ABSTRACT

Title of Dissertation: TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF A VIGNETTE-

DEPICTED MALE STUDENT: TEACHER SELF-

EFFICACY AND STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

(RACE, SES LEVELS) AS MODERATORS

Joshua Lightle, Doctorate in Leadership for Educational

Justice, 2011

This study examined whether teachers’ sense of self-efficacy predicted their

expectations for the performance of male students depicted in a vignette that varied by

race/ethnicity (Black, Hispanic, White) and by socioeconomic status (SES) (high versus

low). Participants were 89 classroom teachers who completed a 12-item Teacher Self-

Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), read a randomly assigned

vignette about a hypothetical student with academic and behavioral challenges, and rated

their expectations for that student (Auwarter & Aruguete, 2008). The vignettes were

identical except in language to suggest the specific student’s race/ethnicity and SES level.

Results showed teacher efficacy to be positively related to teachers’ future predictions

about the academic success of the depicted student. That is, the higher the teachers’

efficacy, the more positive were his or her predictions about students’ future academic

success. Moreover, the student’s SES level, rather than his or her race/ethnicity, affected

teacher perceptions. That is, regardless of the depicted students’ race or ethnicity,

teachers were more negative about the future of the low SES student than they were

1  
about that of the high SES student. These results may help explain why teacher efficacy

tends to be lower in economically disadvantaged schools. Additionally, results support

the extant literature that student SES is directly related to student academic outcomes.

2  
 TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF A VIGNETTE-DEPICTED MALE STUDENT:

TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY AND STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS (RACE,

SES LEVELS) AS MODERATORS

By

Joshua Lightle

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the School of Education of the University of

Redlands, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate in
Leadership for Educational Justice, April 2011

Advisory Committee:

Chair: Rodney K. Goodyear, Ph.D

Member: Pauline Reynolds, Ph.D

Member: Celine Ko, Ph.D

3  
 UMI Number: 3468552

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3468552
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
!

4  
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have been instrumental in helping me through the process of writing

this dissertation, but it would not be right if I didn’t give honor first to my Lord and

Savior, Jesus Christ. “Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be

established” (Proverbs 16:3). Not only did He establish my thoughts through this

process, but he also completed them. All that I do is unto the Glory of the Lord!

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Rod Goodyear for helping me

through this dissertation process. Your willingness to take as much time as needed to

help guide me through is appreciated more than words can even express. You have not

only helped me complete this dissertation, but also provided the foundation I needed to

become a scholar who can work independently, recognize my own strengths and

weaknesses, and understand how to support my limitations. I have learned tremendously

from you, so thank you.

I would like to acknowledge my fellow cohort member Jason Jimenez. Our

consistency in holding each other accountable, meeting for dinner every Thursday before

class, and the constant encouragement was vital to completing this dissertation. I know

that our friendship is eternal, and I am forever grateful for having befriended you in this

process.

I would like to take time to thank my Pastor, Victor Danridge. You have been the

ultimate example of a man of God to me these last 11 years. You have mentored me and

taught me how to be consistent in my walk with Christ, how to overcome difficult

situations, and how to maintain a joy that cannot be expressed in words. I am forever

grateful for all that you have done.

5  
 Finally, I would like to say thank you to my wonderful wife, Nancy. Without you

there to share my thoughts and struggles, and without your encouragement I could never

have accomplished this task. I thank you for the many sacrifices you have made these

last three years to allow me to obtain this degree. Without you by my side, this

achievement would not have been possible. Thank you and I love you.

6  
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….…9

Teacher Efficacy…………………………………………………9

Teacher Expectations……………………………………..…….11

Relationship Between Efficacy and Expectations………………12

Teaching for Social Justice and Critical Pedagogy………….......14

Purpose of the Study………….......………….......………….......15

Research Questions…………………………………………...…15

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………………....17

Teacher Efficacy…………………………………………………17

A Second Conceptual Strand………………………………….…23

The Development of the Gibson and Dembo Instrument…….….26

The Development of the Ohio State Teachers Efficacy Scale…...28

Teacher Expectations for Performance Capabilities……………..32

Teaching for Social Justice………………………………………39

III. METHODS………………………………………………….…………...45

Participants……………………………………………………….45

Measures…………………………………………………………45

Materials…………………………………………………………49

Procedures and Recruitment……………………………………..52

IV. RESULTS……………………………….……………………………….53

Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses………………...53

Research Questions………………………………………………56

7  
V. DISCUSSION……………………….………………………………...…59

Interpretation of the Findings……………………………….…...59

Limitations………………………………………………………64

Implications for Future Research……………………………….65

Implications for Practice……………………………………......67

Conclusion………………………………………………………68

VI. APPENDICES………………………………………………….……….71

Appendix A: Classroom Teacher Questionnaire………….…….71

Appendix B: Students in the Classroom Survey #1………...…..72

Appendix C Demographic Survey………………………...……103

VII. REFERENCES…………………………………………………………104

8  
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate the degree to which teacher efficacy

affects particular teachers’ expectations for student performance capabilities. This effect

can be particularly relevant for Black and Hispanic students in urban school settings.

Significant achievement gaps remain between White students and Black and Hispanic

students and between students with low socioeconomic status (SES) and high

socioeconomic status, despite the attempts to resolve them (Apple, 1990; Banks, 2004;

Cochran-Smith, 2004; Delpit, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 2006). Although teacher efficacy

and teacher expectations for student performance capabilities have been well documented

in the literature, the relationship to each other has not. This study measured whether a

teacher’s level of self-efficacy was directly related to expectations for student

performance capabilities for Black and Hispanic students and for low and high-SES

students.

