and undertake
individually or collectively to further understand
the nature of teaching and learning, to enhance
professional practice and to contribute to the
profession. Professional development includes in-
servicing, a process of upgrading specic skills and
knowledge to remain current in curricula, teaching
tools, strategies, and other supports as well as staff
development initiatives that are collective efforts
to implement a specic initiative, often in response
to school, jurisdiction or ministry goals. Optimally,
space and time are created for professional learning
that is highly personal and contextual and a result of
one’s experiences attained through the opportunities
outlined above.
Our mixed methods study was conducted
over a two-year period in geographically and
demographically representative settings (ve
school districts) throughout Alberta. In this report,
Phase I (Time 1 and Time 2) refers to qualitative data
we collected (using focus groups and interviews)
from 10 schools—one elementary school and one
secondary school—from each of ve school districts.
Phase II (Time 1, 2, 3 and 4) refers to the quantitative
data collection (four questionnaires administered to
teachers in 72 schools). For a visual representation of
our project activities, please see Figure 1.
2 We use the term efcacy beliefs to refer to self- efcacy
(or individual efcacy) and collective efcacy. For
denitions, please refer to the Glossary, p 91.
Chapter One
Introduction
Final Report Research and Findings 13
Figure 1 Project activities
14 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
1.2 Literature Review
Extensive research (see Klassen, Tze, Betts and
Gordon 2011 for a review) supports the claim
that efcacy beliefs are an important inuence
on human achievement in a variety of settings,
including education, health, sports and business
(Bandura 1997). The current research was designed
to explore teacher beliefs (self- and collective
efcacy) and preferred learning practices as
described by teachers and through the lens of ve
specic modalities of teacher professional learning
(presented by Joyce and Calhoun 2010):
1. Models that support individuals
2. Collaborative personal/professional (direct
service) models
3. Collaborative and cooperative models
4. Models for curricular and instructional change
5. Traditional workshop models
However, Diaz-Maggioli (2004) suggests that
professional learning practices generally have the
following eleven problems: (1) top-down decision
making, (2) the idea that teachers need to be
“xed,” (3) lack of ownership of the professional
learning process and its results, (4) the technocratic
nature of professional content, (5) universal
application of classroom practices regardless
of subject, student age, or level of cognitive
development, (6) lack of variety in the delivery
modes of professional learning, (7) inaccessibility
of professional learning opportunities, (8) little or
no support in transferring professional learning
ideas to the classroom, (9) standardized approaches
to professional learning that disregard the varied
needs and experiences of teachers, (10) lack of
systematic evaluation of professional learning and
(11) little or no acknowledgment of the learning
characteristics of teachers among professional
learning planners. Unfortunately, other researchers
(Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon 2009) have
found such examples, where
[most] teachers and principals were not given
any choice or responsibility in these [professional
development] discussions about the needs of
their students and themselves. Instead, they
were treated as objects rather than as agents of
professional development, without due regard
for their capacity to make wise decisions in
the interests of students and teaching. Without
choice or responsibility to make knowledgeable
decisions about their work, they have little
motivation or commitment to somebody else’s
program (p 277).
These problems tend to arise when there is a
mismatch between what research suggests are
the most effective ways to help teachers engage
in positive professional learning, and what is
actually available (Fullan 2006). Specically,
few professional learning events demonstrate
constructivist principles, differentiated or self-
directed learning. During our research we
attempted to better understand how the structure
and delivery of different professional learning
activities can positively inuence teacher efcacy
and professional practice and provide evidence
that professional learning contributes to enhanced
teacher practice and student learning.
One way of advancing understanding was
framing our research with “A Guide to Support
Implementation: Essential Conditions” (Alberta’s
Education Partners 2010). Alberta’s Education
Partners created the guide to essential conditions
in response to the ministry of education’s question,
“How do we know if professional development
support enhances and contributes to improved
practice and implementation?” The intent of the
stakeholder working group
3
was to further develop
understanding about the essential conditions to
support implementation, the complexity of change
and the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders
in implementation. This guide served as a
framework to help create our research questions
since we were interested in exploring whether the
seven essential conditions required for successful
3 The working group was comprised of representatives
from education stakeholders and approved members-
at-large, co-chaired by representatives from the
Alberta Regional Professional Development Consortia
and the Alberta Teachers’ Association. View the 2012
revised edition online at:
http://www.essentialconditions.ca/.
Final Report Research and Findings 15
implementation (shared vision, leadership, research
and evidence, resources, teacher professional growth,
time and community engagement) did in fact promote
teacher efcacy.
We also designed research questions so as to better
understand specic implementation conditions that
already exist and/or might need to be undertaken
to increase teacher professional learning and
efcacy. Thus, data from the study were analyzed
to suggest how teachers’ professional learning
(commonly considered professional development
in the literature) might be shaped so as to better
accommodate the practical needs of teachers as
they attempt to promote student learning.
Our research also contributes to the growing body
of empirical research on the relationship between
teachers’ self- and collective efcacy beliefs and their
professional learning. Teachers’ self-efcacy refers to
teachers’ beliefs about their capabilities to inuence
students’ classroom success through teaching and
instructional behaviours (Bandura 1997). Whereas
successful teachers are likely to possess a strong
sense of their own self-efcacy, successful schools
are characterized by teachers’ collective efcacy
beliefs; that is, their beliefs about their school staff’s
capability to help students develop and learn. It
is believed that the self- and collective efcacy
beliefs of teachers are nourished by the same four
sources—past experience, vicarious experience,
verbal persuasion, and group-level affective state
(eg, Goddard and Goddard 2001). When appraising
self-efcacy, teachers also consider the group
processes (involving eg, staff, school, district) that
are inuencing their professional learning (Bandura
1997). Next, we present some recent studies linking
teacher efcacy (both self- and collective) with
professional learning.
Several recent studies have examined links between
teacher self-efcacy and formal and informal
professional learning. Palmer (2011) examined the
sources of teacher efcacy and the effectiveness of
a teaching intervention in science education. The
results from surveys and interviews indicated an
increase in self-efcacy linked with professional
learning, with changes being maintained over a
two-year period. Cognitive mastery (ie, perceived
success in understanding a scientic concept) was
the most powerful source of efcacy information,
whereas enactive mastery (ie, past hands-on
experience) had less of an impact (Palmer, 2011).
Vicarious experience (ie, viewing others’ teaching)
also contributed to cognitive mastery. Feedback
from a perceived expert who observed teaching
during the professional learning intervention was
also effective in enhancing participants’ self-efcacy
in science.
In a Canadian context, Ross and Bruce (2007)
studied the effect of professional learning on the
four sources of efcacy on a specic subject area by
randomly assigning Grade 6 mathematics teachers
to either treatment (professional learning from
September to December) or control (professional
learning from January to April) groups. The
treatment group’s overall teacher efcacy (related
to student engagement, instructional strategies
and classroom management) was stable during
the study and higher than the control group.
Specically, classroom management efcacy
increased signicantly for teachers in the treatment
group. Therefore, the professional learning
effectively used all four sources of efcacy (ie,
by providing information-rich tasks, modeling,
requiring in-class practice and debrieng
experiences) to enhance teaching efcacy
(specic to classroom management) for teaching
mathematics.
Gabriele and Joram (2007) investigated the
implications of professional learning on teacher
self- efcacy in math and used a qualitative
approach involving classroom observations and a
“talk-aloud” methodology to examine the content
of reections provided by 10 primary teachers
(after teaching a lesson). After examining the data
collected from novice and experienced teachers
at different time points during a transition
from traditional to reform-based mathematics
teaching, the authors revealed expected results
of experienced teachers recalling more successful
events, with more statements about student
thinking (ie, describing a student’s problem-
solving strategy), and more positive emotion
16 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
expressed than novice teachers. Specically,
positive emotion was associated with student
thinking for experienced teachers and meeting
lesson outcomes for novice teachers. According to
Gabriele and Joram, teachers who rely on judging
success using criteria connected to positive
feeling states (affective source of efcacy according
to Bandura 1997) will, over time, develop high
self-efcacy for reform-based teaching. To explore
this interpretation, researchers recommend a
longitudinal examination of teachers as they
progress through a professional learning program.
Tschannen-Moran and McMaster (2009) explored
the relationship between four different professional
learning formats and the changes in primary and
resource teachers’ self-efcacy while learning how
to implement a new teaching strategy for reading.
This study used an additive approach to form
four intervention groups: (1) only information,
(2) information and modeling, (3) information,
modeling and practice and (4) training from all four
efcacy-related sources: information, modeling,
practice and coaching. The greatest gains in self-
efcacy occurred for participants receiving only
information (Group 1) or training from all four
sources (Group 4). The expected relationship
between a professional learning format and the
implementation of a new strategy, however, was
conrmed because the self-efcacy of participants
who were trained from all four sources differed
signicantly from groups trained from fewer
sources. The authors concluded that exposing
teachers to a new strategy without follow-up
feedback (ie, supportive coaching) might leave them
“feeling more inadequate than they had before”
(p 241). Future research examining professional
learning formats which offer training from different
sources can enhance our understanding of how and
why teacher efcacy is affected.
Martin, McCaughty, Hodges-Kulinna, and Cothran
(2008) examined the inuences of professional
learning on self-efcacy specic to physical
education by comparing two professional learning
programs (basic and extended) to a control group.
Participants in both professional learning programs
experienced increases in teaching efcacy specic
to physical education (ie, tness development)
and general educational practice (ie, instructional
efcacy) with the exception of disciplinary (ie,
classroom management) efcacy, which remained
unchanged. The control group did not experience
changes in specic or general efcacy, with the
exception of a decrease in disciplinary efcacy.
Henson (2001) also examined the effect of year-
long professional learning (September to May) on
teacher self-efcacy. Professional learning in this
study consisted of teacher research—involving both
formal and informal group meetings regarding the
development and implementation of classroom
behavioural management interventions. By
analyzing longitudinal quantitative (ie, surveys)
and qualitative (ie, interviews) data from 11
educators involved in collaborative participatory
teacher research (in an alternative school setting),
this study revealed signicant increases in general
and personal teaching efcacy. As a result,
participants expressed a preference for teacher
research over typical PD in-services, concluding
that it was “worth the effort” and this is “how
professional development is supposed to work”
(Henson 2001, 831). The authors concluded that
future studies on teacher efcacy would benet
from gathering data across a range of school
settings. Given the collaborative nature (ie, within-
school group meetings) of teacher research, the
inclusion of collective efcacy measures has
the potential for providing a more complete
understanding of the relationship between
professional learning and teacher efcacy.
Mushayikwa and Lubben’s (2009) study provided
a different perspective on professional learning by
examining the process of self-directed professional
learning using information communication
technologies in an area where formal resources
were scarce. Interview data were collected from 55
science and math teachers to determine areas of
concerns that form major themes to self-directed
professional learning (Mushayikwa and Lubben
2009, 378). Several factors (ie, need for career
development or improved content knowledge)
were identied and categorized into two major
themes (that dene teacher efcacy): classroom
Final Report Research and Findings 17
efcacy and professional efcacy. According to
Mushayikwa and Lubben, PD that aligns teacher
concerns with classroom efcacy and professional
efcacy can encourage self-directed professional
learning within formal professional learning
programs in disadvantaged locations.
Although we know that teachers’ motivation and
beliefs likely change over time, we do not know
much about the nature of these changes (Klassen,
Durksen, and Tze, in press). Recent research found
a teacher’s level of commitment to the profession
is more at risk as experience increases; however,
we still need to know more about the quality of
conditions and relationships that add to (or take
away from) teachers’ sense of commitment (Day
and Gu 2010). Adopting a life-stage perspective to
the development of teachers’ careers emphasizes
change in behaviour and beliefs across the
life course, with an emphasis on the dynamic
processes of gains and losses and on individual
plasticity (ie, modiability) over time (Baltes 1987).
Huberman’s work (1989) builds on a life-stage
approach to human development, but with a focus
on career development and especially on teachers’
motivational and affective development over the
career span.
Klassen and Chiu (2010, 2011) recently conducted
cross-sectional research examining teachers’ self-
efcacy across career stages with a large sample
of practicing Canadian teachers. Known as the
most widely used measure of teachers’ self-efcacy
(Klassen et al 2011), researchers applied Tschannen-
Moran and Woolfolk Hoy’s (2001) conceptualization
(and measure) of teachers’ self-efcacy as consisting
of self-efcacy to use effective instructional strategies
(eg, “How much can you do to craft good questions
for students?”), to manage student behaviour in the
classroom (eg, “How much can you do to control
disruptive behaviour in the classroom?”) and to
engage all students in learning (eg, “How much can
you do to motivate students who show low interest
in schoolwork?”).
The participants in Klassen and Chiu’s (2010) study
were 1,430 practicing teachers (69 per cent female)
from Alberta who worked in a range of school
settings (elementary through high school), with
a mean age of 40 years and 13 years of teaching
experience. Results showed that teachers’ years
of experience were linked to all three forms of
self-efcacy—instructional strategies, classroom
management and student engagement—in a
nonlinear, inverted U, curvilinear fashion. In each
case, teachers’ self-efcacy increased from zero
years of experience to a peak at about 23 years of
experience, and then receded in late career. A follow-
up study (Klassen and Chiu 2011) with another
group of practicing teachers conrmed the result
that teachers’ self- efcacy increased until late-mid
career and then declined in later career stages.
The nding of teachers’ self-efcacy, peaking at
about 23 years of experience and then declining in
later career years, maps onto Huberman’s (1989)
conceptualization of career stages. For teachers,
self-efcacy may peak during the period Huberman
names as serenity, before decreasing as the teacher
enters into the disengagement phase. Recent
research has built on Huberman’s work, with Day
and Gu (2010) nding that a majority of teachers in
mid-career (ie, 8–23 years of teaching) experience
increases in motivation and commitment (ie,
psychological attachment to their profession),
whereas increased proportions of teachers in a later
professional life phase (24+ years of experience)
report declining levels of motivation (ie, feeling
disenchanted, fatigued, trapped). Klassen and
Chiu (2010) found a decrease in older teachers’
self-efcacy beliefs and suggested that the decrease
was due not only to biological and psychological
changes related to chronological age, but to external
inuences related to student and peer perceptions
of declining competence inuenced by stereotyped
beliefs about aging. In sum, age-related changes in
teachers’ self-efcacy may be inuenced not only
by chronological age, but also by the psycho- social
context (eg, amount of autonomy and quality of
social and emotional interactions) of the work
environment.
But teachers do not work in isolation—their work
environment is rich and involves interactive
social contexts with a varied range of individuals
(students, parents, colleagues, administrators,
18 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
school psychologists, to name a few). Bandura
(1997) noted that people form beliefs about the
collective capabilities of the group(s) to which they
belong. He dened perceived collective efcacy as
“a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities
to organize and execute the courses of action
required to produce given levels of attainments”
(p 477). Although researchers have paid more
attention to teachers’ self-efcacy, a number of
recent studies have investigated teachers’ collective
efcacy and its relationship to professional
learning.
Research (eg, Klassen et al 2008) has shown that
teachers’ collective efcacy is related to student
achievement and academic climate, even after
controlling for prior student achievement and
demographic characteristics, such as socioeconomic
status. Few studies have examined how teachers’
professional learning experiences are associated
with school-level collective efcacy beliefs.
According to the Klassen et al (2011) review,
research on teacher collective efcacy has not kept
pace with teacher self-efcacy research. In fact,
almost nothing was found on how collective efcacy
beliefs are formed in school settings. The Klassen
et al review found only two studies examining
teachers’ collective efcacy using a qualitative
approach (case study used by Puchner and Taylor
2006; interviews analyzed by Rivard, Follo, and
Walsh 2004) and no studies exploring teachers’
collective beliefs using a longitudinal design.
Since Bandura (1997) discovered varying levels of
collective efcacy across activities, researchers (eg,
Rivard et al 2004; Zambo and Zambo 2008) have
examined the impact of professional learning on
collective efcacy by focusing on individual subject
areas (ie, mathematics). Using questionnaires
and interviews, Zambo and Zambo examined the
inuence of a two-week summer mathematics
professional learning program on the self- and
collective efcacy of teachers from (1) a “low”
district with most schools labeled as under-
performing and (2) a “high” district with few
schools labeled as underperforming. Both groups
indicated higher levels of personal as opposed to
collective competence; yet, working with colleagues
was benecial for both groups. As expected, the
“high” group experienced higher levels of group
competence throughout, yet only the “low” group
experienced an increase in group competence
during the study. Given the participants’ lack
of change in personal or contextual inuence,
researchers recommend professional learning
programs focus not only on strategies but also
on raising teachers’ individual and school-wise
condence in impacting student learning. A review
of current research on teacher collective efcacy
found a consistent focus on student outcomes, but
recent work by Powell and Gibbs (2013) highlights
the great importance for staff collective efcacy
of school ethos and leadership style. To enhance the
relationship between teachers’ collective efcacy
and professional learning, Bandura (1997) urges a
unication of interests (individual and school-wide)
to explicitly stated attainable developmental goals
and shared purposes.
Researchers have also identied self- and collective
efcacy beliefs as being nourished by the same four
sources—past experience, vicarious experience,
verbal persuasion and self- or group-level affective
state (eg, Bandura 1997; Goddard and Goddard
2001). Recent ndings from Brown and Gibbs’
(2013) study of teachers’ levels of responsibility and
shared leadership roles revealed four sources of
enhanced collective efcacy: communication (verbal),
learning (mastery), supporting roles (vicarious),
and stress management (affective). For example,
verbal persuasion (ie, feedback) can help show the
relationship between professional learning and
school climate (OECD 2013). When appraising self-
efcacy, teachers also consider the group processes
(ie, involving affective state of staff, school and/
or district) that are inuencing their professional
learning and development (Bandura 1997).
According to Hargreaves (2009), “teachers can
only really learn once they get outside their own
classrooms and connect with other teachers” (p 98).
Connecting with other teachers can nourish sources
such as vicarious experience (eg, observing another
teacher) and affective states (eg, enthusiasm).
Researchers (eg, Salanova, Llorens and Schaufeli
2011) have found that self- and collective efcacy
beliefs alter the way a teacher regulates and
Final Report Research and Findings 19
interprets experiences of emotion, suggesting that
affect—a reciprocal source of efcacy—inuences
teachers’ work engagement.
1.3 Theoretical Framework
Our framework is based on Bandura’s (1997) social
cognitive theory that explains learning according
to three sets of reciprocal inuences: personal,
behavioural and environmental. Specically,
we propose that teachers’ professional learning
enhances efcacy beliefs through four sources
(mastery experience, verbal persuasion, vicarious
experience and affective states; Bandura 1997) and
is inuenced by teaching experience. We believe
these personal (eg, self-efcacy) and environmental
inuences (eg, collaborative climate) encourage the
behaviours that lead to professional growth and
enhanced teaching practice. But these behaviours
also reciprocally impact personal factors. For
example, when a teacher notices that a change in
teaching behaviour (eg, after a professional learning
experience) is increasing student learning, we
believe teacher condence (self-efcacy) increases.
Please see Figure 2 for a graphical illustration of
our framework.
Figure 2 Conceptual model of teacher professional learning
20 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Chapter Two
Who Participated
in the Study?
Given the complexity of mixed-methods research,
the sampling scheme (ie, how participants were
recruited), sample size, sampling strategy, time
frame, relationship between participants and
how we used our samples to address our research
questions were guided by explicit criteria (Collins
2010). Participant
4
criteria helped create boundaries
for our project and included
1. employed teachers at a school within one of the
ve participating school districts,
2. teachers with Internet service for accessing
questionnaires online via Survey Monkey, and
3. an assumption that participants were honest
when condentially responding to questionnaire
items and while providing responses within
focus groups.
2.1 Phase I Participants
Five Alberta school districts and two schools from
each district agreed to take part in both sets of focus
groups (Time 1 and Time 2). These school districts
will not be named as part of the study’s agreement.
However, generally speaking, of these ve districts,
three were near Alberta’s geographical centre, one
district was located in southern Alberta, and one
district was located in northern Alberta. Four rural
districts covered large geographical areas, and one
more urban district had boundaries equivalent
to a medium-large Alberta city. In total, of the 10
schools that volunteered to be part of the study, ve
schools were elementary and ve were secondary.
Four schools were located in small towns or rural
areas. Four schools were located in medium-large
cities and two schools were located in smaller
Alberta cities. The smallest school had a staff of
fewer than 10 teachers, and the largest school had
a staff of more than 50 teachers. Eight schools were
public schools; two schools were Catholic separate
schools. At Time 1, 200 teachers participated in
focus groups and interviews, with 216 participating
teachers at Time 2.
2.2 Phase II Participants
Seven hundred fty-eight teachers responded to
at least one of four questionnaires: 204 (Time 1),
345 (Time 2), 278 (Time 3) and 211 (Time 4). Figure
3 includes the number of teachers who completed
two, three or four questionnaires. Table 1 displays
the demographic details.
4 Based on the 2011/2012 school jurisdiction
employment records, approximately 1,170 teachers
were invited to participate (65 per cent of teachers
completed at least one questionnaire during Phase II).
Final Report Research and Findings 21
Figure 3 Number of teachers (N = 758) who participated in Phase II
22 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Demographic or Characteristic Descriptive Statistics
Number of schools 72*
Years of teaching experience (N = 633)
• 0–3 years (n = 62)
• 4–7 years (n = 121)
• 8–15 years (n = 170)
• 16–23 years (n = 146)
• 24–30 years (n = 37)
0–42 years (M = 14.9, SD = 9.31):
Gender (N = 642) 72.1% Female
27.9% Male
Age of teachers < 25 years ...... (3.0%)
25–35 years .. (26.9%)
36–45 years .. (31.5%)
46–55 years .. (29.9%)
56+ years ....... (7.8%)
Teaching Level (N = 652) 44.5% elementary
24.6% secondary
20.6% middle/junior
10.1 other
Average Class Size SES of Students 23.56 (SD = 5.71) students
Teachers’ Estimated SES of Students 53.8% Average SES
Teachers who led professional learning
(within 6 months)
Year One (Time 1) 69.5% (98 of 141)
Year Two (Time 4), 62.0% (111 of 179)
Work engagement
Participating teachers reported
high work engagement
Year One: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale**
(1 = Disagree Strongly, 11 = Agree Strongly)
M = 9.55 (Time 2)
Year Two: Engaged Teachers Scale***
(0 = Never, 6 = Always)
M = 5.28 (Time 3)
M = 5.13 (Time 4)
Table 1 Demographics of 758 teachers (Phase II)
* Teachers employed at the 10 schools (involved in Phase 1) and an additional 62 schools in the 10 districts
responded to the questionnaires administered during Phase II.
** Utrecht Work Engagement Scale–short-form (UWES; Schaefeli and Bakker 2003)
*** Engaged Teachers Scale (ETS; Klassen, Yerdelen and Durksen 2013)
Final Report Research and Findings 23
Chapter Three
Mixed Methodology
3.1 Our Focus
We set out to better understand the relationship
between efcacy and professional learning by
attending to ve key research areas: (a) collecting
diverse data from a range of sources (quantitative
and qualitative), (b) accessing a large and diverse
population in a range of settings (ve school
districts), (c) seeking to better understand the
nature of professional learning (integrated data
analyses), (d) examining the sources of teacher
self- and collective efcacy, and (e) tracing the
growth of teacher efcacy and its relationship to
professional learning using a longitudinal approach.
Our research attended to these ve factors and bears
important dividends for a deeper understanding of
the links between teacher efcacy and professional
learning. As a result, we can better understand what
needs to be done to promote teachers’ professional
growth and, by extension, student learning.
3.2 The Mixed Methods
Research Design
Because understanding teachers’ efcacy in relation
to professional learning is a complex phenomenon
requiring a pragmatic approach, we chose a mixed-
methods design with a focus on integrating different
sources of data. By using a mixed-methods design
we were able to reveal a new and more complete
picture of teachers’ professional learning and
efcacy than in previous studies that relied on one
data source. Specically, we used a longitudinal,
fully mixed, concurrent research design (Creswell
and Plano Clark 2007). Our project was considered
longitudinal since data was collected from
focus groups at two time points and using four
questionnaires over a two-year period. We embraced
the fully-mixed model by “mixing” at multiple
stages. For example, during data collection we used
the results of preliminary focus group analyses to
explicitly inform questionnaire item development.
Our project was also concurrent in that some stages
of both phases were performed during the same
time frame. For example, in Year One, we collected
qualitative data using focus groups and quantitative
data using questionnaires.
Creswell, Klassen, Plano Clark and Smith (2011)
offer a set of Best Practices for Mixed Methods
Research in the Health Sciences, which suggest that
the strength of qualitative research is a focus on the
context and meaning of human experiences for the
purpose of theory development. Qualitative data
help researchers understand participants’ voices,
facilitate data collection when measures do not exist,
and provide deeper understanding. Quantitative
research is used to test theories or hypotheses, gather
descriptive information, or examine relationships
among variables. These data can be analyzed
statistically to provide measurable evidence, which
helps establish probable cause and effect, facilitates
the comparison of groups, and provides insight
into experiences. Our integration of qualitative and
quantitative data provided a wealth of evidence.
Phase I (Time 1 and Time 2) refers to the qualitative
data collection (focus groups and interviews) and
Phase II (Time 1, 2, 3, and 4) refers to the separate
but integrated quantitative (questionnaires) data
collection. Phase I and Phase II data were collected
separately in Year One and increasingly integrated
over the duration of the project.
24 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
3.3 Research Questions
Because little research has examined how professional learning contributes to teachers’ motivational
beliefs, we posed the following questions:
Research Question 1
Research Question 2
Research Question 3
Research Question 4
How is teacher efcacy enhanced
through professional learning as
(initially) outlined by Joyce and
Calhoun (2010)?
What were teachers’ perceived
learning goals in their professional
learning experiences?
How do teachers explain their
efcacy in relationship to professional
learning?
How are the sources of efcacy
(mastery experiences, verbal persuasion,
vicarious experience, and affective states;
Bandura, 1997) fostered through
professional learning experiences?
In answering these questions, we also hoped this study would reveal the nature of helpful professional
learning.
3.4 Data Collection
We collected data over a two-year period using both qualitative (Phase I) and quantitative (Phase II)
approaches. Table 2 displays the data collection timeline.
Time Frame Project Activity
Year One (2011/2012)
September–December 2011
January 2012
February–June 2012
June 2012
Phase I: Time 1 ...... Focus Groups/Interviews
Phase II: Time 1 ....First questionnaire
Phase I: Time 2 ...... Focus Groups/Interviews
Phase II: Time 2 ....Second questionnaire
Year Two (2012/2013)
January 2013
June 2013
Phase II: Time 3 ....Third questionnaire
Phase II: Time 4 ....Last questionnaire
Table 2 Data Collection Timeline
Final Report Research and Findings 25
3.4.1 Year One
September to December 2011
Phase I (Time 1). Our research team held focus group
discussions with district teachers during the rst
site-based visit to each of 10 participating schools.
Rich and wide-ranging conversations among
teachers and between teachers and the research
team were guided by the following questions:
1. What personal learning experience has made the
most difference for your own teaching? Why
(briey)?
2. What professional learning experience has made
the most difference for your school staff as a
group? Why (briey)?
3. What professional learning experience has made
the most difference for your students? Why
(briey)?
A total of 200 teachers provided written responses
to these questions. There were 191 responses to
question one, 198 responses to question two, and
216 responses to question three (16 participants
provided two answers) for a total of 605 comments.
January 2012
Phase II (Time 1). We administered the rst of four
separate questionnaires—each based on Bandura’s
(2006) “Guide to Constructing Self-Efcacy Scales”
and recent research (eg, Joyce and Calhoun 2010;
Klassen and Chiu 2011). This initial questionnaire
was created to measure relationships between
professional learning (as dened by Joyce and
Calhoun 2010) and self- and collective efcacy.
We recruited participants for our quantitative
data collection by forwarding a request with
questionnaire links to administrators within ve
participating school districts. Administrators from
each of the participating school districts were
responsible for distributing our request to teachers.
February to June 2012
Phase I (Time 2). These focus groups took place
between January and April 2012. From Phase I (Time
2) we collected 435 comments in total. We collected
comments and feedback from groups utilizing a
one-page form and focus group discussions, which
resulted in three separate sets of data. We presented
teachers’ (N = 216) preliminary ndings (Time 1)
during focus groups (held in all 10 schools) for
discussion.
Participants were informed that our initial
discussions with teachers in their schools (Time 1)
led to the identication of the following themes
(examples and denitions were provided) as being
crucial inuences on teacher professional learning:
(1) collaboration with other teachers, (2) selected
projects, (3) AISI, (4) attending conferences, and
(5) others (things that came up less frequently).
Teachers were then given a handout with the
following three sections:
Section One provided a space for teachers to
give more information about Phase I (Time 1)
ndings. Specically, we asked why any of the
activities (presented as themes from Phase 1)
were helpful for their own professional learning.
Teachers provided 246 comments.
Section Two asked teachers how they would
personally prioritize seven possible reasons for
teacher professional learning. Teachers provided
216 rank-ordered responses on the following
seven reasons:
1. Learning more about how to teach more
effectively
2. Building community (sharing with colleagues
and social networking)
3. Learning more about children
4. Gaining subject area knowledge
5. Offering me space and time to think
6. Coming into contact/being inuenced by a
signicant person, teacher, mentor
7. Learning more about myself (my strengths) as
a teacher
Section Three consisted of one open-ended
question (asking if there were any further
points to add). We facilitated table discussions
as teachers recorded (one-page per teacher)
their “review” of the preliminary ndings from
Time 1 while discussing any of the participants’
additional points. Facilitators took notes and
26 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
collected teachers’ written reviews. Overall, this
section yielded 55 responses and 28 sets of focus
group notes (consisting of 134 comments).
Conversations with teachers during Time 2 data
collection were rich and thoughtful. Many teachers
noted that they were grateful to be given a chance
to talk about their insights and professional
learning experiences.
June 2012
Phase II (Time 2). Using the same quantitative data
collection procedures as Time 1, the second of four
questionnaires was administered (via online link)
to teachers employed within the ve participating
districts. Based on the feedback received on the
rst questionnaire (Phase II: Time 1), the second
questionnaire was a short-form version of the rst
questionnaire.
3.4.2 Year Two
November 2012
Research team members from Phase I (qualitative)
and Phase II (quantitative) compared preliminary
results from Year One while considering and
developing questionnaire items for use during Year
Two quantitative data collection.
January 2013
Phase II (Time 3). We used the responses from
teachers’ Year One preliminary questionnaire
results and focus group themes to frame items
about professional learning and efcacy. Using the
same quantitative data collection procedures as
Year One, we invited teachers at Time 3 to consider
professional learning through the themes that
emerged from Year One preliminary results. (See
Appendix A for examples of questionnaire items
used in Year Two.)
June 2013
Phase II (Time 4). Using the same quantitative data
collection procedures as Time 1, 2 and 3, the last of
four questionnaires was administered to teachers
within the ve participating districts. Questionnaire
items used at Time 3 and 4 were similar and based
on Year One (Phase I and Phase II) preliminary
results.
It is worth reiterating that the Phase I (Time 1 and
Time 2) researchers did not formally introduce
the ve categories of Joyce and Calhoun’s (2010)
professional learning models to participants in the
focus groups; rather, the researchers intentionally
collected general comments, then sorted for themes
and once those themes were determined, moved to
t those themes and corresponding comments into
the Joyce and Calhoun model. Phase II (quantitative
questionnaires), however, intentionally presented
the ve categories to teachers in order to discover
how efcacy items would be related to specic pre-
identied categories.
3.5 Mixed Data Analysis
In Year One, we performed preliminary data
analysis for each phase (separately). In Year Two,
we continued to collect data (Phase II: Time 3 and
Time 4) while performing integrative analyses.
3.5.1 Year One
Phase I (Time 1). Teachers (N = 200) provided 605
comments in response to three questions (listed on
page 35) and themes emerged from our two-step
sorting process. First we reviewed and analyzed
the teachers’ comments and then listed all the
answers together as well as separately (according to
question). We looked for similarities and recorded
the number of responses—for each question
independently and then for all questions as a
whole. This process resulted in a list of preliminary
themes. The second step of our analysis involved
reviewing each set of notes, creating a data display
and recording the frequency of themes evident
in teachers’ responses. Next we listed general
incidence rates (frequencies and percentages) and
sorted data into themes. We identied the following
broad themes (types of professional learning), listed
from most to least comment frequency:
1. Collaboration with others
2. Special projects
Final Report Research and Findings 27
3. AISI*
4. Attending conferences
5. Postgraduate studies
6. Book studies
7. Personal life experiences
Insights gained from the Time 1 responses were
used to develop themes that were later used to
construct workable focus group questions for
Time 2.
Phase I (Time 2). Teachers (N = 216) completed one
questionnaire (consisting of three sections) during
group interviews. We divided data from the three
questionnaire sections and corresponding focus
groups between two different research groups for
analysis. Data from Section One (general follow up
questions) and Section Two (rank order) as well as
the brief comments in Section Three were analyzed
by Time 1 researchers (who were familiar with
emerging themes). A researcher who was blind to
the purpose of this study analyzed the raw data
from Section Three (focus group notes).
We reviewed and sorted 246 brief, handwritten
responses that teachers (N = 216) provided through
Section One, which resulted in the following
ve core themes (using participating teachers’
terminology):
1. Collaboration with other teachers
2. Attending conferences
3. AISI*
4. Selected projects
5. Other (time, personal experiences)
* Note: As is evident above, Alberta teachers refer
to AISI in a wide variety of formal and informal
professional learning categories, including
conferences, workshops, teacher-leaders, mentors,
teacher collaboration, technology training and
funding that made it possible for individuals or pairs
of teachers to work on specic projects.
Next, we analyzed the data teachers (N = 216)
provided through Section Two (rank order of
top seven reasons for professional learning). In
focus groups (with our questionnaire) we asked
teachers to consider the possible reasons for teacher
professional learning that were gathered during
Time 1, and to rank each reason based on what
they personally believe is most crucial (1 = most
valuable to 7 = least valuable) while acknowledging
all as important reasons. Teachers recorded their
responses within Section Two of the questionnaire.
We calculated nal scores and determined the mean
of responses in order to yield an overall rank order
(please see our Results section for these ndings).
Our analyses proceeded with data collected
through Section Three of the questionnaire
(additional information or nal comments): 55 brief
handwritten individual comments and over 134
handwritten comments from 28 sets of focus group
notes. Two researchers independently analyzed
the data and combined results based on strongest
correlations between the independent ndings. The
original research team reviewed, transcribed and
sorted the 55 brief comments into the following
themes: (1) Collaboration and Community; (2) Time;
(3) Selected Projects; (4) This Research Study; (5)
Technology and (6) Other.
Next, the handwritten comments from the focus
group notes were given to a second researcher who
was not part of the original Phase 1 data collection,
and this data was sorted into 28 sets of notes
(containing over 134 comments). This portion of the
qualitative analysis was completed in two steps.
First the sets were numbered, read and highlighted
to discern repetitive topics. Then we transcribed
and entered the sets of notes into a data display
to sort comments into themes. Frequency counts
were recorded for themes mentioned within the 134
comments.
Broad themes representing professional learning
(as identied during Phase I: Time 1) by the
“cold review” researcher were (in order of times
mentioned):
1. Collaboration in its various forms
2. Conferences as both PD and networking
opportunities
3. Other methods of PD
4. Preferred focus of PD or collaboration
5. Choice vs no choice in PD
28 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
6. Embedded vs not embedded PD
7. Issues and challenges to PD collaboration and
networking
Upon consideration of the theme preferred focus
of PD or collaboration, our next analysis stage was
guided by the question: What do teachers want to
learn or do through PD or collaborative events?
We reviewed the data for responses and found
three general categories and 10 subcategories to
this question (please see Results section for details).
After the original research team reviewed the
dataset (from Phase I: Time 2–Section One) and brief
responses (from Phase I: Time 2–Section Three),
our impartial researcher (blind to the study’s
purpose) reviewed and sorted the 301 comments
(from Section One and Section Three) according to
themes. We then compared the ndings.
Commonalities and strong correlations emerged
when comparing the two sets of ndings (Section
One and Section Three as analyzed by two different
researchers). There were some noted differences
between the two teams’ analyses and themes,
particularly with regard to AISI as a form of
professional learning (see Results); therefore, our
researchers amended the original lists of themes.
Phase I (Time 1 and Time 2). Next, we combined
all Phase I data into a new holistic data display
(of 435 comments). Overall, teachers reported the
following professional learning activities (themes)
as inuential:
1. Collaboration with other teachers
2. Conferences
3. Special/Selected projects
4. AISI as a form of professional learning and
collaboration
5. Other forms of professional learning (personal
study, reection, time, choice).
Phase I (Time 2). For our next stage of analysis, we
compared the combined data and themes from
Phase I (Time 2) with Joyce and Calhoun’s (2010)
ve models in search of correlations. We noted a
number of strong correlations between themes.
Then we created a matrix display using Joyce
and Calhoun’s ve modalities with all 435 sorted
comments. It was necessary to add qualifying
language to the matrix headings in order to
differentiate between Joyce and Calhoun’s broad
criteria for the collaborative and cooperative
categories and what the teachers were describing.