Teacher variables account for at least 30%of the variance in student outcomes

(Hattie, 2002; Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997), therefore it

seems reasonable that any efforts to improve service to traditionally marginalized groups

such as Black and Hispanic and low SES students should include a focus on their

teachers. However, many teacher-related variables exist, and so it is important to focus

on the most salient ones rather than to take a scattershot approach. Two variables,

teacher efficacy and teacher expectations, were the focus of this study.

Teacher Efficacy

Teacher efficacy is defined as the extent to which a teacher believes he or she has

the capacity to affect student performance. Teacher efficacy has been related to

9  
individual differences in both teacher feedback and expectations for students (Gibson &

Dembo, 1984) and to teachers’ control orientations (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990). Moreover,

teacher efficacy has been positively associated with academic achievement in students

(Anderson, Greene, & Loewen, 1988; Ashton & Webb, 1986). According to Bandura

(1993), the relationship between teacher efficacy and student achievement might be

explained by the type of learning environments teachers create for their students. For

instance, teacher efficacy could play a role in the goals teachers set for themselves and

their students, how motivated teachers are to create a positive learning environment, how

much effort they expend in teaching students, and how they react when faced with

difficult situations. Each of these could lead to positive or negative instructional

practices, which could, in turn, impact student achievement.

The research on the topic of teacher efficacy is sketched in the material below

within two broad theoretical frameworks: first, that of Rotter (1966) and second, that of

Bandura (1977).

With Rotter’s (1966) work as a theoretical base, RAND researchers first

conceived teacher efficacy as the extent to which teachers believed that they could

control the reinforcement of their actions. Student performance was assumed to be a

significant re-enforcer for teaching behaviors. Thus, teachers with a high level of

efficacy believed that they could control, or at least strongly influence, student

achievement (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).

A second conceptual strand of teacher efficacy, which grew out of the work of

Bandura (1977), identified teacher efficacy as a type of self-efficacy—a cognitive process

in which people construct beliefs about their capacity to perform at a given level of

10  
attainment. These beliefs influence how much effort people put forth, how long they will

persist, how resilient they are, and how much stress they experience in coping with

demanding situations (Bandura, 1997).

Teacher Expectations

Teacher expectations are defined as a teacher’s perception of where student

abilities and performances are at the moment and where they will be in the future.

Bamburg (1994) noted that teachers who believe they are interacting with bright students

engage more positively with them than they do with students whom they believe have

limited intellectual abilities.

The effects of teacher expectations have been well examined (Alviderez &

Weinstein, 1999; Babad & Taylor, 1992; Gill & Reynolds, 1999; Gottfredson, Marciniak,

Birdseye, & Gottfredson, 1995; Jussim & Eccles, 1992; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Kenealy,

Frude, & Shaw, 1991; Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2001; Lane, Pierson, & Givner, 2003;

Rubie-Davies, 2006; Rubie-Davies, Hattie, & Hamilton, 2006). That research provides

clear evidence that expectations can influence student performance and achievement,

positively and/or negatively (Babad, 1993; Brophy, 1982; Cooper & Good, 1983; Good,

1987; Jussim, Smith, Madon, & Palumbo, 1998; Weinstein, 2002).

Expectancy theory, which is useful in explaining the link between expectations

and student performance, began with the study of Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968). It

showed that when teachers were led to have particular expectations about the academic

aptitude of students, their interactions with those students helped ensure that these initial,

sometimes erroneous, expectations were fulfilled. These findings, which often have been

discussed in terms of self-fulfilling prophecies, led investigators and researchers to

11  
further explore those direct and indirect teacher-student exchanges that might affect

student achievement.

Although teacher efficacy and teacher expectations would reasonably be related,

their links have not been widely investigated. Therefore, this study bridged the research

gap between teachers’ own sense of efficacy and their expectations for student

performance capabilities, focusing particularly on expectations related to historically

underprivileged student populations such as Black and Hispanic populations and low SES

students.

Relationship Between Efficacy and Expectations

The hypothesized relationships among these variables are depicted in Figure 1—

specifically, that teacher efficacy predicts teacher expectations about student performance

capabilities.

Figure 1. Hypothesized teacher belief determinants of student performance capabilities

Whereas both teacher efficacy and teacher expectations about student performance

capabilities have been well documented in literature, their relationship has not.

12  
 McLeod (1995) identified three factors believed to be integral in the attribution

formation process of teachers: the student’s past performance, characteristics of the

student (ethnicity, class), and the type of teacher-student interaction. According to

McLeod (1995), teachers with passive or nonvested interactions with their students tend

to make “ego-enhancing” attributions. They assume responsibility for student success,

but blame failures on the student. On the other hand, teachers who have active or

invested interactions with their students accept responsibility for students’ failures and

give students credit for their successes.

Hall, Burley, Villeme, and Brockmeier (1992) indicated that attributions concerning

student academic performance vary depending on the efficacy level of the teacher.

Teachers with high personal teaching efficacy (PTE) were found to emphasize their own

influence as well as that of the instructional programs they used on performance

exhibited by their students. High efficacy teachers were more likely to assume

responsibility for the academic performance of their students.

The low expectations that invariably accompany low teaching efficacy have

significant impact on students. The level of efficacy a teacher has concerning his or her

abilities as a teacher and the impact of teaching practice overall appears to be interrelated,

with a variety of factors — one being expectations for student achievement (Bamburg,

1994; McLeod, 1995). Low efficacy teachers generally have lower expectations and

goals in their classrooms, readily limit their interactions with students they perceive as

having a low ability, and thus sacrifice student achievement.