Phase 1 (Time 1 and Time 2). Our nal sort utilized
Joyce and Calhoun’s (2010) models as key thematic
headings, but added the descriptive criteria
provided by the teachers’ data to further clarify
and differentiate how teachers may view Joyce and
Calhoun’s collaborative models:
1. Collaborative and cooperative models: special
projects that are based on culture, student or
classroom management or general teaching
styles. These models include networking,
discussion groups, small and large collaborative
projects not specically for curricular or content
change.
2. Models designed to achieve curricular and
instructional change: special projects that
are division, school, grade or subject based
such as same-grade PLCs; such collaborations
include working together to update curriculum,
codevelop and share resources, literacy/
numeracy focused projects, changes to
assessment practices, AISI or district-wide
implementation of key pedagogical or curricular
theories.
3. Collaborative personal/professional direct
service models: one-to-one support strategies,
such as mentors, coaches, teacher-leaders and
AISI resource coordinators.
4. Conferences and traditional workshop models:
conferences, school or district workshops (such
as AISI conferences), school-based training
(eg, technology in the classroom), technology
conferences, teachers’ conferences.
5. Models that support individuals: self-directed
and self-selected professional development
such as solitary reection, independent action
research, book studies, completing graduate
degree programs, release time for researching
new curriculum, or funding to attend specialty
Final Report Research and Findings 29
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
training pertaining to a particular subject or need
(ie, strategies for ADHD students) constituted
the last broad theme, and captured those themes
previously referred to as other, other forms of PD,
time and choice.
Phase II (Time 1 and Time 2). In Year One, we invited
teachers to rate self- and collective efcacy apart
from and in reference to professional learning.
Teachers were initially presented with the ve
categories and asked to rate efcacy-related items
in relation to those categories of professional
learning. Efcacy questions in relation to
professional learning included examples of categories
based on Joyce and Calhoun’s (2010) ve models
(see Appendix B).
3.5.2 Year Two
Phase I and Phase II. Results from Phase I (Time 1)
informed Phase I (Time 2) data collection, and the
results were shared and discussed with our Phase
II team. In Year One, Phase II data from Likert
scale items were analyzed (descriptive statistics,
ANOVA, linear regressions) using SPSS (IBM
Corporation, 2012) while open-ended data were
reviewed for explanations and descriptions beyond
the collected quantitative data. Preliminarily results
of data collected during Phase II (Time 1 and Time
2) led to a review of the themes that emerged from
Phase I, and consequently informed questionnaire
items developed for Phase II (Time 3 and Time 4)
using rened professional learning categories (see
Appendix B, third column). For example, due to
teachers’ consistent reference to AISI as a different
form of professional learning—a category unto
itself—we carried their language into Year Two.
Content analyses of open-ended questionnaire
responses (Phase II) were performed to yield
general ndings for integrative inferences.
30 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Chapter Four
Results
This section reviews and integrates the results
of our collective research. Similar to other mixed
methods research, research questions both stood
on their own and were considered for what they
revealed collectively. In this section, we organize
results not chronologically but by the research
questions.
4.1 How was teacher
efficacy enhanced through
professional learning
experiences?
Through January and June 2012 questionnaires
(Phase II: Time 1 and Time 2), researchers asked
teachers rst to provide personal ratings of self-
and collective efcacy and then to provide ratings
in relation to professional learning experiences.
As presented through Figure 4, teachers (Time 1:
N = 198, Time 2: N = 328) rated self- and collective
efcacy moderately high, while professional
learning activities were considered a moderate
inuence on self- and collective efcacy.
Next, we tested change over time for teachers (N =
59) who completed items at both Time 1 and Time
2. Although we found a nonsignicant change in
self-efcacy from January (Time 1) to June (Time
2), it is worth noting that early- and late-career
teachers reported a slight decrease, while mid-
career teachers reported a slight increase. We did
nd a statistically signicant (F
1, 58
= 11.35, p =
.001) decrease in collective efcacy (8.47 to 7.77)
from January to June. There was a statistically
signicant difference between teacher levels
(elementary and middle/secondary) at Time 1,
2 and 4, where elementary teachers consistently
reported higher self-efcacy. There was also a
statistically signicant difference between teaching
levels (for all four time periods) where elementary
teachers also reported higher collective efcacy.
When asked to rate efcacy in relation to ve types
of professional learning, teacher-initiated activities
were reported as having the most inuence on
teachers’ self-efcacy. Figure 5 displays results from
Year One, where PLCs (with professional service
and curricular initiatives) had the most inuence
on collective efcacy. Self-efcacy was most
inuenced by teacher-initiated experiences with
the exception of efcacy for assessment. Although
collective efcacy was most inuenced by PLCs,
teacher-initiated activities greatly inuenced
efcacy for working with parents, and professional
service inuenced efcacy to collaborate with the
community.
Similarly, in the majority of comments from both
sets of Phase I focus groups conducted in Year
One, teachers expressed clearly and consistently
that multiple forms of teacher-initiated or self-
selected professional and collaborative learning
had positively inuenced their sense of self-efcacy
and their school’s or team’s efcacy (collective
efcacy) in a number of ways such as becoming
a more cohesive team, developing accessible
materials and tools, exploring ways to increase
student engagement, and learning new skills. Of
the ve different Joyce and Calhoun categories,
collaborative models were deemed the most effective
and impactful for both self-efcacy and collective
Final Report Research and Findings 31
Figure 4 The influence of professional learning on efficacy in Year One (Phase II)
efcacy. Collaboration was foundational to multiple
professional learning models: this collaboration
included collaborating with others, special projects,
AISI, and some conferences, most notably those that
allowed for networking and working with others.
Also during Phase I (Time 1), teachers identied
the types of professional learning that made the
most difference to their self- and collective efcacy
beliefs, and to their students, varied in effectiveness
across areas for improvement. An analysis of over
600 responses to the three questions (noted earlier)
resulted in sorting the responses into the following
seven themes (arranged according to frequency,
most to least):
1. Collaborating with others
2. Special projects
3. AISI
4. Conferences
5. Graduate studies
6. Book studies
7. Personal life experiences
Our ndings revealed collaborating with others and
special projects (also considered collaborative) as
the top two forms of professional learning making
the most difference to teachers’ sense of self- and
collective efcacy and the most impact on student
learning. Though personal life experiences offer
rich opportunities to reect on and enhance
teaching practice, it appears that teachers are
less likely to assimilate these activities within a
personal denition of “professional learning.” To
read sample responses from teachers (grouped
thematically according to inuence on own
teaching, staff as a group, and students), see
Appendix C.
As noted in Section 3.5.1, the nal set of themes
(revealed through a series of Phase I (Time
2) analyses and then aligned with Joyce and
Calhoun’s (2010) ve models), further describe
what were viewed as the most inuential forms of
professional learning on teacher self- and collective
efcacy:
32 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Figure 5
1. Collaborative and cooperative models included
special projects that are focused on culture,
student or classroom management or general
teaching styles. Examples may be discussion
groups, networking or team building, or small
and large collaborative projects that were not
specically focused on curricular or content
change.
2. Models designed to achieve curricular
and instructional change included special
projects that were division, school, grade
or subject based, such as same-grade PLCs.
Such collaborations include working together
to update curriculum, codevelop and share
resources, literacy/numeracy-focused projects,
changes to assessment practices, AISI, or
districtwide implementation of key pedagogical
or curricular theories. There were often
“products” or “shared deliverables” involved in
these types of collaborative projects.
3. Collaborative personal/professional direct
service models involved one-to-one support
strategies through service roles (ie, mentors,
coaches, teacher-leaders and AISI resource
coordinators).
4. Conferences and traditional workshop models
included conferences (general or specic), school
or district workshops, AISI conferences and
Final Report Research and Findings 33
school-based training (eg, technology in the
classroom).
5. Models that support individuals were primarily
independent activities that were teacher-initiated
(self-directed or self-selected) including solitary
reection, action research, book studies, degree
programs, release time for researching new
curriculum, or funding to attend specialty
training (ie, needs related to subject or students).
This category also captured the previous themes
of other, other forms of professional learning, time
and choice.
As displayed through Table 5, the 435 comments
were sorted into one or more of the above ve
categories. It is important to restate that many of
the individual comments t into multiple categories
since teachers often answered the question of “what
works best” with multiple models, for example:
“The themes are not mutually exclusive—attending
conferences must be combined with collaboration” or
“We get new ideas from conferences or collaboration then
still get time to implement them.”
Overarching theme of collaboration: In response to
the three questions posed during Phase I (Time 1),
the number one answer for all three questions was
“collaborative” in various forms of professional
learning. In the focus group notes from Phase I
(Time 2), the term collaboration was mentioned in
100 per cent of the responses as a key factor of
teacher professional learning. In the nal sort of
Phase I (Time 1 and Time 2) data, three differentiated
forms of collaboration emerged (in order of
Joyce & Calhoun (2010) Professional Learning Models*
Collaborative
Cooperative
Models
Curricular and
Instructional
Change Models
Collaborative
Professional
(1-1) Service
Models
Conference
or Workshop
Models
Teacher-
Initiated
Models
Examples
specic to
Alberta
Education
Special Projects
Discussion
groups
(not curricular)
Networking
Culture/
student or
classroom
management
Special projects
(specic to
course or grade
level)
Division projects
(curricular)
AISI
Literacy/
numeracy
Mentor or
Coach
Conferences
School or
district
workshops
(eg, AISI)
Solitary
reection
Specialist
development
(eg, ADHD,
subject-specic)
Action research
Percentage
of comments
/435**
75% 43% 25% 23% 21%
Table 5 Examples of professional learning in Alberta
* order of preference based on when Phase I data were combined
** many comments t into multiple themes
34 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
most preferred and effective according to the
teachers): collaborative peer learning, collaboration
among similar subject areas or grade levels, and
collaboration cross-division, subject or grades, as
well as among different schools or divisions. If
conferences are considered a form of collaborative
professional learning, with which most teachers
in our study would agree, then collaboration was
essential in four out of ve professional learning
modalities.
During Phase I (Time 2: Section Three), focus group
participants revealed the theme of collaboration
for professional learning purposes as essential.
Collaboration took different forms from group to
group, with the following sub-themes emerging
from the data:
1. Collaborative peer learning (78.6 per cent): the
preference for peers to serve as mentors, coaches
or one-on-one peer feedback partners was noted,
as opposed to having “experts” inform practice.
Because peers are living and working in similar
conditions, with similar students, peers help
to clarify and afrm ideas in context, and can
demonstrate strategies on site, thus serving
as role models or learning partners on a more
regular, embedded basis.
2. Collaboration among similar subject areas or grade
levels (71.4 per cent): talking to subject experts
within/outside your school on common topics,
grades or subjects was discussed and mentioned
as also valuable. For example, Science 11 teachers
value meeting with other Science 11 teachers
to codevelop materials, share resources and
learn from each other. Grade 2 teachers enjoyed
working with other Grade 2 teachers and found
that conversations often turned towards sharing
strategies and insights for particular students.
3. Collaboration among different or cross-division,
subject, or grades, as well as among different schools
or divisions was rated quite highly as well (35.7
per cent). Key purposes noted were transition
planning, learning different or new subject areas
and learning different pedagogical approaches
from peers and experts in other areas or from
different schools. The need for teachers to
collaborate with educational assistants (EAs)
or other educational professionals (ie, speech
pathologists) was also expressed through the
data.
When all three sections of Phase I (Time 2) data were
examined for correlations with Joyce and Calhoun’s
(2010) ve modalities, collaboration remained the
most preferred model. However, the more popular
group collaboration model was divided into
slightly different categories than those revealed
through Phase I (Time 2: Section Three) analyses. As
a result, collaborative models represented through
the Phase I (Time 1 and Time 2) combined data were
re-sorted according to purpose of collaboration and
collaborative peer learning (considered direct services
or mentorship). What follows are the ve models of
professional learning cited by teachers, beginning
with the most preferred model. Note that the ve
models are not mutually exclusive; therefore,
teachers’ comments may have been representative
of more than one model.
1. Collaborative and cooperative models
(75 per cent) included special projects relating
to culture improvement, student or classroom
management, but were noncurricular in
general and were more communication or
relationship focused. Although this model was
not necessarily curricular-focused, overlap in the
data was evident. This more informal form of
collaboration was the most preferred of all types
of professional learning.
The underlying message in the teachers’ comments
was that this form of professional learning was
foundational to increasing teacher efcacy and
collective efcacy, and was essential for supporting
student achievement and engagement. This model
often offered more exibility or choice than the
more formal or structured projects of curricular
collaborations. Collaborative activities were also
where issues of safety, trust and relationships were
necessarily developed before moving into more
challenging curricular change projects, for example:
a. Team building activities (57.1 per cent in
Phase I: Time 2, Section Three) were valued by
some teachers because of the opportunity
to get to know each other or to induct
Final Report Research and Findings 35
new teachers into the school. Relationship
development, Community Building and Faith
Days (an element of Alberta’s Catholic schools)
were reported as particularly valuable and
important opportunities for establishing the
trust and rapport required for teachers to learn
how to collaborate and work together on more
focused or formal projects.
b. Team teaching (4 per cent) provided teachers
with opportunities to share knowledge about
students common to all teachers or strategies
for how to better support students. According
to focus group participants
• Collaboration allows for safe, comfortable
ways to share ideas and learning.
• Teaching is no longer done in isolation—
change in philosophy to “how can we
engage students?” versus constant notes,
readings, quizzes, tests.
• Mentor teachers are helpful for bouncing
ideas. Collaboration makes me WANT to
participate.
• [Team teaching] feeds wisdom we have,
creates teamwork. Critical in training
teachers in things outside their own passion
areas: ie, coaching, presenting, mentoring,
designing learning tasks/rubrics/ criteria
assessment, what feedback loops are and
why they are so critical. Team-teaching is
especially powerful—would be nice to offer
at schools.
c. Meeting students’ needs (11 per cent) through
collaborative models was highlighted as the
best way to address student needs. Of the
435 comments, 49 comments that specically
mentioned students were found under the
categories of collaborative professional
learning. According to participants, when
teachers collaborate with each other, as well as
with EAs and other school staff or even with
outside experts, teachers are more likely to
know students better and adapt their teaching
approaches to better meet students’ needs.
• The building is like a family—could not survive
at this school without collaboration—all this
helps kids.
• Collaboration—to clarify ideas, share methods
and strategies to increase student learning…
[Special team] monthly meetings, colleagues
meeting on regular basis, banking resources,
share resources.
• With experience, you want to get more efcient;
you may follow the same worksheets, but each
year it changes, the assessments change. Every
year you recreate how you teach. (We have) very
diverse students, really mixed students—need
to be able to adapt quickly.
• Grade partners—starts with student concerns.
• Focused collaboration (like data analysis) gives
teachers tools to discuss student learning.
• Especially when they know the same students
who I teach, this is most meaningful. Gain
knowledge and practical advice through sharing
and consistent professional development.
• [Collaboration] was good for getting to know
students.
• With the other two Grade 2 classrooms in
my school, we have created projects, common
assessments and constantly discuss student
needs.
2. Collaborative models that were designed
to achieve curricular and/or instructional
change (43 per cent) were considered similar
to collaborative and cooperative models but
slightly more formal and focused. These models
were often implemented as special projects that
were division, school, grade or subject specic;
for example, same grade or department teams
collaborating to update or initiate curriculum
changes, conducting literacy or numeracy
focused projects, making changes to assessment
practices, or intentionally working together to
co-develop and share resources. This form of
collaboration was the second most preferred of
all types of professional learning. Collaborative
models for curricular change also included
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and
other collaborative learning groups focused
on curricular or instructional change. Teachers
expressed that
• Collaboration is really helpful for grade teams.
Reecting together in grade teams—working
36 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
together with other teachers—collaborating is so
important to teaching.
• Small group PD (is good) such as Social/ELA—six
people with an expert—creates intimacy. Difcult
to express ideas in big groups.
• Great to work with grade partners and teachers in
other grades because: a) time saver, b) learn new
techniques and c) compare how we evaluate.
• Collaboration with teachers within subject areas
across the Division—four times throughout
the year, no other topics on the agenda, allows
curricular, open-ended, self-directed PD as
required.
• Has helped in math, especially with new
curriculum. Strengthened skills/knowledge and
helped to develop exams, etc. Also helped to
understand some of the students.
• To strengthen knowledge/skills/understanding of
concepts in curriculum, I go to teachers teaching
similar subjects. But other issues (learning styles,
assessments) have come from teachers in different
subject areas, who often learn differently and help
show diversity of learners.
• LA/Eng School or Divisional PD—we do lots of
collaboration!
• Really been inuenced by being a part of my
school’s PLC group for my division. Having time
each week to meet and work on our data and our
instructional strategies is good. We help each other
by offering suggestions for issues with particular
students.
3. Collaborative personal/ professional direct
(1-1) service models (25 per cent) were presented
as the third most preferred category. This was
an important category of professional learning
where an individual teacher is assigned to
another teacher, or to several other teachers, for
the purpose of getting to know the teacher or
teachers, addressing specic needs or providing
general help and guidance in a particular area.
Mentors and instructional coaches are two of the
most common forms of personal direct service,
but this model also included a variety of less
formal one-on-one supports including access
to teacher-leaders, AISI resource coordinators,
and voluntary peer learning partners.
While still collaborative, the focus was more
individualistic and provided one-to-one (ie,
mentor, instructional coach) support as opposed
to support delivered in small or large school or
department wide groups.
• Learning coaches—open door, welcoming, videos,
resource providers “on the lookout for”; proactive.
Invested in it, so it’s meaningful. Relationships
with the students/teamwork as a whole.
• [If I] want specic critique—from mentors;
collaborate with like-minded/ similar background.
• Works because mentoring of new teachers by
experienced ones about what works and what
doesn’t (knowledge gained by different PD is
shared); new techniques picked up; time saver.
• For starting teachers, collaboration and conferences
are the best. For experienced teachers, selected
projects based on interests and mentorship. These
things change as your career changes. It is all based
on your place in the process.
4. Conferences and traditional (single-event)
workshop models (23 per cent) included training
to learning new content or theory through
events such as conferences, school workshops
or PD sessions, institutes and districtwide
gatherings, such as AISI or teachers’ conferences.
If considering the rst three categories of
professional learning under the general theme
of collaboration, then conferences were rated as
the second most preferred method, both in the
combined Phase I data analysis and specically in
analysis of Time 2 (Section Three). However, when
all 435 comments were analyzed, against Joyce
and Calhoun’s models, conferences aligned with
Joyce and Calhoun’s (2010) traditional workshop
models (including conferences, school or district
workshops and AISI conferences).
Our data revealed that conferences were sometimes
considered collaborative and other times as solitary
or specic, depending upon the teacher, the
conference, the purpose of attendance and the
topics covered. Some specialists preferred to attend
subject-specic conferences or workshops to learn
from experts in their eld, which would fall under
teacher-initiated models that support individuals,
whereas other specialty teachers will go to the same
Final Report Research and Findings 37
subject-specic conference with the intention of
networking or collaborating with other teachers
in their eld (as they may be the only teachers in
their district or school that work in their specialty
or department, and they need some peer or small
group support). High school specialty teachers,
in particular, preferred attending subject-specic
conferences as a form of solitary professional
learning as opposed to attending generalist
conferences or workshops.
The data was unclear on how or if these teachers
collaborate with others once they return to
their schools. Although there was discrepancy
within the 435 comments as to how valuable
various conferences are for professional learning,
the majority of comments reected that peer
networking is a valuable part of all conferences,
so we could also group this category with the
other collaborative models (see Appendix D for
conference-related quotes from focus groups). From
the analysis of Phase I (Time 2: Section Three), two
additional themes surfaced (within the general
category of conferences) with a focus on the purpose
of conferences:
• Conferences as networking events (50 per cent):
Many teachers valued the opportunity to learn
from speakers and meet (and learn from) other
teachers. The request, therefore, for “longer
lunches” or scheduled time and space for
conversations or collaborations was mentioned
several times.
• Conferences for learning latest theories from
specialists/experts (32 per cent): This focus on
specialists was reported as more important to
high school teachers who sought specialized
subject updates, resources and ideas from
experts or knowledgeable peers in the same
eld. Some primary and middle school teachers
also valued learning more about the latest
theories, curriculum or pedagogical research in
this way. Most teachers, however, stated that,
although they enjoy conferences, they also desire
scheduled collaborative time in their school
groups to implement the theories and integrate
the content after the conference.
Workshops that offered concentrated time of specic
content over a short period of time (eg, half-days)
or institutes (over a number of consecutive days)
also provided teachers with opportunities to gain
new knowledge by focused reading, discussing and
listening to expert speakers. Some teachers valued
the opportunity to view or create demonstrations
of new knowledge, particularly when given time to
plan how they will integrate new knowledge into
classroom teaching. The request for time to work
together to implement learning was strongly stated
during the focus groups.
As mentioned, AISI conferences were often
mentioned as a form of professional learning,
with mixed reviews as to their efcacy. The
Phase I (Time 2) focus group comments covered
the broad uses of AISI and some suggested that
AISI’s “big picture” goals or district directives, as
communicated through conferences, were either too
restrictive (32 per cent) or too vague (25 per cent)
for implementation at local levels. Teachers reported
that, although they enjoyed the AISI conferences
and appreciated the learning and networking
opportunities, they had no time to determine how
to implement the theories such as Differentiated
Instruction, 21st Century Learning and Assessment for
Learning once they were back in their own schools.
On the other hand, the opportunity to collaborate
through the use of AISI funding, teacher-leaders
or special projects really engaged some teachers.
Overall, our key point is that AISI appeared
through Phase I and Phase II data as synonymous with
collaboration; in fact, the underlying collaborative
nature of most AISI projects and conferences may
have been their greatest contribution to professional
learning. (see Appendix E)
5. Models that support individuals (21 per cent).
The nal form of professional learning preferred
by teachers who participated in our focus groups
were those that included a range of self-directed
and self-selected (teacher-initiated) experiences
such as solitary reection, independent action
research, book studies, completing degree
programs, release time for researching new
curriculum or funding to attend specialty
training pertaining to a particular subject or need
38 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
(eg, strategies for students with ADHD). This
model also captured themes previously referred
to as other, other forms of professional learning and
time. One could say all forms of professional
learning support individuals; however, the key
here is that this form of professional learning
was independent and often solitary.
Under the category of teacher-initiated models,
there were three solitary or self-directed forms
of professional learning that surfaced in the data
from Phase I (Time 1): Graduate Studies, Book Studies
and Personal Life Experiences. The three individual-
support themes were sometimes preferred in
combination with other forms of professional
learning, such as in addition to conferences, and
sometimes as their only preference instead of
conferences or collaborative learning. Yet in the
ndings from Phase I (Time 2), these three forms
were more diffused, and instead there were two
strongly overarching themes or “requests” with
regard to solitary or individual professional
learning. The two main themes that surfaced were
Time and Choice.
a. Time. Focus group data contained over 90
comments specic to time. The theme of time
showed up in two ways: amount (ie, more
time or to have release time/designated time
to work on individual goals or collaborative
projects) and when (ie, during daily working
school hours or outside of school hours so
as to not disrupt classes). Many preferred
professional learning as an open but allotted
time slot that one can move as needed.
Examples included having more autonomy
by having the support of scheduled time,
classroom coverage or administrative
permission to do planning, set agendas, work
on projects, have peer conversations, or just
have time and space to think, as needed
(75 per cent in Phase I: Time 2–Part Three).
Some respondents (35.7 per cent in Phase I:
Time 2–Part Three) preferred having scheduled
reection time to just talk and think alone or with
peers (full day/scheduled minutes of nontangible
reection time). Teachers preferred reection time
to be without tangible outcome requirements or
expected products or deliverables. The majority
(67.9 per cent) of comments showed a preference
for professional learning to be embedded within
school hours so they have regular time together—
including school-based projects, weekly or
monthly meetings, in-class mentoring and learning
opportunities, and intentional collaboration during
school time. In contrast to that, some (17.9 per
cent) were adamant that professional learning not
be embedded within school hours. These teachers
recommended events be separate from school,
in time and location (including meetings outside
of division and outside of school hours so as not
to take away from class time, or having separate
events such as retreats and conferences). For time-
related quotes from teachers’ open-ended responses
to efcacy items on Phase II questionnaires, please
see Appendix F.
b. Choice. Throughout Phase I, recurring
themes emerged around teachers having
choice in their professional learning goals
and participation levels. Specically,
teachers associated autonomy with effective
professional learning. For example:
“Professional learning should not be a blanket to
encompass all things. Teachers need to have a voice
and a choice in the areas that most concern them
professionally. Many times we are being dragged
down a road that others deem to be important. I
think facilitators and participants would benet
from optional professional development. I am not
talking about opting out, just picking professional
learning opportunities that are relevant to your
needs.” Throughout our ndings (Phase I and
Phase II), the topic of choice revolved around
whether teachers were able to self-select their
professional learning activities or not, and
also whether professional learning should be
considered a mandatory group activity. The
two sub-categories that emerged from the
Phase II data were:
• Teacher-initiated (self-directed or self-selected)
or collaborative professional learning (89.3 per
cent in Phase I: Time 2–Section Three). Most
teachers felt that individual teachers should
be able to determine their own learning
goals and collaboration activities according
Final Report Research and Findings 39
to their individual professional needs.
Some felt that they should be allowed to
opt out of collaborative PD or conferences
and events if they were not relevant to their
subject area or needs.
• Directed professional learning or collaboration
(28.6 per cent in Phase I: Time 2–Section
Three). Some teachers believed in the
“everyone on board” principle, wherein
everyone is included and required to
participate in a singular focus/unied
theme or at least in some collaborative
teams or projects. In these cases,
collaboration and professional learning
would be directed or prescribed from
“top-down” and based on AISI driven
or district/school derived themes (or
alternately from grassroots perspectives),
as codetermined by teachers and
administrators around a school’s specic
needs. Regardless of how the development
goal is selected, everyone is on the same page.
Open-ended responses collected from Phase
II participants also included comments of
“being on the same page” or “speaking the
same language”.
Additional Issues and
Challenges
Additional key issues and challenges in setting up
successful and collaborative professional learning
activities were repeated throughout the qualitative
data. These issues and challenges would fall
somewhat outside of the themes already noted and
t into a few minor subcategories:
• Isolation (13 per cent) experienced by teachers
was expressed through logistical difculties
with connecting with peers outside of school/
division or in staying connected with peers
that one met at conferences. For example, ve
respondents suggested the need for a system for
communicating and collaborating with teachers
and experts who live beyond one’s geographical
areas. Rural schools experience isolation from
other more geographically accessible schools.
Smaller schools may not have similar subject
area colleagues to work with. As one Phase II
respondent said “the teacher works mostly on
her own.” Second language educators (ie, French
immersion or French language teachers) also
noted a lack of subject-area staff and thus a lack
of opportunity for collegial sharing. Several
noted that they would desire someone else in
their subject area with whom they might talk
about teaching issues and ideas.
• Difculty with how to collaborate fairly and effectively
(32.1 per cent) was a signicant theme. Teachers
expressed multiple challenges, such as lack of
skills in facilitating teachers, administrators
and schools in making the “paradigm shift”
required (14.3 per cent); lack of dedicated time
(42.9 per cent) and lack of strategies to engage or
support those who do not choose to collaborate
as “forced collaboration does not work” (25 per
cent). Also within this category is the challenge of
increasing the levels of trust and comfort in risk
taking and peer coaching. “Some teachers are not
comfortable going into each other’s rooms…some
are not comfortable taking risks…this comfort
level needs to be established” (21.4 per cent).
• Diverse needs of different cohorts were highlighted
through teachers’ responses and based on a
number of differences between primary and
secondary school teachers’ needs. Our data
suggests that secondary school teachers would
like professional learning with more subject
matter expertise, topic specic resources and
technological support (28.6 per cent). Primary
teachers were more focused on core learning
strategies, developing teaching resources,
literacy and numeracy projects and networking.
As presented through Figure 6, the ndings from
Phase I (Time 2) indicate that collaborative and
cooperative models (ie, noncurricular special
projects) were considered the most inuential forms
of professional learning (when all 435 comments
were combined).
The efcacy-specic ndings from Phase II (Time
2) revealed that teacher self-efcacy was most
inuenced by teacher-initiated models, and teacher
collective efcacy was most inuenced by PLCs
(see Figure 7).
40 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Figure 7 Influential categories of professional learning (Year One: Phase II–Time 2)
Figure 6 Influential categories of professional learning (Phase I)
Note. Some comments overlapped into multiple categories so the sum of percentages does not equal 100.
Final Report Research and Findings 41
Year Two (Phase II). Through the January and June
2013 questionnaires (Time 3 and Time 4), Phase II
researchers asked teachers to rst provide personal
ratings of self- and collective efcacy and then to
provide ratings in relation to professional learning
experiences. As in Year One, teachers rated self- and
collective efcacy moderately high, with those in
mid-career reporting the highest self-efcacy.
Analyses also revealed efcacy levels (both self-
and collective) at an earlier time were signicant
predictors of efcacy reported later. Teachers rated
the inuence of rened categories of professional
learning (see Appendix B) and consistently
reported collaboration with other teachers as the most
inuential category of professional learning on
efcacy (at both Time 3 and Time 4). For example,
Figure 8 visually represents results from Time 3 and
reveals collaboration with other teachers as the most
inuential professional learning experience on both
self- and collective efcacy (with collective efcacy
reportedly inuenced more than self-efcacy).
4.2 What were teachers’
perceived learning goals in
their professional learning?
Year One (Phase I). Teachers provided several
comments pertaining to their preferred focus of PD or
collaboration. As a result, we did a separate analysis
of Time 2: Section Three and report the ndings
below. Perhaps as an outcome of the language used
in our focus group questions (ie, asking teachers
what they most need from their professional
Figure 8 Influential categories of professional learning (Year Two: Phase II–Time 3)
42 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
learning experiences as opposed to asking them
what they feel most benets their students directly),
there was some division among respondents as
to the intended focus of professional learning,
revealing the following general patterns:
• Focus on teachers’ needs/teacher learning
(89.3 per cent): There was strong preference for
focusing on what teachers need to become better
teachers, to develop their classroom resources,
and get support for their specic issues
(subjects, classroom management, special needs,
technology skills or resources), and this included
learning instructional strategies so that they
may better meet the diverse needs of all their
students.
• Focus on students’ needs/student learning
(21.4 per cent): Some schools used a “ltering
question” to determine whether their
collaboration or professional learning was
approved, such as “How does this benet the
student? How does this professional learning
directly enhance student learning?” Ironically,
although teachers spoke about connecting
their work to student learning, our ndings
suggest that better teaching strategies (instruction)
was more frequently articulated as the focus
of professional learning, more so than student
learning. In fact, 11 per cent of 435 comments
from the focus group mentioned students. It is
unclear what this nding means. Is it a given
that if teachers feel better informed about what
they are doing or teaching, students will benet?
Perhaps the message that everything a teacher
learns needs to be for the benet of students is so
deeply ingrained in teachers’ work that they did
not mention it.
• Focus on getting to know students—sharing
information on students (14.3 per cent): Some
teachers discussed scheduled collaboration as an
effective way of sharing insight and information
on the students for more comprehensive or
cohesive support for the students and teachers.
To infer what was meant through the above
three categories, we reviewed the data while
asking, “What do teachers want to do or learn in their
professional learning and collaborative activities?” An
analysis completed during Phase I (Time 2) revealed
a more specic listing of main focus areas for
professional learning:
1. Share curriculum ideas and best teaching
practices for their particular subject areas
(75 per cent)
2. Co-create and share learning and teaching
resources/materials (64.3 per cent)
3. Learn new teaching strategies from peers and
experts (64.3 per cent)
4. Discuss and plan how to implement new
learning theory (Differentiated Instruction,
21 Century Learning) (39.3 per cent)
5. Share information on students’ needs, challenges
and discuss solutions (39.3 per cent)
6. Enhance specialized knowledge (sciences, math,
etc.) (32.1 per cent)
7. Get afrmation that they are assessing and
evaluating correctly (25 per cent)
8. Dialogue, explore and reect on teaching
and learning without products or tangible
expectations (25 per cent)
9. Dene and/or develop common standards of
practice (school-wide) (14.3 per cent)
10. Plan for transitions—plan for the year
(10.7 per cent)
Participating teachers were also asked (via Phase
II questionnaires) to indicate the professional
learning focus of their personal (My individual
professional growth plan for the current year is focused
on…), schoolwide (This year our school is focused
on…), and AISI (If you have been involved in an AISI
project this year, what has been the focus?) activities.
Overall, teachers in this study commonly reported
a professional focus on instructional strategies. As
displayed by Figure 9, instructional strategies were
a major focus of teachers’ individual professional
growth plans, while assessment was the major
focus at the school level.
In Phase I (Time 2: Section Two), we asked teachers
to rank order what they valued most about
professional learning. With 1 being MOST valued
and 7 being LEAST valued, teachers rated “learning
Final Report Research and Findings 43
Rank
Order
Phase I:
Preliminary
Phase I:
Final Results
Phase II:
Time 3
Phase II:
Time 4
#1 most Teach effectively Teach effectively Teach effectively Time and space
#2 Community Community Community Teach effectively
#3 Children Subject area Time and space Community
#4 Subject area Children Subject area Subject area
#5 Mentor Mentor Children Teacher strengths
#6 Time and space Time and space Teacher strengths Children
#7 least Teacher strengths Teacher strengths Mentor Mentor
Figure 9 Teachers’ professional learning focus during two-year project (Phase II)
Table 6. Teachers’ rank order results: Reasons for professional learning
44 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
more about how to teach more effectively” as
the most valued reason for professional learning.
In Year Two (Phase II: Time 3), we presented the
Phase I ranking results (via questionnaire) and
asked teachers to indicate: a) whether or not they
agree with the rank order and b) if anything was
missing (see Appendix for a selection from our
questionnaire). Teachers were then asked (via
questionnaire) to rate the level of importance for
each of the top seven reasons (see Table 6 for Phase I
and Phase II ranked results).
Of the 183 teachers who responded to this
questionnaire section, 86 (47 per cent) agreed with
the ranking as presented, 46 agreed but suggested
some changes (25.1 per cent), while 51 (28 per
cent) disagreed (or suggested major changes). The
suggestions teachers provided were primarily
focused on the extremes (1 = effective teaching, 2 =
building a learning community with colleagues, 6 =
time and space to think, and 7 = strengths as a teacher).
For example, several suggestions revolved around
1 and 2 (eg, should be switched, are interrelated, they
overlap, occur concurrently) and indications that
reason number 7 was ranked too low. Time and
space to think was considered particularly important
with suggestions that it was ranked too low as
well. When asked what was missing, teachers’
top responses included leadership development,
mandatory PD, teacher wellness, upgrading and
technology. Overall, teachers who participated
in Phase II (Time 3 and 4) rated learning more about
how to teach more effectively as the most important
personal reason, followed by time and space to think.
4.3 How did teachers
explain their efficacy in
relationship to professional
learning?
Although many comments (expressed during
Phase I and Phase II) claimed that “professional
learning was benecial” to their practice, in Phase
I, few teachers explicitly stated that “professional
learning has impacted their levels of efcacy” per se.
However, they indicated changes had occurred as
a result of professional learning and demonstrated
how their levels of efcacy had changed by
elaborating on how different forms of professional
learning increased their skills or enthusiasm in
various areas, from helping them to master specic
content to increasing their sense of condence to try
new strategies.
• Collaboration with other teachers is important as
I can gain knowledge from seasoned teachers as
well as proven strategies to increase learning in the
classroom. By also collaborating with newer, younger
teachers, I can be more on the cutting edge of teaching
strategies (ie, technology). As well, the boost in
enthusiasm can be rewarding!
• Collaboration is most effective for me because it allows
me the opportunity to ask questions. Also bouncing
ideas with someone helps me generate more ideas. I
nd this helpful and it inspires me to develop better/
more interesting activities.
• To strengthen knowledge, skills and understanding
of concepts in curriculum, I go to teachers teaching
similar subjects. But I have found that a lot of other
issues— ways students learn, different assessments—
have come from working with teachers in different
subject areas.
• Selected projects are always benecial and enable us to
grow as friends and as educators.
• Collaborating with other colleagues really helps me in
my job as we get so busy throughout the day and also
a bit stagnant sometimes; get some great new ideas or
motivators for your classes by collaboration. Keeps me
up to date and fresher with engaging activities.
Teachers new to the profession were more likely to
report changes in efcacy as a direct result of their
professional learning experiences. For example
• As a rst year teacher new to the profession, working
and learning from other teachers has helped me
become successful. I have been able to bounce ideas off
them and ask for advice. They have helped me break
down the curriculum and come up with better ways to
teach given topics. The best professional development
that I have learned from is collaboration with other
teachers.
Final Report Research and Findings 45
4.4 How were the sources
of efficacy fostered through
professional learning
experiences?
Figure 10 presents professional learning activities
as inuences on self- and collective efcacy through
multiple sources. Verbal persuasion was the highest
source of efcacy reported through collaborative
activities such as professional service and PLCs.
Mastery experiences and affective states were
the highest sources of efcacy when professional
learning was considered teacher-initiated.