13  
 Teaching for Social Justice and Critical Pedagogy

The characteristics of high efficacy teachers include behaviors that are consistent

with theorists who employ a critical pedagogy lens. Critical pedagogy is a teaching

approach that attempts to help students question and challenge domination, and the

beliefs and practices that dominate. Critical pedagogy includes relationships between

teaching and learning. It is a continuous process of unlearning, learning, and relearning,

reflection, evaluation, and the impact that these actions have on the students, in particular

students who have been historically — and continue to be — disenfranchised by

traditional pedagogy. The purpose of critical pedagogy is to serve as a powerful lens of

analysis from which social inequalities and oppressive institutional structures can be

unveiled, critiqued, and most importantly, transformed through the process of political

engagement and social action (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2009).

This study builds upon the extant literature by examining the relationship between

teacher efficacy and teacher expectations about student performance capabilities.

Teacher efficacy research has focused on teacher behaviors, such as willingness to persist

longer when facing challenges, creating positive learning environments, and amount of

effort expended in teaching students. Teacher expectation research has focused on

teacher behaviors such as the creating positive learning environments, asking higher-level

questions, and providing additional academic support for students. The behaviors of high

efficacy and high expectations teachers are consistent with practices of critical pedagogy.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between teacher’s self-

efficacy and their perceptions of a student depicted in a vignette. Participants were

teachers in urban, Title I schools in Southern California. They were invited through an

14  
emailed invitation to complete a self-efficacy rating scale and then to respond to a

randomly assigned vignette depicting a student whose race (Black, Hispanic, White) and

socioeconomic background (high, low) varied.

Research Questions

Significant achievement gaps continue to exist between White students and Black

and Hispanic students and high versus low-SES students. Robust research findings

support the important role that teachers play in the academic achievement of these

students. This study bridged the gap between two important teacher effects: teacher

sense of efficacy and teacher expectations for student performance capabilities. Three

research questions were posed and examined. In each case, expectations for student

performance capabilities was assessed by four scales of (1) academic support services,

(2) personal characteristics, (3) future prediction for academic success, and (4)

emotional/behavioral factors.

Research Question 1: To what degree does a teacher’s sense of efficacy affect that

teacher’s perceptions of students depicted in a vignette as varying by race or

ethnicity (Black, Hispanic, White) and by socioeconomic status (high versus

low)?

Research Question 2: Do teachers’ expectations for student performance capabilities

remain the same across racial/ethnic groups (Black, Hispanic, White)?

Research Question 3: Do teachers’ expectations for student performance capabilities

remain the same across socioeconomic levels (high, low)?

15  
 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Because teachers are vital to students’ classroom experiences, this review will

explore the variables that are particularly important to a teacher’s effectiveness in

meeting the needs of all students, regardless of race or class. One, teacher efficacy, has

been shown to affect the quality of teaching and teacher behaviors; the other, teacher

expectations for performance capabilities, has been shown to affect the level of academic

achievement. The reviewed literature will show that a study of high efficacy and low

efficacy teachers’ expectations for the performance capabilities of Hispanic and Black

students is needed.

Teacher Efficacy

Perhaps one of the most documented attributes of effective teachers is a strong

sense of efficacy. Researchers have repeatedly related teacher efficacy to a variety of

positive teaching behaviors and student outcomes (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).

Teacher efficacy is strongly related to achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Moore &

Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992), to students’ own sense of efficacy (Anderson, Greene, &

Loewen, 1988), and to student motivation (Midgely, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989).

Teachers high in efficacy tend to experiment more with methods of teaching in order to

better meet their students’ needs (Guskey, 1988; Stein & Wang, 1988). Among other

things, efficacious teachers plan more (Allinder, 1994), persist longer with students who

struggle (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), and are less critical of student errors (Ashton &

Webb, 1986).

With the work of Rotter (1966) as a theoretical base, teacher efficacy was first

conceived by the RAND researchers as the extent to which teachers believed that they

16  
could control the reinforcement of their actions, that is, whether control of reinforcement

lay within themselves or in the environment. Student motivation and performance were

assumed to be significant reinforcers of teaching behaviors. Thus, teachers with a high

level of efficacy believed that they could control, or at least strongly influence, student

achievement and motivation.

A second strand of theory and research grew out of the work of Bandura (1977)

and identified teacher efficacy as a type of self-efficacy — a cognitive process in which

people construct beliefs about their capacity to perform at a given level of attainment.

These beliefs influence how much effort people put forth, how long they will persist in

the face of obstacles, how resilient they are in dealing with failures, and how much stress

or depression they experience in coping with demanding situations (Bandura, 1997).

Early Studies of Efficacy: Rotter and RAND Studies

In 1976 RAND published a study that examined the success of various reading

programs and interventions (Armor, Conroy-Oseguera, Cox, King, McDonnell, Pascal, et

al., 1976). Teacher efficacy, determined by summing scores on two items, was strongly

related to variations in reading achievement among minority students. RAND item 1

stated, “When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much because most of a

student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment.”

RAND item 2 stated, “If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or

unmotivated students.”

In a second study, RAND researchers found teacher efficacy to be a strong

predictor of the continuation of federally funded projects after the end of funding

(Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977). Teachers’ sense of efficacy had a

17  
strong positive effect not only on student performance, but also on the percentage of

project goals achieved, the amount of teacher change, and the continued use of project

methods and materials after the project ended.

A teacher who expressed strong agreement with RAND item 1 indicated that

environmental factors overwhelm any power that teachers can exert in schools. This

assessment extended beyond the individual capabilities of the particular teacher to

teachers in general. Factors such as conflict, violence, or substance abuse in the home or

community; the value placed on education in the home; the social and economic realities

of class, race, and gender; and the physiological, emotional, and cognitive needs of a

particular child all had a very real impact on a student’s motivation and performance in

school. Teachers’ beliefs about the power of these external factors as compared to the

influence of teachers and schools have been labeled general teaching efficacy (GTE)

(Ashton, Olejnik, Crocker, & McAuliffe, 1982).