Interestingly, vicarious and affective sources were
reported equally through collaborative professional
learning activities. When asked about coping
strategies (ie, affective source of efcacy) associated
with professional learning activities at Time 4
(N = 174), mid-career teachers were more likely
(F
2,173
= 3.34, p = .038) to “ask teachers who have had
similar experiences for their ideas and experiences.”
Affective Source of Efcacy: In Year One, our
questionnaires elicited an unexpected number of
emotional responses through optional open-ended
items aimed at understanding the relationship
between professional learning experiences and
efcacy. As a result, additional items specic to
deepening our understanding of the affective
source of efcacy were included. As displayed
through Figure 11, teachers were generally
motivated to enhance teaching practice when
feeling purposeful.
Figure 10 Professional learning activities that nurture the four sources of efficacy
46 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Figure 11 Teachers’ motivational feelings associated with professional learning
Leading professional learning was revealed as one
way teachers can feel purposeful. As mentioned
earlier, a number of teachers surveyed (69.5 per
cent at Time 1 and 62 per cent at Time 4) indicated
leading professional learning activities (within
6 months of the each questionnaire). Teachers
mentioned increased reection and an enhanced
understanding of others’ perspectives and different
needs. Most comments highlighted the benets of
sharing, particularly in relation to boosting efcacy.
For example
• I felt valued for my expertise.
• It gave me a tremendous personal boost to realize
that even as a new(er) teacher, I have strong ideas to
share. Too often, it seems teachers are each drowning
in their own personal oceans, and it was at times a
small comfort to realize that even veteran teachers can
feel this way. When I offered to lead and share, others
reciprocated by sharing ideas and resources, and it led
to a full-day AISI-sponsored curricular development
project at our school.
• When they ask to use resources I’ve created or ask my
advice, it really boosts my own condence. I felt proud
to “give back” to so many others during our district
PD day. It also motivated me to do research and
review in order to better present to others, which was
a great refresher.
• The greatest gift I received from leading a workshop
was the collaborative aspect of the session.
• “You get as much as you put in” is a cliché but it is
true. When you are involved, you gain much more
than when you are a consumer.
• I learned just as much, if not more, from the teachers
that attended these sessions.
• Leading PD always makes me reect on my own
practice and take ownership of the learning I do.
Final Report Research and Findings 47
• It validates things that I have been doing.
• It makes you self-reect.
• Condence boosted, because until I was asked to lead
and presented at PD, I didn’t realize I had anything to
contribute.
Of the most common emotions teachers used in
Year Two written responses describing feelings
associated with participating in professional
learning activities, frustrated accounted for the most
(32.6 per cent), followed by excited (26.6 per cent),
inspired (24.9 per cent), worried (9.3 per cent) and
overwhelmed (6.6 per cent). When asked to select
an emotion (from a list of 11 emotions) that could
possibly relate to particular professional learning
activities, teachers commonly reported feeling
inspired, satised or enthusiastic. “Observing other
teachers” was considered a highly positive activity,
while being observed or attending conferences
were commonly associated with both positive and
negative emotions. The top three emotions teachers
typically associated with activities relating to
various sources of efcacy are listed below:
• After self-reection, teachers felt 1.satised (2.
enthusiastic, 3. inspired).
• After working with colleagues, teachers felt 1.
inspired (2. satised, 3. enthusiastic).
• After being observed, teachers felt 1.satised (2.
enthusiastic, 3. worried).
• After observing teachers, teachers felt 1.inspired
(2. satised, 3. enthusiastic).
• After leaving a conference, teachers felt
1. inspired (2. enthusiastic, 3. overwhelmed).
Sources and outcomes: In the focus group
conversations (Phase I), teachers offered insights
into what professional learning outcomes
(improvements) they sought, or what they gained
or hoped to gain, by participating in particular
activities. These professional learning outcomes
have been further sorted into the following themes
with correlating sources of efcacy suggested in
parentheses:
Process (via mastery and vicarious sources)—receive
help that makes teaching more efcient.
• To save time and energy
• To codevelop an accessible shared bank of
resources, units and assessments
• To co-create and align curriculum content—cross
grade/division/subject (together, instead of
trying to gure it out alone)
Content (via mastery, vicarious and affective
sources)—learn content knowledge
• To learn new classroom management
techniques/pedagogical strategies (differentiated
instruction, coaching, problem-based learning)
• To learn or deepen subject area/content by
working with experts or studying/attending
workshops
• To learn new specic skills—technology how-to
(eg, how to use technology in class or how to
work with autistic students)
• To learn more about/collaborate (ie, team
teaching) on specialized support strategies (ie,
students at risk)
Connection (via verbal, affective and vicarious
sources)—feel safe and reassured
• To feel connected to other teachers (less isolated)
• To get encouragement and affective support (feel
safe)
• To be reassured and receive afrmation that
they are doing “things” correctly (assessment and
technology were two key items)
• To feel that they are valued and have a sense of
belonging to a positive culture (family/team) in
the schools
48 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Chapter Five
Discussion
The main purpose of this chapter is to show how
the study’s ndings match the conclusions we
draw. Here we attempt to contextualize the research
and generalize its ndings from the narrow, specic
focus to a more general view of the research.
5.1 Teacher Efficacy and
Collaboration
Overall, this project supports the call for teacher
efcacy research to move from theory to practice.
Researchers have paid considerably more attention
to teachers’ self-efcacy over collective efcacy.
In fact, Klassen et al (2011) revealed no studies
exploring teachers’ collective beliefs over time
and almost no research examining how collective
efcacy beliefs are formed in school settings.
Although much professional learning is geared
towards the up-skilling of individual teachers, our
research found that successful professional learning
builds a collaborative culture that fosters collective
efcacy. Understanding the importance of collective
efcacy is essential when planning for professional
learning, since a more collaborative professional
practice improves student learning (Hargreaves
and Fullan 2012). Yet enhancing collective efcacy
through professional learning remains a challenge
as teachers commonly express feelings of isolation,
despite working within rich and interactive social
contexts. Many teachers considered the efcacy
source of verbal persuasion—such as feedback
exchanged within a collaborative partnership—as
a powerful inuence on collective efcacy and
one that emerges from the relationship between
professional learning and school climate (OECD
2013).
Collaboration was a powerful theme running
through the participating teachers’ responses—
accounting for the greatest inuence on self-
efcacy, collective efcacy and an important
component in all four sources of efcacy.
According to Hargreaves and Fullan (2012), “good
teaching is a collective accomplishment and
responsibility” (p 14) and “a more collaborative
and collegial profession improves student learning
and achievement” (preface). The importance of
collaboration specic to teachers’ professional
learning continues to draw attention in
contemporary research (eg, American Sociological
Association 2013), providing further support for the
importance of our study and research ndings.
One theme that emerged from the research was
that teacher efcacy was fostered by professional
learning that allows teachers time to meet and
talk, and spaces that promote conversation and
collaboration. Principals are key to making this
happen in schools and a principal’s work must
support collaboration (Parsons and Beauchamp
2011). This work includes building clear cultural
norms that help develop teaching and learning
cultures and nding times for collaborative teacher
professional learning in the school’s schedule.
Our research (Parsons and Beauchamp 2011)
found the following characteristics act to promote
collaborative teacher professional learning.
• Teachers must have strong communication
structures. Although principals help create these
structures, teachers must engage them.
• Teachers must feel empowered to act upon their
beliefs. Teachers who hold positive attitudes and
Final Report Research and Findings 49
motivational beliefs (ie, efcacy) toward school,
students and reform engage in continuous
collective inquiry and avoid cynicism.
Teachers who focus on improvement as they
work together share a sense of purpose, engage
in collegial relationships and share in school-
based decision-making.
Caring relationships between students, teachers,
staff and parents must be promoted. However,
teachers and principals do not carry the burden
for teacher professional learning alone. Students
must actively embrace the community. Students
are engaged best through “conversational
pedagogies,” which include assessment for
learning, problem-based pedagogy, etc. (Parsons
2012).
• Teachers increase their own professional learning
by collaborating in action research and school
improvement. Professional learning best occurs
when teachers are (1) collaborative; (2) focused
on teachers supporting their own learning;
(3) sustaining relationships; (4) engaged in
decentralized and distributed leadership; and (5)
involved in ongoing inquiry and reection about
curriculum, pedagogy, school climate, politics,
community, etc. (Parsons and Beauchamp 2011).
Collaborative professional learning should
begin with teachers’ self-identied needs. As
teachers share their needs and formulate ideas
with colleagues about how these needs might be
addressed, they come to own their own teaching
and learning. They begin to advance ideas about
how to benet their students and communities. As
Jalongo (1991) long ago told us, teachers institute
collaborative teacher professional learning by
developing mutual trust and respect, engaging
ideas and values, assuming responsibility for their
own actions, freely exploring alternatives, creating
and innovating; and teachers learn by interacting
with colleagues.
Collaborative professional learning is not complex
in practice or philosophy but is both harder and
easier than it appears. There is little novel about
good collaborative teacher professional learning.
But does collaborative teacher professional
learning always work? No (DuFour 2004). Fullan
(2001) offers reasons why it won’t: teacher and
administration overload, teacher isolation, group
think, narrow perceptions of teachers’ roles, a
lack of vision and an understandably cynical
history of failed or constantly morphing reforms.
As a result, there are barriers such as individual
and school resistance to change, impatience that
focuses on immediate results rather than engaging
in process, top-down initiatives, all of which
undermine teacher ownership, and a lack of time
and money. For teachers, collaborative professional
learning can be easy because as soon as teachers
commit, it works. However, it can also be difcult
because the hegemony of teaching isolation breeds
cynicism easier than collaboration. Furthermore,
without good models for engaging collaborative
professional learning, few recipes exist. The “sit-
down, shut-up, write-notes” professional metaphor
is alien to collaborative teacher professional
learning. We recommend encouraging collaborative
professional learning using collectively dened
school goals to create shared vision. Schools can
merge collaborative professional learning with
traditional professional development while creating
space where teachers converse openly about their
work. Permutations exist within and across schools,
districts, grade levels and subject areas. Overall,
collaborative professional learning must be ongoing
and transparent as it quietly works to further
professionalize teachers.
Teacher collaboration builds on the hope that
teaching and learning can improve and that
teachers can become agents of that improvement.
As Sergiovanni (2004) notes, placing hope at the
core of collaborative professional learning provides
encouragement, promotes clear thinking and
informed action, and gives teachers insight to
promote learning and solve educational problems.
The test of collaborative professional learning
is not collegiality per se; it is how collaborative
relationships advance student and teacher learning.
Perhaps the biggest success of collaborative teacher
professional learning is changed school cultures
(also Parsons & Beauchamp 2011); and the biggest
cultural change is eradicating teacher isolation.
Collaborative teacher professional learning
50 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
means teachers are no longer lonely, but it also
means teachers give up autonomy, a fear only
relationships can overcome.
Mentoring is one form of collaborative professional
learning that is highlighted in the research (eg,
Minneapolis Public Schools 2011) through three
rationales:
• Because teaching is complex, it often takes years
to learn to teach knowledgeably and skillfully.
Mentoring can support teachers through the
early months and years of practice.
• Mentors assume roles of protective companions
for new teachers, who are often placed with
difcult students, subjects and environments.
• A mentor helps new teachers develop 21st
century teaching skills for students needing 21st
century learning and knowledge.
For more advanced teachers, mentoring can
encourage new learning, exploring, applying
and analyzing the effectiveness of new models
for teaching and learning and is often reported
as effectively re-engaging teachers in learning
and teaching. Required competencies and areas
for growth can also be addressed through peer
coaching that includes reection, using student
data to create appropriate lessons, attending to
classroom organization and management and
exploring aspects of the curriculum and how to
teach new material.
Best practice in mentoring takes the form of specic
differentiation of guided practice and assistance
to teachers in a job-embedded context, based on a
thorough assessment of the teacher’s strengths and
needs. The goal is to help teachers engage in effective
practices that encourage growth in student learning.
The need for mentoring varies as a function of a
teacher’s background, experience and knowledge.
Mentors may be assigned to teachers who have
decades of experience in one subject area, but who
are now teaching a new curriculumn or a new
course, or who are implementing a new pedagogical
approach. Regardless of experience, background
or education or skills, research consistently
conrms that mentors help teachers master basic
competencies, deepen their understanding of
teaching and learning, use curriculum resources
efciently and employ effective instructional
strategies.
Instructional coaches create another form
of collaboration. The primary purpose of an
instructional coach is to help teachers deepen their
understanding of content, engage in research-
informed learning, practice new instructional
strategies and gain facility with assessments
that monitor student learning. Instructional
coaching helps teachers build capacity for effective
instructional practices within content areas.
Recent research (eg, Wei, Darling-Hammond and
Adamson 2010) reported a positive impact on
student achievement when literacy coaching was
effectively implemented. This is evidenced in the
focus group data as well. The report noted that,
when literacy coaches receive rigorous training in
theory and content of literacy learning and provide
extensive school-based professional learning and
individual coaching, there is a positive effect on
student learning. Coaching models should be
school-based, sustained over time and part of a
coherent school reform model (Wei et al 2010).
The success of coaching programs depends upon
making smart choices about how coaches are used.
Coaches can fulll many roles, and it is important
to clarify what is expected of a coach. Coaches can
become: (1) resource providers, (2) action research
mentors, (3) instructional specialists, (4) curriculum
specialists, (5) pedagogy supporters, (6) learning
facilitators, (7) mentors, (8) change agents and (9)
teachers of new skills and knowledge.
A collaborative climate was also reportedly fostered
through Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)
and other collaborative learning groups focused on
curricular or instructional change. In addition to the
emerging research about coaching as an effective
professional learning model, Wei et al (2010) cited
empirical evidence of the effectiveness of PLCs with
regard to increasing student achievement. Teaching
knowledge is shaped and new skills implemented
as teachers plan units of instruction together,
examine student work to nd ways to improve it,
observe each other teach, consider instructional or
Final Report Research and Findings 51
curricular changes and plan improvements based
on various cocollected data. The effectiveness
of this slightly more formal and focused level of
collaboration can work in teams, departments and
grade-level compositions of teacher collaborations.
The following key suggestions can help ensure that
these collaborative teams work:
• Encouraging teachers to make data-informed
decisions improves their work. Allowing
teachers to control the data they use to assess
which students are succeeding or struggling
helps inform professional decisions and progress
and pedagogy. Such data includes student
work, standardized assessments, formative
assessments and teachers’ insights. Collectively
measuring what matters helps teachers know
when they are making a difference in student
learning. Such decisions are not one-offs.
Teachers must continually converse about
students’ learning as a way to inform practice.
Beginning by examining present conditions, then
continually conversing together about student
learning with judgment, but without blame,
helps plan the work of school-based professional
learning teams.
• Focusing on instruction is a key for improving
student learning. An emerging research
consensus suggests that professional
development has high impact when it focuses
directly on instructional content and materials.
One solid approach asks teachers who are
building and working with the same curriculum
to work collaboratively to study what is working
and what needs adjustment based on a variety
of data derived from student work. Discussion
should focus on instruction that works.
• Follow-up for instructional changes decided
on in professional learning teams is critical.
Shared practice involves corporately reviewing
teacher actions and includes feedback
and assistance to support individual and
community improvement. Shared practice can
be accomplished by building conversational
communities where colleagues are not
geographically tethered to individual classrooms
and can move freely to observe each other
working on specic practices. Follow-up
includes collegial, participant consideration
about new learning, application and potential
ways to improve teaching and learning, and to
better assess the impact of teaching upon student
learning.
Collaboration was an especially powerful tool
contributing to teachers’ collective efcacy, and our
report underscores the importance of building a
sense of collective efcacy through whole-school
collaborative activities. Our ndings of mid-
career teachers’ high efcacy corroborate previous
research (eg, Klassen and Chiu 2010, 2011) and
provide support for Hargreaves and Fullan’s
(2012) call for a systemic focus on capable and
committed “dream teachers” of midcareer. Like
Hargreaves and Fullan, we recommend a focus
on the professional capital of midcareer teachers
(ie, help support and sustain their professional
development) since the extremes (novice and
late-career) will also benet from sustainable
momentum in the midcareer years.
Efcacy is not only impacted across teachers’
careers, but there is growing evidence that teachers
experience—both individually and collectively—a
decrease in efcacy at certain times of the year. Day
and Gu (2010) in their book The New Lives of Teachers
refer to these high and low points in a teachers’
year as “peaks and troughs” (p 52). A current
study being conducted by the Alberta Teachers’
Association took Day and Gu’s methods to look at
the highs and lows in a single year. These periods
of waning efcacy and increased workload are
consistently higher between January and June, with
the lowest points being near the end of the school
year. It is quite evident that this phenomenon has
had some impact on our results, as we did see a
decline between January and June data collection
points, but also in the number of participants
completing surveys and the tone of their comments
or the shift in their priorities. For example, the issue
of “needing time” for professional learning rose
considerably throughout the year (see Table 6).
Engaging teachers in teams that work together
over time was reported to improve teaching and
learning—support for previously cited research
52 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
(OECD 2013). Trust among all professionals is
important for collaboration. Collaborative groups
work best when autonomy and accountability work
together. We have found that teachers who feel they
are part of a team focused on making meaningful
changes work well together. That said, over
25 per cent of teachers (in focus groups) noted that
forced collaboration does not work.
Although the majority of collaboration-
related comments made by teachers (on Phase
II questionnaires) were indicative of positive
inuence (as evident in our results section), some
noted ineffective collaboration: Unfortunately, in our
school it is every person for themselves. Collaboration
is not done efciently or effectively and has not been led
to be that way the past 5 years I have been in the school.
It is an area sadly lacking in a small rural school. This
comment highlights the long-standing issue of
teacher isolation.
Dan Lortie’s seminal Schoolteacher (1975) described
teacher isolation as a crucial, structural roadblock
to improving student learning in American (and
we believe Canadian) schools. Lortie wrote that, for
almost 200 years, teachers had worked alone and
behind closed doors, seldom collaborating with
colleagues about how their work might improve
student learning. Teachers, Lortie noted, spent
their days in isolation, working as single cells,
construing their work as self-sufcient and, we
might add, heroic. If we are correct, such “heroic”
teacher self-identications t Joseph Campbell’s
(1973) monomythical hero’s journey, which we
sometimes believe has become a pattern of
teachers’ self-narratives. In Campbell’s theorizing,
the hero ventures forth to engage difcult forces
towards seeking decisive victory. We believe such
culturally embedded isolation has a huge impact
on teacher culture, even past its debilitating
effect on preventing student learning because
professionals do not work together to share their
craft knowledge. Lortie (1975, 61) explicates a
concept he calls “apprenticeship by observation,”
which suggests that any young person who
sits in classrooms from K–12 has already been
enculturated into the world of teaching. Should
they wish to become teachers themselves, they
carry this culture into their professional practice,
creating a cycle of isolation from which it is difcult
to build professional communities of practice.