Teachers who agreed with RAND item 2 indicated confidence in their abilities as

teachers to overcome factors that could make learning difficult for a student. Teachers

making a statement about the efficacy of their own teaching reflected confidence that

they had adequate training or experience to develop strategies for overcoming obstacles

to student learning. These teachers may well have experienced past success in boosting

students’ achievement. This aspect of efficacy has been labeled personal teaching

efficacy (PTE); it was more specific and individual than a belief about what teachers in

general could accomplish.

In the RAND studies, teachers were asked to indicate their level of agreement

with each of the two statements. The sum of the scores on the two items was called

18  
teacher efficacy (TE), a construct that purported to reveal the extent to which a teacher

believed that the consequences of teaching — student motivation and learning — were in

the hands of the teacher, or internally controlled.

With the RAND items as measures, correlates of efficacy ranged from student

achievement to teacher stress and the implementation of innovation. Among basic skills

teachers at four secondary schools, Ashton and Webb (1986) reported that when GTE, as

measured by the first RAND item, was added to a regression equation that included math

scores from the previous spring on the Metropolitan Achievement Test, the amount of

variance explained in math achievement scores increased by 24%. PTE, as measured by

the second RAND item, explained an additional 46% of variance in student achievement

in language, as measured on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. These findings pointed

to a substantial impact of efficacy on student achievement.

Other Measures of Efficacy in the RAND and Rotter Tradition

Results of the two RAND studies piqued interest in the construct of teacher

efficacy, but researchers were concerned about the reliability of the two-item scale and

attempted to develop longer, more comprehensive measures. Three such measures are

reviewed here. Each of these measures builds on the foundation laid by Rotter (1966),

conceptualizing teacher efficacy as teachers’ beliefs that factors under their control

ultimately have a greater impact on the results of teaching than do factors in the

environment or in the student — that is, factors beyond the influence of teachers.

Teacher Locus of Control. Rose and Medway (1981) developed a 28-item

measure called the Teacher Locus of Control (TLC), in which teachers were asked to

assign responsibility for student successes or failures by choosing between two

19  
competing explanations for the situations described. Half of the items on the TLC

described situations of student success, whereas the other half described student failure.

For each success situation, one explanation attributed the positive outcome internally to

the teacher (I+), whereas the other assigned responsibility outside the teacher, usually to

the students. Similarly, for each failure situation, one explanation gave an internal

teacher attribution (I-), whereas the other blamed external factors.

Scores on the TLC have been weakly but significantly related to the individual

RAND items (GTE and PTE), as well as to the sum of the two RAND items (TE), with

correlations that ranged from .11 to .41 (Coladarci, 1992; Parkay, Greenwood, Olejnik, &

Proller, 1988). Rose and Medway (1981) found that the TLC was a better predictor of

teacher behaviors’ than Rotter’s (1966) Internal-External (I-E) Scale. Teachers who were

high in internal responsibility for student learning in schools with large populations of

disadvantaged students gave fewer disciplinary commands (Rose & Medway, 1981).

To further examine the TLC and the two RAND items, Greenwood, Olejnik, and

Parkay (1990) dichotomized teachers’ scores on the two questions and cross-partitioned

them into four efficacy patterns. They found that teachers with high efficacy on both

measures (I can, teachers can) had more internally oriented scores on the TLC for both

student success and student failure than teachers who scored low on both (I can’t,

teachers can’t). In addition, they found that teachers low in both personal and general

efficacy (I can’t, teachers can’t) had significantly higher stress than teachers with low

personal but high general efficacy (I can’t, teachers can) or teachers with high personal

and high general efficacy (I can, teachers can).

20  
 Responsibility for student achievement. The same year that Rose and Medway

developed the TLC, Guskey (1981) developed a 30-item instrument measuring

Responsibility for Student Achievement (RSA). For each item, participants were asked

to distribute 100 percentage points between two alternatives, one stating that an event

was caused by the teacher, and the other stating that an event occurred because of factors

outside the teachers’ immediate control. Consistent with explanations from attributional

theory (Weiner, 1979, 1992, 1994), four types of causes were offered for success or

failure: specific teaching abilities, the effort put into teaching, the task difficulty, and

luck. Scores on the RSA yielded a measure of how much the teacher assumed

responsibility for student outcomes in general, as well as two subscale scores indicating

responsibility for student success (R+) and for student failure (R-).

When Guskey (1982, 1988), compared scores from the RSA to teacher efficacy,

as measured by the sum of the scores on the two RAND items, he found significant

positive correlations between teacher efficacy and responsibility for both student success

(R+) and student failure (R-). Guskey (1987) asserted that positive and negative

performance outcomes represent dimensions, not opposite ends of a single continuum,

and that these dimensions operate independently in their influence on perceptions of

efficacy. In general, teachers exhibited greater efficacy for positive results than for

negative results; that is, they were more confident in their ability to influence positive

outcomes than to prevent negative ones. Greater efficacy was related to more positive

attitudes about teaching, as well as to a high level of confidence in teaching abilities on a

measure of teaching self-concept (Guskey, 1984).

21  
 Webb scale. At about the same time that the RSA and TLC were being

developed, a third group of researchers sought to expand the RAND efficacy questions to

increase their reliability. The Webb Efficacy Scale (Ashton et al., 1982) was an attempt

to extend the measure of teacher efficacy while maintaining a narrow conceptualization

of the construct. To reduce the problem of social desirability bias, Webb (1982) and his

colleagues used a forced-choice format with items matched for social desirability. They

found that teachers who scored higher on the Webb scale evidenced fewer negative

interactions in their teaching style (Ashton et al., 1982).

Spurred by the success of the RAND studies, several researchers sought to expand

and refine the notion of teacher efficacy, developing measures that they hoped would

capture more of this powerful construct. One strand of this research on teacher efficacy

has continued to use Rotter’s (1966) theory to elaborate upon the study of teachers’

beliefs about whether reinforcement is internally or externally controlled. One correlate

of teacher efficacy, as measured from this perspective, includes student achievement

(Armor et al., 1976; Ashton, 1985; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Berman et al., 1977).

A Second Conceptual Strand

While one strand of research grounded in Rotter’s (1966) theories developed, a

second strand grew out of Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory and his construct of

self-efficacy. Bandura (1997) defined perceived self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s

capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given

attainments” (p. 3). Self-efficacy is a future-oriented belief about the level of

competence a person expects he or she will display in a given situation. Self-efficacy

beliefs influence thought patterns and emotions that enable actions in which people

22  
expend substantial effort in pursuit of goals, persist in the face of adversity, rebound from

temporary setbacks, and exercise some control over events that affect their lives

(Bandura, 1986, 1993, 1996, 1997).

Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory proposed a second kind of expectation

— outcome expectancy, which is distinct from efficacy expectations. An efficacy

expectation is the individual’s conviction that he or she can orchestrate the necessary

actions to perform a given task, whereas outcome expectancy is the individual’s estimate

of the likely consequences of performing that task at the expected level of competence

(Bandura, 1986). Bandura asserted that because they stem from the projected level of

competence a person expects to bring to a given situation, outcome expectancies add little

to the predictive power of efficacy measures. Outcome expectancies, in the form of

physical or social rewards, recognitions, punishments, criticisms, or self-evaluations, can

provide incentives and disincentives for a given behavior (Bandura, 1986, 1997).

Self-efficacy has to do with self-perception of competence rather than actual level

of competence. This distinction is important because people regularly overestimate or

underestimate their actual abilities, and these estimations may have consequences for the

courses of action they choose to pursue or for the effort they exert in those pursuits

(Bandura, 1997). Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, and Larivee (1991) found that children

with the same level of skill development in mathematics differed significantly in their

ability to solve math problems, depending on the strength of their efficacy beliefs.

Children with higher efficacy more consistently and effectively applied what they knew;

they were more persistent and less likely to reject correct solutions prematurely. In most

23  
cases, slightly overestimating one’s actual capabilities has the most positive effect on

performance.

Bandura (1997) clarified the distinction between self-efficacy and Rotter’s (1966)

internal-external locus of control. He provided data demonstrating that perceived self-

efficacy and locus of control are not essentially the same phenomenon measured at

different levels of generality. Beliefs about whether one can produce certain actions

(perceived self-efficacy) are not the same as beliefs about whether actions affect

outcomes (locus of control). The data showed that perceived self-efficacy is a strong

predictor of behavior, whereas locus of control is typically a weak predictor.

Bandura (1986, 1997) postulated four sources of efficacy expectations: mastery

experience, physiological and emotional states, vicarious experiences, and social

persuasion. Mastery experiences are the most powerful source of efficacy information.

The perception that a performance has been successful raises efficacy beliefs, which

contributes to the expectation that performance will be proficient in the future. The

perception that one’s performance has been a failure lowers efficacy beliefs, which

contributes to the expectation that future performances will also be inept. The level of

arousal, either of anxiety or excitement, adds to the feeling of mastery or incompetence.

Attributions play a role, as well. If a success is attributed to internal or controllable

causes such as ability or effort, then self-efficacy is enhanced; but if success is attributed

to luck or to the intervention of others, then self-efficacy may not be strengthened

(Bandura, 1993; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996).

Vicarious experiences are those in which someone else models the skill in

question (Bandura, 1997). The degree to which the observer identifies with the model

24  
moderates the effect on the observer’s self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). The more closely

the observer identifies with the model, the stronger the impact on efficacy will be. When

a model with whom the observer identifies performs well, the efficacy of the observer is

enhanced. When the model performs poorly, the efficacy expectations of the observer

decrease.

Social persuasion may come in the form of a pep talk or specific performance

feedback from a supervisor or a colleague, or it may involve general chatter in the

teachers’ lounge or in the media about the ability of teachers to influence students.

Although alone it may be limited in its power to create enduring increases in self-

efficacy, social persuasion can contribute to successful performances to the extent that a

persuasive boost in self-efficacy leads a person to initiate a task, attempt new strategies,

or try hard enough to succeed (Bandura, 1982). Social persuasion may counter

occasional setbacks that would otherwise have instilled enough self-doubt to interrupt

persistence. The potency of persuasion depends upon the credibility, trustworthiness, and

expertise of the persuader (Bandura, 1986).

The Development of the Gibson and Dembo Instrument

Gibson and Dembo (1984) developed a more extensive and reliable measurement

of teacher efficacy. They began with the formulations of the RAND studies, but brought

to bear the conceptual underpinnings of Bandura. They assumed that the two RAND

items reflected the two expectancies of Bandura’s social cognitive theory: self-efficacy

and outcome efficacy (Gibson & Dembo, 1984).

Beginning with teacher interviews and analyses of previous studies of teachers

reported as having a strong sense of efficacy, Gibson and Dembo (1984) developed a 30-

25  
item measure of teacher efficacy. Factor analysis confirmed the existence of two factors,

one that Gibson and Dembo (1984) called personal teaching efficacy (PTE), assumed to

reflect self-efficacy, and another called general teaching efficacy (GTE), assumed to

capture outcome expectancy. Using the Gibson and Dembo (1984) items, other

researchers have confirmed the existence of two factors (Anderson et al., 1988; Burley,

Hall, Villeme, & Brockmeier, 1991; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Moore & Esselman, 1992;

Saklofske, Michaluk, & Randhawa, 1988; Soodak & Podell, 1993). When the RAND

items were included in the factor analysis with the Gibson and Dembo measure, RAND 1

(“When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much because most of a

student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment”) loaded

on the GTE factor, and RAND 2 (“If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most

difficult or unmotivated students”) loaded on the PTE factor (Coladarci, 1992; Ohmart,

1992; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990). Studies of both preservice and inservice teachers have

found that from 18% to 30% of the variance between teachers is explained by these two

factors.