A decade later, Goodlad’s (1983) powerful study
of schooling discovered that in most schools,
teachers working in isolation were not encouraged
to discuss curriculum and were even discouraged
from discussing it. Tye and Tye (1984) also found
that teachers lacked connections and often worked
in self-contained environments. Obviously, teachers
who work in isolation cannot take advantage of
potential collaborative support they might receive
from other professionals. Stacy (2013) theorized
that teachers sometimes feel they will lose their
autonomy if they collaborate with other teachers
to create common lessons and assessments
and selshly do not want other teachers to use
“their stuff.” Such a proprietary culture, she
believes, creates competition, which weakens the
professional collective voice teachers might have.
Furthermore, because collaboration is not part of
teaching culture and is new to teachers, we believe
teachers have not developed a collaboration-
related language. In addition, because collaboration
represents change which might be seen to disrupt
both teachers’ regular practice and culture, it
might become a challenge for school leaders to
manage or encourage collaboration. Thus, in our
study, even though the majority of teachers believe
working with colleagues represents their best
professional learning, they resist what they might
see as “forced” collaboration. We see these probable
ironies as representative of being new to engaging
collaboration across schools and school divisions.
In other words, we all believe collaboration is
helpful and important but are not yet sure how to
engage in it practically.
Our discussion here potentially addresses what we
saw as data differences between Year One Phase I
and Phase II results. Thus our data collection was
more than simple data collection; it impacted and
was an occasion and a site for increasing teacher
thinking and learning. By Year Two, because we
engaged our study’s participants in discussions that
emphasized and built upon their ideas about the
Final Report Research and Findings 53
importance of teacher collaboration, our research
became a part of these teachers’ professional
learning. Because our research responded to what
we were detecting in the data, we also came to use
our teachers’ language/labels instead of deferring
to Joyce and Calhoun’s (2010) labels. This “action
research” part of our study might have indeed
impacted how our teacher participants came to
understand their own work more deeply. Further
research that studies the change in teachers’
language around collaboration might hold
important possibilities to explore how teaching
language and culture changes. Similar to those who
have theorized about the links between language
and culture (Claude Levi-Strauss 1966; McLuhan
1967; Ong 1982), we see language and culture as
inexorably linked.
5.2 Essential Conditions
In addition to an unwavering commitment to
student learning consistently expressed and
referenced in teachers’ work, our participants
highlighted several characteristics that help
professional learning groups gain success. Our
study found correlations between key components
of effective collaboration revealed through our
analyses and the seven key components itemized
in A Guide to Support Implementation: Essential
Conditions (Alberta’s Education Partners 2010):
shared understandings, shared leadership, research
and evidence, teacher professional growth, time and
community engagement.
Principals are charged with the task of sharing
leadership to build trust and community while
creating environments of conversation about
what teaching and learning requires, and how the
school community can know students are learning.
Community engagement through team building,
although valued more by some than others, is a
key to building successful collaborative cultures
within schools. Some teachers reported that they
value team-building activities to get to know each
other or to bring new teachers into the school.
Relationship development, community building
and faith days (an element of Catholic schools)
were reported as valuable and important ways to
establish the trust and rapport required for teachers
to learn how to collaborate and work together on
more focused or formal projects. But we need to
ensure teachers also have informal opportunities
to communicate and create shared understandings
about their ongoing work, ideas, struggles and
learning successes. For example, descriptions
of why professional learning was important
included comments from teachers who wanted
to ensure they “were on the right track…same track
as others…same page…all had the same info…are all
speaking same language… stayed in the loop.” Shared
understandings can help make schools smarter,
more collegial and more accountable.
Similarly, in their summary of six years of AISI
supported collaborative work, Parsons, McRae
and Taylor (2006) also learned that focusing on
action research has been a powerful inuence on
teachers’ efcacy because it focuses upon three
teacher motivators: community (working together),
agency (believing that one can make a difference
in student learning), and service (knowing that the
work improves students’ and other teachers’ lives).
Teachers who engage in action research (starting
with a problem and working together to solve that
problem) take charge of situations that encourage
growth. Action research also provides continual,
accountable and professional work towards
shared goals. Through this study’s focus group
descriptions of special projects we learned that a
research and evidence-based approach served
schools and teachers well.
The concept of needing time or having and valuing
“dedicated time to collaborate” became more
prevalent over the span of the two-year study. This
is a difcult factor to measure in isolation as it was
embedded or alluded to in so many of the comments
on other professional learning models. Time
emerging as a prevalent theme was not surprising,
given that time and space to think was indicated
as a considerably more important reason (via
questionnaires) for Year Two teachers than what was
originally proposed by Year One teachers. Perhaps
the discussions that took place through focus groups
emphasized the greater importance of time in a
teacher’s professional learning growth plan.
54 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Our ndings afrm that “[t]eacher knowledge,
skills and attributes are enhanced through ongoing
professional learning” (Alberta’s Education
Partners 2010, p 7), particularly when professional
learning is teacher-initiated and aligned with a
larger shared vision of enhancing student learning.
Throughout the thousands of responses to
questionnaires, surveys and focus group inquiries
over the two-year study, it was made absolutely
clear that teachers seek and value multiple forms
of professional growth. Overall, instructional
strategies were the most commonly cited focus of
teachers’ professional growth plans (during Phase
II), so it wasn’t surprising when they also reported
that learning more about how to teach more effectively
was the most important reason for professional
learning.
5.3 Models of Professional
Learning
Joyce and Calhoun (2010) provided a framework
for us to better understand teachers’ professional
learning using ve models: models that support
individuals, collaborative personal/professional
direct service models, collaborative and cooperative
models, models designed to achieve curricular and
instructional change, and traditional workshop
models. They also considered traditional professional
development as only one component of professional
learning and stated that any comprehensive system
should include a wide range of opportunities
and resources to help teachers grow. Suggested
opportunities included individual inquiry, action
research, collaborative learning teams, professional
learning communities, curriculum and instructional
initiatives, workshops with quality training
elements, mentoring, coaching programs and access
to data collection and analysis tools.
In this report, we noted a number of strong
correlations between themes found in the data and
those outlined by Joyce and Calhoun (2010). For
example, often individual teachers commented
that a combination of three or more types of
professional learning was ideal, and that teachers
needed to be able to pick and choose their strategies
depending on their current learning goals or
needs, their years of teaching experience, and their
learning styles or preferences. One area that was
not specically covered by Joyce and Calhoun
but that was strongly evident in the focus group
ndings was the collaborative work of sharing
resources and developing inventories of test banks,
learning materials, resources or units in various
subjects. This was one of the most valued forms
of collaborative professional learning and an
important purpose for collaborating with peers. We
placed this type of cooperative “sharing the load”
work under Joyce and Calhoun’s “collaborative
and cooperative models.”
Based on our ndings, we propose three personal/
professional goal areas for teachers and for schools
to consider: process, content and connection. This set
of three is similar to the ndings from the student
engagement work of Willms, Friesen and Milton
(2009), where students were found to be engaged in
one aspect of learning (eg, socially) but not thriving
in another, leading researchers to re-examine what
is actually meant by engagement. Similarly, teachers
may be experiencing condence in teaching their
subject area (content) but feeling alienated or
disconnected from their colleagues or the school’s
larger initiatives (connection). The data suggests
that perhaps a balance of all three is essential to
developing a teacher’s sense of self- and collective
efcacy.
Teacher engagement is multi-faceted, with
dimensions of cognitive, emotional and social
engagement salient to teachers’ overall feelings
of being fully engaged in schools. Two core
dimensions, energy and involvement, characterize
engagement for teachers, but the level of
engagement may vary by dimension. For example,
teachers may feel cognitively and emotionally
engaged with their students, but less engaged
socially with colleagues. A recent validation study
of a new engagement scale found that teachers’
social engagement could be reliably split into
colleague and student factors (Klassen, Yerdelen
and Durksen 2013), with both related to overall
teacher engagement and both associated with
higher levels of self-efcacy. The ndings from this
Final Report Research and Findings 55
study suggest that engagement with colleagues,
that is collaboration, is a key factor inuencing
collective efcacy in schools.
Our ndings suggest there are, in fact, different
types and/or levels of engagement and efcacy
among teachers when it comes to professional
learning. Could a teacher be strong and condent
in one and not another? Are these levels mutually
exclusive, or must all be present for job success
and satisfaction? As we reviewed the categories of
professional learning and the teachers’ wording of
what they wrote, we had the sense that teachers
see professional learning as something they “get”
rather than something they could and should
contribute. Specically, there is a sense that teachers
“get stuff” from professional learning but the
teachers in our study who had experienced leading
professional learning recognized the learning
and growth that comes from giving, sharing
or contributing to others’ professional learning
through various forms. Nonetheless, there remains
an “I go to get stuff” mentality. Future research
would benet from including the act of leading
professional learning as an invaluable activity that
can promote teachers’ professional growth.
5.4 Practical Implications
Drawing conclusions and implications is an
important part of any research report. Although
the data was rich and diverse in this research, some
core conclusions and implications consistently
surfaced. We will attempt to make sense of what
our ndings suggest in terms of applications for
practice. As Parsons and Beauchamp (2011) have
noted, applied research addresses questions of (1)
What? (2) So what? and (3) Now what? In this section,
we will attempt to address these last two questions.
As researchers, we attempt to inform readers about
how our ndings reect teachers’ perspectives on
professional learning and efcacy. In this section,
we highlight a number of key ndings that emerged
from our research and draw attention to the patterns
which might inform future practice.
When considering the practical implications of
teacher professional learning and teacher efcacy
for schools, we believe Alberta’s school leaders
have the ability to promote structures and processes
in the professional growth of teachers and are
capable of developing and nurturing teachers’
self- and collective efcacy (Woolfolk Hoy 2012). In
fact, our research suggests that these two activities,
(1) teachers increasing their own or their collective
professional learning and (2) teachers’ growth in
personal and collective efcacy, go hand-in-hand.
For example, Parsons (2013) found that conducting
action research encouraged several aspects of
growth in teacher efcacy (increased condence
and courage, changed and expanded self-
denitions, improved literacy and the ability to see
and engage school-based research opportunities).
In addition, McDonald (as cited in Woolfolk Hoy
2012, 99–100) encourages school administrators
and leadership teams to reect on a number of
questions, such as:
• Are we really aware of the link between teacher
efcacy and student learning?
• What feedback are teachers given about their
competence in the classroom and
within the school teaching staff?
• Do teachers in your school engage in informal
professional conversations about
their own learning, their teaching success and
failures, their own sense of their
ability to encourage students to learn and shine?
• When teachers gather for meetings, are they
opportunities to learn, or are they
sessions for administration? When schools provide
opportunities for teachers
to learn, reect and share, teacher efcacy is
enhanced.
Likewise, teachers may reect on questions like:
Am I aware of the link between teacher efcacy and
student learning?
• What steps do I take to share my learning with
other teachers?
• What steps do I take to put new skills and learning
into action in my classroom?
• What feedback am I given about my own
competence?
56 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Collaboration was an overarching theme
throughout our study. If we can collectively—
perhaps collaboratively—address and answer
these questions, we can go a long way as a
community of practice to professionalize our own
learning and our abilities to promote student
learning, which we believe should be the goal
of both teachers’ collaborative work and our
own work as researchers. Teachers believed their
best professional learning was gained through
collaboration with colleagues. As well, they
believed collaborative professional learning models
had the most impact on their own (as teachers)
self- and collective efcacy. Teachers supported
collaboration as a form of professional learning but
did not express appreciation for what they called
“forced collaboration.” Because teachers told us
that indeed, one size does not t all, we conclude
that some form of “choice” should be provided
for the professional collaborations teachers engage
in or are attending. A key factor is ensuring that
professional learning events are meeting the needs
of the teachers and their students, and we can only
know this by asking the teachers themselves.
Our ndings “animated” the previous work of
Joyce and Calhoun. It put meat on the bones of
their theoretical work. There are two ways to
consider the changes we suggest in their work
and the expansions we have made. First, similar
to other research, Joyce and Calhoun’s work
was a product of historical context (the time) in
which it was undertaken. Ironically, things both
change quickly in schools and things change
slowly in schools. Joyce and Calhoun’s work was
undertaken during a time when collaboration of
all sorts was not nearly as established as it is today.
Pedagogies of collaboration (what Parsons (2012)
calls “conversational pedagogies”) that include
assessment for learning and project-based teaching
are more established today in classrooms than they
were when Joyce and Calhoun began their work.
As a result, their work would not have been privy
to such increased insights. Second, our assessment
of Joyce and Calhoun’s work is that it drew from
the literature and not from spending time engaging
in the lives of working teachers. Because their work
was done at a distance from teachers, they produced
a skeleton rather than a living representation of
how classroom teachers actually work. Through the
voices of teachers, we now have a clearer and fuller
picture of their experiences and learning needs.
We are able to differentiate between the various
types of collaborative professional learning and the
different purposes for each.
Teachers in our study noted the power of
relationships in their work. Positive collegial and
collaborative relationships support teachers’ sense
of self-efcacy and collective efcacy. Although
the development of collegial relationships and
collaborations are difcult due to the challenges
of time, isolation, workload and differing learning
needs or subject areas, our ndings show that
teachers who felt more connected to their peers
(and students) felt more effective in addressing
curricular, pedagogical and technological
challenges or changes. As noted, the emergence
of “conversational pedagogies” (assessment
for learning, project-based and problem-based
teaching: Parsons 2012) is changing how teachers
work and the nature of relationships between
teachers and students. No longer are teachers in
front of students “teaching”; more frequently we
see teachers beside students “guiding” them or,
in some cases, “learning with them.” Our work
might be on the cutting edge of the curricular and
pedagogical changes that would tend to favour
such interactive and engaged work—both for
students and for teachers.
But what do our ndings mean for supporting
or changing traditional methods for teachers’
professional learning? What might professional
learning look like in the future if we were to take
our ndings seriously? We propose the following as
we embark on this paradigm shift:
• Choice of professional learning activities
• Teachers’ conventions where teachers are
brought together to collaborate instead of (or as
well as) taking in new theories
• Local and provincial teacher collaborations
offered regularly
• Teachers encouraged to engage the “So what?”
and “Now what?” questions of implementation
Final Report Research and Findings 57
together as opposed to just learning theories
and then being left to independently attempt
implementation
• Increased encouragement for teachers to see
their work within the realm of “action research”
and to systematically engage action research
processes as a way to engage their own work and
to share their work with other teachers, schools
and divisions also interested in similar issues
Our ndings suggest that various models of
professional learning may be more or less relevant
depending on a teacher’s professional life phase.
Career stage inuences the impact of professional
learning on efcacy; for example, new teachers
were more likely to report increased self- and
collective efcacy as a direct result of professional
learning. Teachers who have been immersed in the
traditional models of more isolated professional
development activities for many years have a
difcult time learning how to engage their peers.
We have no doubt, however, that these same
teachers might have immense knowledge and
contributions to make to the collective efcacy of
their colleagues and their schools once they learn
how to collaborate or mentor others. We believe
that the language of and for teacher collaboration is
only beginning. We also believe that most teachers
are primed to engage it. Finally, we believe a new
literacy of empowerment for teachers is both
possible and likely. We are seeing a paradigm shift
in how teachers work.
Two key messages were repeated throughout the
ndings: One size does not t all and collaboration
is foundational to sourcing the professional learning
that may best meet one’s needs. Our ndings suggest
that no single model is the best model. A uidity
or blending of models is needed depending on
a teacher’s needs, career stage, the nature of the
classroom of students, the school subject, the
task at hand and many more factors. Although
teachers share common goals, our data shows that,
for example, elementary teachers have different
learning goals than high school teachers. Often
high school teachers are considered specialists,
while elementary teachers are not; however, it is
more accurate to say that the focus of specialization
differs at each level. The broader issue is that
developing these cultures of collaboration
challenges independent teacher autonomy. Teachers
do not yet know how to balance the need for both
autonomy and collaboration. Perhaps teachers can
benet from learning more about how to develop
collaborative learning cultures before they reach the
classrooms
Given what teachers have told us about the
foundations of their best professional learning,
we offer the following ve suggestions about how
these insights might be addressed.
1. Engage Teachers in Action Research
Our ndings suggest that teachers wish to
engage in collaborative activities. We believe
these activities lend themselves to being
circumscribed generally into an “action research”
agenda. Our belief is that the “actions” of action
research embody the layers of engagement that
inservice teachers have suggested embrace
their professional needs and desires because
action research is focused on teacher learning;
it is collaborative, it is local and it provides
professional choice. We suggest encouraging
inservice teachers to engage in the site-based,
problem-solving activities of action research,
where they might experience action research
processes, ethics and methods. Such action
research experiences can help teachers focus on
the kinds of specic and relevant issues they are
challenged to address as they work in their own
classrooms.
2. Engage Teachers in Collaborative Work
Teachers are working together to explain ideas
and trying to agree on a problem’s root causes,
determine a plan of action, agree on resources
and task responsibilities, inspire colleagues, take
learning risks, negotiate different personalities,
build peer capacities, and overcome barriers or
unforeseen complications. All such collaboration
matches the work taking place in successful
schools. Much of this work reects the core
beliefs and philosophies of a school’s teachers
and its culture. These activities can explicate the
processes of translating teaching philosophies
58 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
(such as the power of collaboration) into
actual classroom activities. Teachers often
build pedagogies upon the experiences of
their workplace. If we want classrooms to be
more collaborative, innovative and creative
spaces where student critical thinking and
thoughtful reection are the norm, then
teachers must learn to practice collaboratively
in creative spaces where innovation, critical
thinking and thoughtful reection are the norm,
encouraged by school leaders and modeled by
peers. Collaborative work should become an
expectation.
3. Engage Teachers in Real Classroom
Issues
Our research found that, as teachers came to
share leadership within their own school, they
were both able to solve real, site-based issues
and concomitantly empower their own agency—
ergo, their individual and collective efcacy
increased—school leadership broadened; the
school population came to share “ownership”
of shared space and community building and
collaboration ensued. Because we took what
teachers told us at face value—that collaboration
worked well—we came to believe teachers
should spend more time working together to
solve real classroom issues and should do this
work transparently. For example, we believe it is
possible to allow teachers to become part of the
school planning, to openly discuss issues about
instruction and assessment and to help other
teachers discuss issues that matter to them from
their perspectives as teachers. We believe schools
might become a space where teachers work
with peers to think openly about all aspects of
teaching, including the goals and assignments of
their work. We believe such local school activities
will support the sorts of collaboration teachers in
our study requested.