Gibson and Dembo (1984) predicted that teachers who score high on both general

teaching efficacy and personal teaching efficacy would be active and assured in their

responses to students and that these teachers would persist longer, provide greater

academic focus in the classroom, and exhibit different types of feedback than teachers

who had lower expectations of their ability to influence student learning. Conversely,

teachers who scored low on both general and personal efficacy were expected to give up

readily if they did not get results. Research generally has supported these predictions.

The Development of the Ohio State Teachers Efficacy Scale

26  
 Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) examined the relationship between organizational

characteristics and teacher efficacy using an adapted version of the TES (Elliot, 1999)

developed by Gibson and Dembo (1984) and an elementary school version of the

organizational health inventory. Hoy and Woolfolk’s adaptation of the TES distinguished

two independent dimensions of teacher efficacy: general teaching efficacy and personal

teaching efficacy. Each dimension was represented with five distinct survey items

(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The organizational health inventory was a

39-item instrument that measured six elements of school health.

The researchers randomly selected 179 teachers from 37 elementary schools in

New Jersey. According to the state of New Jersey, over 70% of the schools were above

average in wealth, establishing a sample base representative of more advantaged districts.

Over 170 of the teachers completed the survey, accomplishing over a 95% response rate.

Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) reported that analysis of the data considered the independent

effects of organizational health variables on each dimension of teacher efficacy, “as well

as … determine[d] the net effects of all the independent variables on the dependent

variables of efficacy” (p. 363).

Results of the analysis revealed that only principal influence, academic emphasis,

and educational level had “unique, significant effects on teachers’ sense of personal

efficacy” (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993, p. 364). According to Hoy and Woolfolk (1993), this

finding led the researchers to believe that:

Teachers who perceived their principals as exerting influence on their behalf

(principal influence), who perceived that the teaching environment was
academically oriented (academic emphasis), and who had taken extra graduate work
(educational level) were likely to have stronger beliefs that they could motivate and
reach even the most difficult students (personal teaching efficacy). (p. 363)

27  
 The organizational health variables that impacted general teaching efficacy were

trust among colleagues, collegial support, and institutional integrity and morale— with

only institutional integrity and morale having unique significant relationships. Hoy and

Woolfolk (1993) stated that:

Teachers who perceive that the school protects them from unreasonable community
demands and helps them maintain integrity in their instructional programs are more
likely to believe that teaching can overcome the negative forces of the students’
home environment (general teaching efficacy). (p. 636)

Results of the study demonstrated independence of personal and general teaching

efficacy in relation to organizational variables. Personal variables, including principal

leadership behaviors, influenced teachers’ sense of general efficacy, whereas morale

(feelings of trust, confidence, friendship, and warmth) did not influence teachers’ sense

of personal efficacy. Though this finding may mean that teachers are more comfortable in

their work environment, it does not necessarily indicate that they are more effective with

the most challenging students.

Also noted was that years of teaching experience positively relates to personal

teaching efficacy and negatively related to general teaching efficacy. More experienced

teachers felt strength in their ability to teach challenging learners effectively, but

questioned their ability to overcome the negative affects of the home environment.

The study also cited the importance of distinguishing between the two types of

teacher efficacy as well as signified the value of identifying personal teaching

characteristics as important variables when studying teacher efficacy (Elliott, 1999).

Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) published a report that examined teacher efficacy

and attempted to bring a clearer understanding to the construct and its measurement.

They explored the utilization of various instruments to identify patterns of consistency

28  
that would clarify the understanding of teacher efficacy. They furthered the research by

introducing a model of teacher efficacy that integrates two novel factors related to the

two most commonly known factors of general teaching efficacy and personal teaching

efficacy. The model proposed the concept of teacher efficacy as more context-specific

and introduced “teaching task and its context and self-perceptions of teaching

competence” (p. 18) as components that lead to judgments about self-efficacy for the

teaching task at hand.

Analysis of the teaching task and its context refers to the assessment required of

teachers in the anticipated teaching situation. The difficulty of the task and the

requirements for success are aspects of the analysis that must be considered in context-

specific efficacy. Self-perceptions of teaching competence refer to perceptions of current

functioning that helps predict future capability. In other words, the amount of confidence

maintained in the teacher’s current level effectiveness will impact how successful and/or

efficacious the teacher will be in the future (Tschannen- Moran et al., 1998).

The report discussed the integrated model and its components in relation to efficacy

beliefs of preservice teachers, novice teachers, and experienced teachers, as well as in

relation to the implementation of innovations and teacher career stages. Suggestions for

supporting and improving efficacy at various career levels were revealed and directions

for future research were implied. The researchers indicated that their model should be

thoroughly tested and the topics of collective efficacy and changing efficacy beliefs

should be further investigated. In addition, the report suggested that the refinement and

development of new measures of efficacy should continue and that a valid measure of

teacher efficacy would include both of the components of the new model (Tschannen-

29  
Moran et al., 1998).

Soon after this report was published, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001)

began working on a new measure to address their perceived deficiencies in other

measures of teacher efficacy. Work on this new measure was conducted in a seminar on

self-efficacy in teaching and learning in the College of Education at The Ohio State

University. The two researchers and eight graduate students explored several possible

formats for the new efficacy scale and settled on a measure based on Bandura’s scale

with additional items measuring an expanded list of teacher capabilities. The format

would initially be called the Ohio State Teachers Efficacy Scale, but would also be

referred to as the TSES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

The new TSES more accurately portrayed the richness of teachers’ work as well as

the requirements of good teaching and included five additional factors: (a) assessment,

(b) adjusting the lesson to individual student needs, (c) dealing with learning difficulties,

(d) repairing student misconceptions, and (e) motivating student engagement and interest

(Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). The new TSES was examined and tested in three

separate studies, resulting in a long form of the instrument with 24 items and a short form

with 12 items. Three factors emerged in the second study, as the new group refined the

items in the new instrument: (a) efficacy in student engagement, (b) efficacy in

instructional strategies, and (c) efficacy in classroom management (Tschannen-Moran &

Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The addition of these more relevant factors and representative

dimensions seems to more accurately employ the two components of Tschannen-Moran

et al.’s (1998) proposed integrated model of teacher efficacy.