4. Engage Teachers in Engaging Teams of
Diversity
We believe it is possible for teachers to increase
their individual skills and interests. For example,
the celebration and engagement of diversity
suggests how teachers might increase the
effectiveness of collaboration when building
on colleagues’ knowledge and skills. Since not
all teachers have or need similar skills, teacher
collaboration might encourage teachers to be
more “at home” with their own unique abilities
through opportunities to employ these diverse
skills within the classroom. Such diversity
might mean allowing differentiated teamwork
and, as teachers in our study have suggested,
increased choice. As teachers learn to accept and
practice their own diverse skills, we believe they
gain insight into how to accept their students’
differences. How to engage these issues of
diversity can also become part of number 3,
where the entire community comes to work
together to solve real issues.
5. Engage Teachers in Building Culture
Finally, we believe it is possible to create
opportunities where teachers actively discuss
the kinds of cultures they hope to build in their
classrooms and schools and to consider practical
ways those cultures might be built. Formal
invitations to openly discuss how teachers will
relate to their community in an age of social
networking would work towards increased
collaboration. Our past and present research
experience suggests that these activities can
and should become explicit choices available to
teachers in their work. Such learning can become
essential and foundational for a teacher’s career.
During this research, our denition of teacher
professional learning evolved. We began this study
using ve models of professional learning that
consisted of a wide variety of formal and informal
opportunities for teachers to enhance teaching
practice. As we conclude our research, we have
come to accept the power of teacher professional
learning. While we have not dismissed the long-
used phrase teacher professional development, we
wish to use our research ndings to redene the
concept of professional development. Our research
suggests that teachers seek more agency and
efcacy in their work. They have come to see and
accept their own professional learning as a set of
Final Report Research and Findings 59
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
collaborative professional learning activities to
build collective (school-level) efcacy.
• Tailor professional learning to different cohorts
(eg, teaching stage). For example, beginning
teachers and experienced teachers have different
professional learning needs; single-subject–
area teachers (eg, second language) desire
collaboration with other single-subject–area
teachers.
• Invite teachers to collaboratively outline the
professional learning they need to become better
teachers and work to specically connect these to
instructional strategies that better meet student
needs/student learning.
• Build opportunities for professional
development/professional learning around
sharing curriculum ideas and best practices,
co-creating and sharing learning and teaching
resources and learning new teaching strategies.
reciprocal forces pushing the locus of control upon
teachers as political actors responsible for their own
learning and capable of changing teaching practice
from the grassroots. Philosophically, teacher
professional learning centers on teaching student
learning, focuses on using feedback from formative
assessment as a way to improve professional
learning, deepens teacher “craft knowledge,”
and allows teachers to act wisely and creatively
within classrooms as needs arise. Finally, a goal of
teacher professional learning is shared practice as
(a) teachers come to believe they have contextual
knowledge and practice that can be shared, and (b)
teachers come to communicate among themselves
and with students, parents and their widening
community.
As we reviewed what the ndings of our research
might mean in an applied way, one ringing theme
was that teachers need ALL types of professional
learning to be most effective, and they wish to have
choices about types of professional learning they
engage with at different stages of their careers.
Teachers told us they appreciated professional
learning that was timely and relevant to their
needs as teachers to prepare to meet the diverse
needs of their students while adapting to changing
curricular expectations. They strongly desired
more professional learning but believed choice and
multiple, collaborative forms t their needs. This
nding, we believe, could be met following some of
the suggestions laid out above.
It appears that teachers would benet from
proactive leadership in the types of professional
learning in which they engage and how
opportunities materialize. This nding calls for
teachers to be more active in the setting out and
provision of professional learning activities for
their peers and for themselves. We believe teachers
should be engaged in the collective setting of their
own professional learning. Therefore, we conclude
with the following recommendations:
• Provide autonomy and choice to teachers in
professional learning activities to boost teaching
self-efcacy.
• Explicitly provide time and space for
60 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Glossary
Collective efcacy beliefs reect teachers’
perceptions of school-level attributes, that is,
judgments of the capabilities of the staff or school
to which they belong. Research has shown that
teachers’ collective efcacy is related to student
achievement and academic climate, even after
controlling for prior student achievement and
demographic characteristics, such as socioeconomic
status.
Communities of Practice (eg, professional learning
communities) refers to groups of people who share
goals, ideas, information, experiences and resources
to address common interests. Within schools, we
believe teachers form a community whose informal
membership, relationships and interactions focus
on the shared goal of student learning. Within their
community of practice, teachers gain identity and
focus; common ways of working, knowledge, and
expertise and shared values that include a desire
to learn so as to contribute to existing teaching
knowledge and practice.
Sources of teacher efcacy Bandura (1997)
suggests that teacher and collective efcacy
are formed through the same sources: enactive
experience (prior knowledge and mastery
experiences), verbal persuasion (persuasory
feedback framed as gains), vicarious
experience (competent and coping models) and
interpretation of physiological and affective
states (source and level of activation). We have
begun to investigate the links between different
modalities of teachers’ professional learning and
the formation of self-efcacy.
Mastery (Enactive) Experiences Teachers’
interpretations of performance successes and
failures affect perceived self-efcacy and can
inuence motivation to engage in professional
development activities. Enactive experiences
can serve as indicators of teaching capabilities
and are considered the most inuential source of
efcacy. Therefore, we asked teachers to respond
to the item: “My satisfaction with my teaching
performance was inuenced the most by…”
Verbal Persuasion
Teachers who are persuaded verbally that they
possess the capabilities to master skills and
strategies for overcoming challenges in the
classroom are more likely to extend and sustain
greater effort than if they dwell on past failures.
Since persuasory efcacy information is often
expressed through the evaluative feedback
given and is more supportive if formed as gains
as opposed to shortfalls, we asked teachers
to respond to the item: “The interpersonal
(eg, feedback/praise) support I have received was
inuenced the most by…”
Vicarious Experiences
Teachers at any career stage may benet greatly
from professional development that involves
competent and credible models. Modeling that
exhibits effective teaching and coping strategies
can boost the efcacy of beginning teachers, but
also the efcacy of experienced teachers if the
models teach them even better ways of doing things.
Therefore, we asked teachers to respond to the
item: “My opportunity to reect upon my own
teaching performance with others was inuenced the
most by…”
Physiological and Affective States
Acknowledging the role of somatic indicators
in teachers’ efcacy is important since positive
affect can raise efcacy beliefs and increase the
likelihood that teachers will choose to engage
in more challenging tasks such as new skill or
Final Report Research and Findings 61
strategy development through professional
learning opportunities. We asked teachers to
respond to the item “The satisfaction with how
I coped with teaching stress was inuenced the
most by… since teachers will rely partly on the
physiological and emotional information when
judging capabilities, especially when coping with
day-to-day teaching activities.
Teacher self-efcacy is strongly associated with
teacher motivation, which in turn inuences
student outcomes. Self-efcacy refers to
individuals’ beliefs about their capabilities to carry
out a particular course of action. Our questionnaires
included teacher self-efcacy items related to the
three commonly measured dimensions: student
engagement, instructional strategies and classroom
management.
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
62 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Appendices
Appendix A
Year Two (Phase II) Questionnaire Items (examples)
Teachers were invited to match each self- and collective
efcacy item with a type of professional learning activity
they felt inuenced their condence the most.
Last year we conducted focus groups with over 200
districts in ve districts. Teachers reported their
teaching practice as being inuenced through ve
types of professional learning activities:
1. Collaboration with other teachers (eg,
professional learning communities, mentorship
or coaching program, informal collaboration
with other teachers)
2. Implementing special projects (eg, informal
grade level, subject area or schoolwide focuses
like “SMART learning”)
3. AISI (eg, focused and formalized school/district
professional learning on a specic topic or
theme)
4. Attending workshops or conferences (eg, full-
or multi-day convention involving multiple
workshops on varied topics)
5. Other (eg, professional reading on own, personal
reection, courses)
Teachers were also invited to consider the top seven
reasons revealed by the Year One focus groups.
Last year, over 200 teachers participated in
focus groups on professional learning across
the province. We asked teachers to identify and
prioritize seven reasons for their participation in
professional learning. These were the results:
#1 (mostimportant) = learning more about how to
teach more effectively;
#2=buildingalearning community(sharing
withcolleagues and social networking)
#3= learning more about children;
#4 = gaining subject area knowledge;
#5 =beinginuenced by a signicant person,
teacheror mentor;
#6 = offering me time and space to think; and
#7 (leastimportant) = learning more about
myself(my strengths as a teacher)
Please consider how you valueeachofthese
reasons for professionallearning and respond to
the following two questions.
1. Do you agree with the prioritization? Why or
why not?
2. Are there other reasons for your professional
learning missing from this list? If yes, what are
they?
Next, teachers were asked to rate how important each
of the seven reasons were for their OWN professional
learning on a seven-point scale from not at all important
to very important.
Final Report Research and Findings 63
Appendix B
Categories of Professional Learning
Preliminary:
Joyce & Calhoun’s Models
Year One:
Research Study Models
Year Two:
Teachers’ Models
Models that support
individuals
Personalized learning (online courses/
professional learning, university courses,
personal classroom research, reading
about instructional strategies, etc)
Other (eg, professional
reading on own, reection
courses)
Collaborative personal/
professional direct
services models
Professional service: helping or receiving
help from others through mentoring and/
or coaching (colleague or student-teacher),
classroom observations, shared decision-
making teams, etc
Collaboration with other
teachers (eg, professional
learning communities,
mentoring or coaching
program, informal
collaboration with other
teachers)
Collaborative and
cooperative models
Professional learning communities: study
groups, shared book clubs, open-ended or
disciplined action research, etc
Models for curricular and
instructional change
Curricular/Instructional/AISI initiatives:
formal workshops (including those
offered by consortia) at your school/
district/region on a specic topic (eg,
school leadership courses, after-school,
part- or full-day workshops
AISI (eg, focused and
formalized school/district
professional learning on a
specic topic or theme)
Implementing special
projects (eg, informal
grade level, subject area,
or schoolwide focus like
“SMART learning”)
Traditional workshop
models
Conference-like professional
development: district, regional or
provincial workshops/conferences
including those offered by consortia or
other professional development providers
(eg, full- or multiple-day workshops, ATA
specialist council conferences, centralized
district PD days)
Attending workshops
or conferences (eg, full-
or multi-day convention
involving multiple
workshops on varied topics)
Jocyce and Calhoun’s (2010) ve models are listed in the rst column. We adapted and rened the
categorical language to represent the context of Alberta educators (presented in the second column). We
used the ve categories (listed in the second column) within questionnaires administered to teacher at
Time 1 and Time 2. The nal column was presented during Year Two.
64 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Appendix C
Thematic Examples from Focus Group Participants
What professional learning experience has made the most difference
for your…
…own teaching?
Why?
…school staff as a
group? Why?
…students?
Why?
Collaborating
with others
Working with colleagues in
order to make myself a better
teacher. Watch each other in
action, then discuss each other’s
positive and negative areas.
Getting together in groups and
sharing information gleaned
from other PD sessions. Hearing
and reecting on what has been
tried and what has and hasn’t
worked.
Talking with grade team
members about what does and
doesn’t work. Allows access to
different knowledge bases and
opportunities to brainstorm
solutions.
A staff willing to help each
other become better. Put own
time and effort into making each
other a success.
Breakfasts/lunches/after
school meals. Informal meetings
foster a family feeling, allow
for discussion, encouragement,
trust-building; share
achievements, acknowledge each
other, discuss and get help with
issues.
Observing other teachers,
learning coaches. Strategies for
team-building and cooperation,
thinking only of my role as
supportive rather than didactic.
Professional conversations;
facilitating collaborative
embedded PD sessions. Ideas
gleaned from other teachers;
chance to listen to and reect on
teachers’ thoughts.
Allow students to teach/
learn from each other, feel
comfortable and validated
regardless of abilities; realize
that everyone including myself
is part of a learning community.
Special
projects
Teacher-led PD sessions.
Applicable to everyday teaching
situations; gives ownership of
professional learning.
Outdoor team-building retreat
with Rick Matishak. Each staff
member at the time said it was
the best PD they had had. We
had to problem-solve, trust,
work together, step outside
comfort zone, and set aside
individual good for the team.
Balanced literacy and early
literacy. Students get to grade
level or above in reading. Leads
to positive self-esteem and has
a lifelong impact.
Piloting a junior high reading
program. First given the theory,
then given time to share, develop
and implement ideas.
SmartLearning. Galileo projects.
Changing mindset of how
children are learning differently
in the 21st century.
Cathy Fosnot session on
teaching math. Transformed
the way people think about
math and the way they teach
it—“a community of math
learners” who learn from one
another.
When our PD committee had
two science teachers spend a
day with the division’s science
teachers. Innovative and easy
experiments, group activities
and demonstrations.
Final Report Research and Findings 65
AISI
Constructing and expressing
meaning. Three-year structure
allowed us to get a handle on it,
implement strategies, meet and
reect, then nally get really
good at it.
Cycle 1. Meaningful and easily
replicable activities addressing
specic and common literacy
needs, which are widely used 10
years later.
Constructing and expressing
meaning project. Taught
students how to look at why
they are reading a selection,
then how to read. Used “before,
during, after.”
District project. Met with grade
group teachers to share ideas on
assessment and areas we found
challenging. Developed sessions
we could present to others across
district. Allowed a great deal of
reection.
Instructional coach at each
school. Helped keep PD alive
(both macro and micro), brought
new research/ideas/initiatives
and developed them through
coplanning, coteaching and
reective conversations.
Reading strategies to increase
comprehension. All subject
areas were addressed.
AISI model of professional
learning. Collaborative grade-
and subject-specic teams
allow for continuous sharing of
resources and ideas; profound
effect on my teaching.
Assessment for learning,
habits of mind. With clear
outcomes come clear criteria
as to how students can attain
goals. Goal setting became
easier to do. Made a difference
to student work ethic and how
to improve.
Conferences
Middle Years Conference 2010.
Got to choose own settings,
energetic speaker, good real-life
stories, funny and collaborative.
Specialty conferences. The more
we develop as individuals, the
stronger we are as a team.
Assessment conference.
Focus was on use of PLC
(professional learning
community), collaboration,
collegial relationships. We
started to share teaching and
assessment practices and tools;
learning for students improved
dramatically.
ATA Conference. Immigration.
Hearing immigrant experiences
rst-hand, real and very
applicable. HPEC 2008. Specic,
hands-on, especially games we
played and analyzed as a group
with curricular connections.
Widened my repertoire, made
me more aware of how I could
make modications for different
students.
Assessment conference with
entire staff. On the same page for
outcome-based reporting; could
then bounce ideas back and forth
in the classroom.
Students At Risk conference.
Gained understanding and
perspective that related to each
student I had.
What professional learning experience has made the most difference
for your…
…own teaching?
Why?
…school staff as a
group? Why?
…students?
Why?
66 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Graduate
studies
Completing my MEd allowed
a great deal of time to reect on
practices and best use of my time
with students and learning.
N/A MEd. Gained courage to try
different things and truly
embrace student independence.
Master’s project on 21st century
learning. My personalized choice
of topic, focused and ongoing
over two years.
Engaging master’s program
and in-depth talks with other
teachers. Lots of reading,
research and afrmation
of philosophy/beliefs. My
practice changed and my
students benetted.
Collaborative learning within
staff as part of master’s in
educational leadership. Primary
focus group met weekly and
discussed curriculum, best
practices, leveling books; acted
as a sounding board. Presented
at district and provincial levels.
Book studies
N/A Yearly book study (The Leader
in Me, How to Talk So Kids Can
Learn, Realization) and staff
retreat. Common language,
understanding of current
pedagogy; themes are evident in
our school.
Teacher and Child and Between
Parent and Child by Haim
Ginott. Learned how to better
communicate with children so
they trust me and are willing to
communicate/work with me.
Habits of Mind brought
common focus and vocabulary
for everyone K–6.
Sean Covey’s 7 Habits of
Highly Effective People.
Students hear about and
understand the habits and are
starting to “talk” and “walk”
them.
Personal life
experiences
My junior high PE teacher;
a gymnastics coach I had; my
husband, who is a PE teacher. I
have modelled my teaching after
my junior high PE teacher. I still
quote my former gymnastics
coach today in my teaching.
My husband and I talk teaching
constantly, about how we can
better ourselves as teachers and
coaches.
N/A Being a parent myself. Able to
share personal stories, feelings,
triumphs and negatives that
were overcome. The greatest
teaching tools!
Using examples of how I myself
am a student and how I learn
new things outside my comfort
zone. Look at the process of
learning and adapt things to
help my students.
PD takes me to other
countries. Experience another
culture and share these
experiences with students.
What professional learning experience has made the most difference
for your…
…own teaching?
Why?
…school staff as a
group? Why?
…students?
Why?
Final Report Research and Findings 67
““
Appendix D
Teachers’ conference-related quotes (Phase I)
Specialist conferences important
to high school teachers since
teachers have own areas of
expertise. Give chance to
collaborate and network with
teachers with same specialty
(within schools/between schools)
Teachers’ convention
helps by allowing for
collaboration more so
than gaining resources
“
[Conferences for] collaboration with other teachers—clarify ideas on how; not provided but make
time; English once-a-month meetings. Collaboration depends on what you’re teaching—conferences
help with that ie Home Ec vs English.
Micro PD versus Macro PD—get new ideas from conference or collaboration; then still get time to
implement.
Outside PD [conference] for theory—collaboration [at school] to help bring learning to practical
level/bring depth.
Including collaboration with support staff at school-based PD with presenters who have attended
conferences would extend learning and perhaps initiate discussions with different perspectives of
topic.
Sharing and comparing programming/ideas/ learning styles/ behaviours with those teaching same
age level is the best PD. Done whenever we have time, ie conferences, PD sessions.
For starting teachers, collaboration and conferences are the best. For experienced teachers, selected
projects based on interests and mentorship. These things change as your career changes. It is all
based on your place in the process.
Conferences allow time to listen to speakers and network with other teachers; spending time with
teachers we see as friends (during conferences have long lunch).
CTS conference—“love the wood” and collaboration (was best). Not consistent though; presenters
can make or break it—new and relevant. Conference good for discussion with colleagues. We
challenge each other.
Conference—can we use different ways to make and keep contact with colleagues? Can help when
subject is not taught in duplication at your school or division.
Prefer out-of-province conference—more specic is better.
Specic: SMART training, leadership workshops, photography workshop, and meeting other art
teachers, sharing assessment ideas. Great to have diversity of people from different schools and
departments.
“
The themes are not
mutually exclusive.
Attending conferences
must be combined with
collaboration—I send a team,
and use my PD budget to
buy them dinner together!
68 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Appendix E (Phase I)
Teachers’ AISI-related quotes of collaboration
“
“
“
“
AISI funding for substitute teacher = time for independent projects
• A powerful PD activity was a one-day poetry session I went to with a fellow LA teacher; came
back super stoked about new ideas to use in our classrooms. We then booked subs using AISI
money and spent day collaborating and creating poetry unit together. Next, planning to watch
each other teach the lessons!
• Money for subs from AISI for observations is valuable PD support.
• We liked it when AISI became more program based and gave you TIME for collaboration or to
develop projects/lessons independently.
AISI Coaching and Leadership
• Collaboration focused on specic project,
class or aspect of a class combined
with support of an AISI coach is most
effective. Focused, dened parameters,
collaborative, review and rene.
• AISI: Learning coach and CFL, new ideas,
reinforcing what you already know
• AISI was a focus on collaboration. It may
be that the themes were “layering” and
therefore more effective and memorable.
Leadership became an option as the AISI
developed, which was very powerful in
feeling more competent and condent
(being the person teaching, guiding,
facilitating, coaching).
AISI as a Workshop or
Division-wide Goal
• Alberta AISI workshops—more so for big
goals for schools for the year
• AISI—Balanced lit/Math lit—at start
was forced, pressure, scrutinized; then
permission to experiment—much more
accepting! Best practices
AISI Collaborative Projects and PLCs
• Best learning because of prolic
opportunities to make connections. AISI,
PLCs, master’s degree are all things that
help us collaborate. (I’m a 28-year-old
teacher so my answer is the point-of-view
of a beginner teacher.)
• AISI–Collaboration–TEAM—really enjoy
working with everyone. Share what we
know—I love team teaching. Like to learn
new theory.
• The two big ones, collaboration and
projects, came out of AISI (a “chicken or an
egg” thing). Funding is crucial and needs
to be a priority; we need time to talk, share
and research together. Maybe a better
balance of that time with instruction will
make learning time more effective.
• When collaborating, you always need a
good leader. This is obvious in my AISI
team and in my school PLC (small group)
and also my whole school PLC. Cannot
imagine these being as effective without
good leadership we have had.
Final Report Research and Findings 69
Appendix E (Phase II)
Teachers’ AISI-related quotes of collaboration
What are the key professional learning
experiences that led to your confidence
[efficacy] ratings?
The level of collaboration that I have experienced
as an AISI leader for my school has made a great
difference to my teaching.
Collaboration with other teachers at the same
grade level through AISI funding for PD, all
forms of collaboration have been extremely
effective in improving my teaching—AISI, peer
coaching, attending workshops.
When I collaborate with other teachers, I
learn so much about assessment, instructional
strategies and classroom management. Through
exceptional AISI projects, teachers have become
very comfortable with sharing and collaboration.
We have all beneted.
In the past, AISI was our district’s vehicle by
which to help teachers collaborate and address
common problems. In the absence of AlSI, our
school staff is committed to addressing these
problems together.
I believe it is most benecial to allow students as
much time to collaborate as possible. I feel that
AISI funding is a major benet in our district to
allow for teacher time to collaborate with one
another across the district (not just at a school
level) and to be inuenced by guest speakers in
our district
In the last 6 months, what professional
learning activity has most boosted your
teaching confidence in YOUR ability
[teacher self-efficacy] to enhance student
learning? Why?
Collaborating with other LIFT team members.
This is collaboration & AISI combined. Amazing
what a wealth of knowledge experience can be!
Having the opportunity to collaborate with
teachers in my school through AISI and also
through PLCs has boosted teaching condence.
AISI project—student success—combined
strengths of collaborating teachers.
Professional learning communities and AISI
(collaboration with other teachers). These
activities have given me a chance to access
support in areas that are relevant right now!
Suggestions on the tried and true, as well as
possible other strategies have been welcome as I
try to meet the needs of my students.
AISI—I really appreciate having the opportunity
to work with a coach who has received a lot of
training in district-led initiatives. The time that
I get to collaborate with my coach is essential
to having a direct impact on my teaching. We
can plan almost an entire unit of studies in one
afternoon
In the last 6 months, what professional
learning activity has most boosted your
teaching confidence in YOUR SCHOOL’s
ability [teacher collective efficacy] to
enhance student learning? Why?
Our divisionwide AISI days where we not only
get a chance to work together as a group, but
also see the other staff and how they handle
challenges in their schools.
AlSI—collaborating as a staff to boost our
mutual goals as a school to weed out problem
areas and make our school most effective.
AlSI collaborative groups because I heard
of all the great things my colleagues were
implementing.
I think by modelling working with AlSI coaches
and other teachers I am showing the other
teachers that collaboration is worthwhile, and
sharing with them the successes and failures
makes them realize that collaboration is best for
student learning and for teacher condence.
AISI because teachers were given direction
(reading goal), exposed to guest speakers and
allowed collaboration time.
AlSI sharing shows that I am on the same track
as many others that I work and collaborate with.
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
““
70 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Appendix F
Teachers’ time-related responses (Phase I)
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
We need time to work and talk with
each other. (I mean REAL time to focus
on what WE deem to be important.)
Embedding the PD time into our regular
school hours. This shows respect for
the teachers as humans, not work
machines—an understanding that we
need our time away from our jobs, not
just adding PD outside of our regular
work hours.
Our school is amazing. Everyone works
together well and shares and helps each other.
Great mix of young, older staff and fabulous
administrators who make time for us to share.
Spending part of a
day collaborating with
teachers; then taking time
to reect and take some
personal reection time.
Given time and allowances to attend workshops on our
subject interests that keep us open, exible and up-to-date
in our learning. This equates to feeding our passions, which
feeds into our learning environments, and students are able
to feel the passion, which in turn excites and encourages
them to keep learning. Stimulates both student and teacher.
Collaboration with other teachers is highly
effective. The problem is everyone has too many
balls in the air to have the time to meet.
Having more time to work with my grade
grouping teaching partners. Extra PLC time.
The school has recognized the importance of
collaboration and provided more time for us
to do it during classroom hours.
Workshops because I have seen the potential for the great
things that our school could be doing. I just think there is
too much resistance from a majority of teachers. Part of this
resistance is caused by the lack of time given to plan and
experiment. Teachers feel overwhelmed with their current
course load, so they feel irritated when they are asked to do
more or different things without the proper supports.
PLC—the topics are either the district led
initiatives (eg, UDL) or the school-based
education plan goals (eg, literacy.) Unfortunately,
they are often lecture style with little time to
reect on practice and collaborate on projects.
Sit and get is not helpful ... teachers
need time to create, implement and
reect on what they learned. The most
valuable PD time has been time to sit
with colleagues and work on such
tasks.
Professional learning communities,
but they need to be embedded so
they are more effective—after-school
PLCs are a waste of time.
I believe that one-shot PD doesn’t work. It has to be tied to
PGPs and learning takes place over time. AISI three-year
cycles don’t give enough time for teachers to take in new
initiatives and become comfortable. No account is taken for
staff turnover. You have to provide constant reinforcement.
“
Workshops with experts
AND then time with other
teachers to actually plan the
unit/lesson from the ideas
from the workshops. Hands
down, the best PD I’ve had.
Final Report Research and Findings 71
References
Alberta’s Education Partners. 2010. A Guide to
Support Implementation: Essential Conditions. Rev
ed. Available at www.essentialconditions.ca/
(accessed June23, 2014).
Alberta Teachers’ Association. 2014. AISI Clearing
House. Available at www.teachers.ab.ca/For%20
Members/Professional%20Development/
Resources/Pages/AISI%20Clearing%20House.
aspx (accessed June23, 2014).
American Sociological Association. 2013.
“Teacher Collaboration, Professional
Communities Improve Many Elementary
School Students’ Math Scores.” ScienceDaily.
Available at www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2013/06/130605130219.htm (accessed
August8, 2014).
Avalos, B. 2011. “Teacher Professional Development
in Teaching and Teacher Education over Ten Years.”
Teaching and Teacher Education 27: 10–20.
Baltes, P B. 1987. “Theoretical Propositions of
Life-Span Developmental Psychology: On
the Dynamics Between Growth and Decline.”
Developmental Psychology 23: 611–26.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efcacy: The Exercise of
Control. New York: Freeman.
———. 2006. “Guide for Constructing Self-Efcacy
Scales.” In Self-Efcacy Beliefs of Adolescents, ed
FPajares and TUrdan, 307–37. Greenwich, Conn:
Information Age.
Brown, C G, and SGibbs. Forthcoming. Teachers’
Levels of Responsibility, Shared Leadership and
Collective Efcacy Beliefs.
Campbell, J. 1973. The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Collins, K. 2010. “Advanced Sampling Designs
in Mixed Methods Research.” In Handbook of
Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research,
ed ATashakkori and CTeddlie. 2nd ed. 353–77.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.
Creswell, J W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative,
Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches.
California: Sage.
Creswell, J W, ACKlassen, VLPlano Clark and
KCSmith. 2011. Best Practices for Mixed Methods
Research in the Health Sciences. National Institutes
of Health, Ofce of Behavioral and Social
Sciences Research. Available at http://obssr.
od.nih.gov/scientic_areas/methodology/
mixed_methods_research/index.aspx
Creswell, J W, and VLPlano Clark. 2007. Designing
and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.
Day, C, and QGu. 2010. The New Lives of Teachers.
New York: Routledge Taylor Francis.
Diaz-Maggioli, G. 2004. Teacher-Centered Professional
Development. Alexandria, Va: ASCD.
DuFour, R. 2004. “What Is a Professional Learning
Community?” Educational Leadership 61, no8:
6–11.
Duxbury, L, and CHiggins. 2013. The 2011/2012
National Study on Balancing Work, Life, and
Caregiving in Canada: The Situation for Alberta
Teachers. Edmonton, Alta: Alberta Teachers’
Association.
Fullan, M. 2006. “Leading Professional Learning.”
School Administrator 63, no10: 4–10.
———. 2001. The New Meaning of Educational
Change. New York: Teachers College Press.
72 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Gabriele, A J, and EJoram. 2007. “Teachers’
Reections on Their Reform-Based Teaching in
Mathematics: Implications for the Development
of Teacher Self-Efcacy.” Action in Teacher
Education 29: 60–74.
Glickman, C, SGordon and JRoss-Gordon. 2009.
The Basic Guide to Supervision and Instructional
Leadership. 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson.
Goddard, R D, and YL Goddard. 2001. “A
Multilevel Analysis of the Relationship Between
Teacher and Collective Efcacy in Urban
Schools.” Teaching and Teacher Education 17:
807–18.
Goodlad, J I. 1983. “A Study of Schooling: Some
Implications for School Improvement.” Phi Delta
Kappan 64, no8: 555–58.
Hargreaves, A. 2009. “A Decade of Educational
Change and a Dening Moment of Opportunity:
An Introduction.” Journal of Educational Change
10: 89–100.
Hargreaves, A, RCrocker, BDavis, LMcEwen,
PSahlberg, DShirley and DSumara. 2009. The
Learning Mosaic: A Multiple Perspectives Review of
the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI).
Edmonton, Alta: Alberta Education.
Hargreaves, A, and MFullan. 2012. Professional
Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A, and DShirley. 2012. The Global
Fourth Way: The Quest for Educational Excellence.
Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin.
Henson, RK. 2001. “The Effects of Participation in
Teacher Research on Teacher Efcacy.” Teaching
and Teacher Education 17: 819–36.
Huberman, M. 1989. “The Professional Life Cycle of
Teachers.” Teachers College Record 91: 31–57.
IBM Corporation. 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Mac.
Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM.
Jalongo, M R. 1991. Creating Learning Communities:
The Role of the Teacher in the 21stCentury,
Bloomington, Ind: National Educational Service.
Joyce, B, and ECalhoun. 2010. Models of Professional
Development: A Celebration of Educators. Thousand
Oaks, Calif: Corwin.
Judah, M L, and GHRichardson. 2006. “Between
a Rock and a (Very) Hard Place: The Ambiguous
Promise of Action Research in the Context
of State Mandated Teacher Professional
Development.” Action Research4, no1: 65–80.
Klassen, R M, WHChong, VSHuan, IWong,
AKates and WHannok. 2008. “Motivation
Beliefs of Secondary School Teachers in Canada
and Singapore: A Mixed Methods Study.”
Teaching and Teacher Education 24: 1919–34.
Klassen, R M, and MMChiu. 2010. “Effects on
Teachers’ Self-Efcacy and Job Satisfaction:
Teacher Gender, Years of Experience, and Job
Stress.” Journal of Educational Psychology 102:
741–56.
———. 2011. “Teachers’ Job Commitment and
Intention to Quit: Impacts of Career Stage,
Self-Efcacy, Job Stress, and Teaching Context.”
Contemporary Educational Psychology 36: 114–29.
Klassen, R M, TLDurksen and VTze.
Forthcoming. “Teachers’ Self-Efcacy Beliefs:
Ready to Move from Theory to Practice?”
In Teacher Motivation: Theory and Practice, ed
PWRichardson, SKarabenick and HWatt. New
York: Routledge Taylor Francis.
Klassen, R M, VTze, SMBetts and KAGordon.
2011. “Teacher Efcacy Research 1998–2009:
Signs of Progress or Unfullled Promise?”
Educational Psychology Review 23: 21–43.
Klassen, R M, S Yerdelen and T L Durksen.
2013. “Measuring Teacher Engagement: The
Development of the Engaged Teacher Scale
(ETS).” Frontline Learning Research 2: 33–52.
Available at http://journals.sfu.ca/r/index.
php/journal/article/view/44/37 (accessed
June23, 2014).
Knight, J. 2006. “Instructional Coaching.” School
Administrator 63, no4: 36. Available at www.aasa.
org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=9584
(accessed August8, 2014).
Final Report Research and Findings 73
Levi-Strauss, C. 1966. The Savage Mind. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lortie, D. 1975. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McLuhan, M. 1967. The Medium Is the Massage: An
Inventory of Effects. New York: Bantam Books.
Martin, J J, NMcCaughty, PHodges-Kulinna and
DCothran. 2008. “The Inuences of Professional
Development on Teachers’ Self-Efcacy Toward
Educational Change.” Physical Education and
Sport Pedagogy 13: 171–90.
Minneapolis Public Schools. 2011. Five-Year
Comprehensive Professional Development Plan
(2011–2016). Available at http://staffdev.mpls.
k12.mn.us/uploads/mps_pd_plan_nal.pdf
(accessed June23, 2014).
Mushayikwa, E, and FLubben. 2009. “Self-Directed
Professional Development: Hope for Teachers
Working in Deprived Environments?” Teaching
and Teacher Education 25: 375–82.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). 2013. Teaching and
Learning International Survey (TALIS 2013):
Conceptual Framework. Available at www.oecd.
org/edu/school/TALIS%20Conceptual%20
Framework_FINAL.pdf (accessed August8,
2014).
Ong, WJ. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The
Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen.
Palmer, D. 2011. “Sources of Efcacy Information in
an In-Service Program for Elementary Teachers.”
Science Education 1: 1–24.
Parsons, J. 2012. “Conversational Pedagogies
and the Gift of Diversity.” Encounter: Education
for Meaning and Social Justice 25, no4: 41–44.
Available at http://ojs.great-ideas.org/index.
php/ENC/article/view/924 (accessed June24,
2014).
———. 2013. “Changing Self-Denitions: The
Agency of Action Research for Teachers.”
Action
Researcher in Education
2, no4: 132–42. Available
at www.actionresearch.gr/i4p8 (accessed
June24, 2014).
Parsons, J, and LBeauchamp. 2011. Living
Leadership for Learning: Case Studies of Five Alberta
Elementary School Principals. Edmonton, Alta:
Alberta Teachers’ Association.
Parsons, J, PMcRae and LTaylor. 2006. Celebrating
School Improvement: Six Lessons from Alberta’s AISI
Projects. Edmonton, Alta: School Improvement
Press.
Powell, B, and SGibbs. Forthcoming. Learning
About Behaviour: A Qualitative Case Study of
Leadership and Teachers’ Efcacy Beliefs in One
Primary School.
Puchner, L D, and ARTaylor. 2006. “Lesson Study,
Collaboration, and Teacher Efcacy: Stories from
Two School-Based Math Lesson Study Groups.”
Teaching and Teacher Education 22: 922–934.
Rivard, J J, ELFollo and CMWalsh. 2004. “Teacher
Empowerment Through the Development of
Individual and Collective Teacher Efcacy.” ERS
Spectrum 22: 34–39.
Ross, J, and CBruce. 2007. “Professional
Development Effects on Teacher Efcacy: Results
of Randomized Field Trial.” Journal of Educational
Research 101: 50–60.
Salanova, M, S Llorens and W B Schaufeli. 2011.
“Yes, I Can, I Feel Good, and I Just Do It! On
Gaining Cycles and Spirals of Efcacy Beliefs,
Affect, and Engagement.” Applied Psychology: An
International Review 60, no 2: 255–85.
Schaufeli, W B, and ABBakker. 2003. Utrecht
Work Engagement Scale: Preliminary Manual
(Version 1.1). Utrecht University, Occupational
Health Psychology Unit. Available at www.
wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/
Test%20Manuals/Test_manual_UWES_English.
pdf (accessed June24, 2014).
Sergiovanni, T. 2004. Strengthening the Heartbeat:
Leading and Learning Together in Schools. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Stacy, M. 2013. “Teacher-Led Professional
Development: Empowering Teachers as Self-
Advocates.” Georgia Social Studies Journal 3, no1:
40–49.
74 Exploring the Development of Teacher Efficacy
Tschannen-Moran, M, and PMcMaster. 2009.
“Sources of Self-Efcacy: Professional
Development Formats and Their Relationship
to Self-Efcacy and Implementation of a New
Teaching Strategy.” Elementary School Journal 110:
228–45.
Tschannen-Moran, M, and AWoolfolk Hoy.
2001. “Teacher Efcacy: Capturing an Elusive
Construct.” Teaching and Teacher Education 17:
783–805.
Tye, K A, and BBTye. 1984. “Teacher Isolation
and School Reform.” Phi Delta Kappan 65, no5:
319–22.
Wei, R C, LDarling-Hammond and FAdamson.
2010. Professional Development in the United States:
Trends and Challenges. Dallas, Tex: National Staff
Development Council.
Willms, J D, SFriesen and PMilton. 2009. What Did
You Do in School Today? Transforming Classrooms
Through Social, Academic and Intellectual
Engagement. First National Report. Toronto:
Canadian Education Association.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. 2012. “Academic Optimism and
Teacher Education.” Teacher Educator 47, no2:
91–100.
Zambo, R, and DZambo. 2008. “The Impact of
Professional Development in Mathematics on
Teachers’ Individual and Collective Efcacy: The
Stigma of Underperforming.” Teacher Education
Quarterly (winter): 159–68.
ISBN 978-1-927074-23-7
PD80-86-29 2014 10
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
y
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