Because of its construct validity, the Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) was

30  
employed for this study.

Teacher Expectations for Performance Capabilities

The effects of teacher expectations have been well examined in the education

literature (Alviderez & Weinstein, 1999; Babad & Taylor, 1992; Gill & Reynolds, 1999;

Gottfredson et al., 1995; Jussim & Eccles, 1992; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Kenealy et

al.,1991; Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2001; Lane et al., 2003; Rubie-Davies, 2006; Rubie-

Davies et al., 2006). These examinations have led to clear evidence that expectations do

exist in regular classroom situations and that they can positively and/or negatively

influence student performance and achievement (Babad, 1993; Brophy, 1982; Cooper &

Good, 1983; Good, 1987; Jussim, Smith, Madon, & Palumbo, 1998; Weinstein, 2002).

Expectancy theory began with a study by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), which

appeared to show that when teachers held expectations of particular students, they

interacted with their students in various ways such that their initial, sometimes erroneous,

expectations were fulfilled. These findings led investigators and researchers to further

explore the direct and indirect exchanges of teachers that might have positive/negative

implications for student achievement.

Much of the earlier literature concentrated on direct exchanges that occurred in

the classroom. Brophy and Good (1970) designed a classroom instrument to record

dyadic teacher-student interactions and then conducted observations in separate

classrooms. Their observations enabled them to find 17 differing behaviors that teachers

used with high- and low-expectation students. They found, for example, that teachers

were more likely to praise correct answers from high-expectation students than they were

to praise such answers from low-expectation students— even though the latter occurred

31  
less frequently. They further reported that low-expectation students were criticized more

often when their answers were incorrect and that teachers more often accepted poor

performances from these students than they did from the high-expectation students when

they had answered incorrectly; teachers also provided support for them in reading, which

the low-expectation students did not receive to the same degree. Brophy (1995) argued

that these differential behaviors may have affected the progress of students and therefore

acted as self-fulfilling prophecies.

Cooper and Good (1983) also identified similar behaviors as contributing to

teacher expectation effects, but added that teachers interacted more frequently with high-

expectation students in public and with low-expectation students in private. They argued

that teachers actually discouraged low-expectation students from making public

responses.

This kind of research provided the impetus for further research on the dyadic

behaviors of teachers, seeking to unravel the consequences of teacher expectations for

student learning. These behaviors were readily available and could be recorded easily,

however, none of the aforementioned researchers provided effect sizes that would enable

researchers to determine the relative significance of these behaviors in contributing to

self-fulfilling prophecy effects.

The provision of effect sizes was conducted by Harris and Rosenthal (1985), who

identified 31 different teacher behaviors categorized by researchers in 136 investigations

as contributing to teacher expectation effects. Their meta-analysis showed that many of

the behaviors identified in previous studies and that researchers had concentrated on

altering actually had less impact on student outcomes than others less frequently focused

32  
on. For example, Harris and Rosenthal provided the following behaviors as having a

more positive impact for student achievement: creating a friendlier classroom

environment, teaching high-expectation students more concepts and more difficult

concepts, fostering a warm socioemotional climate. It seemed from this analysis that

dyadic teacher-student interactions, though important, were of less significance in the

mediation of teacher expectations than were whole-class factors, such as classroom

climate.

Rubie-Davies (2006) recently identified teachers who had correspondingly high

or low expectations for all the students in their respective classes. She asked 21 teachers

in a sample to rate their students’ expected achievement in reading at the end of the year.

The results confirmed that the expectations were at the class level. When teachers had

high expectations for their high ability students they had similarly high expectations for

their average and below average students. Likewise the low expectations of some

teachers were found to relate to all ability levels. Furthermore, the students placed with

the high-expectation teachers made markedly more progress in reading than did those in

the classes of low expectation teachers.

In a subsequent study, Rubie-Davies (2007) showed that pedagogical beliefs and

self-reported practices of high- and low-expectation teachers identified in her initial study

differed in substantial ways. The high-expectation teachers taught their students in

homogeneous ability groups but then allowed their students to choose their learning

activities. They believed students could select appropriate activities and that students

should work in mixed ability groupings with a range of peers. Moreover, the high-

expectation teachers believed that although students should be given some ownership for

33  
their learning, teachers should monitor their progress slowly, provide them with feedback

about their learning, and set clear learning goals with students. Furthermore, they

thought that teachers should ensure that the activities students completed were exciting

and interesting, as the high-expectation teachers believed that such activities were

motivating for students. Again, these findings point to the role of whole class expectation

effects.

In 2007, Rubie-Davies studied 12 of the original 21 teachers from her prior

studies. In this investigation, she explored the classroom exchanges of high- and low-

expectation teachers with their students as a mechanism for teachers’ expectations. In

particular, the teaching, feedback, questioning, and procedural and classroom

management strategies of the differing groups of teachers were explored. The results of

the study indicated important differences in the classroom environments for students of

high-expectation teachers and low-expectation teachers. The high-expectation teachers’

instructional environment was much more effective. Strategies such as building

background knowledge, using student prior knowledge, providing scaffolding, giving

regular feedback, conducting higher level questioning, and placing less focus on

classroom management issues were highlights of high-expectation classrooms.

The socioemotional climate of classrooms created by high-expectation teachers

was likely to be more positive and caring than that found in the classrooms of low-

expectation teachers. High-expectation teachers provided more feedback, thus

establishing partnerships with students. Moreover, the median for criticism of students

by high-expectation teachers was uncommon; yet they did praise students often, thus

creating a positive environment for students. High-expectation teachers also commonly

34  
rephrased questions for students or guided students toward a correct response when they

did not know the answer or responded incorrectly, thus encouraging students.

In concluding this article, Rubie-Davies (2007) suggested that teacher

characteristics may play a more influential role than student characteristics in the

formation of teachers’ expectations. She stated, “Although teacher self-efficacy was not

measured in the current study it may be that high-expectation teachers have confidence in

their ability to make a difference for students” (p. 304).

Scharlach (2008) recently conducted research of preservice teacher beliefs and the

influence these beliefs have on their expectations of struggling readers. Scharlach

argued,

Because preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching children who are struggling
with reading acquisition will influence their future teaching decisions and
practices as they work with such children, it is important that preservice teachers
and teacher education programs understand these beliefs. (p. 158)

Scharlach (2008) gave her rationale for this study by saying that researchers have

reported that teachers, like all human beings, make decisions based on their beliefs

(Bandura, 1986; Fang, 1996; Kagan & Smith, 1988; Lonberger, 1992; Richardson, 1996;

Rokeach, 1968; Solomon, Battistich, & Hom, 1996; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000; Winfield,

1986). These decisions and actions, according to Scharlach (2008), have a significant

impact on the learning experiences of students. Teachers’ actions are influenced by their

attitudes and beliefs, which then influence learning and student behavior (Wiest, 1998).

The methods for Scharlach’s (2008) study consisted of case studies of six

preservice teachers who were employed as tutors and described how their beliefs about

teaching struggling readers influenced their teaching behaviors. Included in the data

collection were background information sheets, autobiographies, interviews, observations

35  
of teaching struggling readers, and the preservice teachers’ written expectations and

evaluations of struggling readers.

Participants were classified as high-expectation or low-expectation based on their

expectations for student achievement. Scharlach (2008) concluded that the majority of

the preservice teachers did not believe they were capable of or responsible for teaching

all of their students to read. When preservice teachers believed that they were capable of

and responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they had higher

expectations. The two preservice teachers who believed that they were personally

capable of teaching all of their struggling readers to read also expected all of their

struggling readers to learn to read on grade level by the end of the sessions. These two

preservice teachers had high expectations for all of their students and believed they were

responsible for teaching them to read.

When the preservice teachers believed that they were not capable of or

responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read, they had lower

expectations. They expected their struggling readers to remain below grade level at the

end of the sessions. These teachers had low expectations for almost all of their students

and believed that it was the responsibility of a resource teacher or parents to help these

students learn to read.

The preservice teachers who believed that they were capable of and responsible

for teaching all struggling readers to read accepted responsibility when the students made

significant progress, believing their instruction enabled the students to make progress.

The preservice teachers who did not believe that they were capable of or responsible for

teaching all struggling readers to read, however, did not accept responsibility when the

36  
students made significant progress in reading. They cited intrinsic causes such as

motivation as the leading cause for progress — not their instruction.

The preservice teachers who believed that they were capable of and responsible

for teaching all struggling readers to read also accepted responsibility when students did

not make significant progress in reading. They cited themselves and their instruction as

the reasons for the lack of achievement. The preservice teachers who did not believe that

they were capable of and responsible for teaching all of their struggling readers to read,

however, did not accept responsibility when students did not make significant progress in

reading. They placed the responsibility for lack of achievement on the students, and

described possible reasons such as lack of motivation, low socioeconomic status, having

a reading disability, or poor behavior.

Walmsley and Allington (1995) issued a warning that many classroom teachers

held the attitude that they were not capable of or responsible for helping all of their

children succeed. These researchers described teachers operating from “it can’t be done”

or “it isn’t my job” perspectives. Teachers need to first develop the self-efficacy to

change their current beliefs about all students, but especially about those from

marginalized groups based on race, gender, and class.

Teaching for Social Justice

Attention to social justice issues incorporates a broad range of sociological

dimensions in teaching, and education more generally, including attention to fairness and

equity with regard to gender, race, class, disability, sexual orientation, and so forth.

Because teacher variables such as efficacy and expectations about student performance

37  
capabilities have proven to be significant to the learning of marginalized groups of

students, investigating possible solutions in order to provide an adequate education to all

students regardless of race or class is vital. A theory of teaching for social justice, more

specifically, a critical theory and critical pedagogy offer such solutions.

Kohl (2000) has argued that teachers may often teach against their conscience, do

a sloppy job of teaching, limit their methodology, and focus too much on being a good

teacher without being a good citizen. Overcoming these prospects is the crux of what he

and many other educators call "teaching for social justice."

Teaching for social justice calls for critically examining teaching and schooling

practices through critical theory and critical pedagogy. Critical pedagogy is a teaching

approach that attempts to help students question and challenge domination, and the

beliefs and practices that dominate. Critical pedagogy includes relationships between

teaching and learning. It is a continuous process of unlearning, learning, and relearning,

reflection, evaluation, and the impact that these actions have on the students, in particular

students who have been historically— and continue to be— disenfranchised by

traditional schooling. The purpose of critical pedagogy is to serve as a powerful lens of

analysis from which social inequalities and oppressive institutional structures can be

unveiled, critiqued, and most importantly, transformed through the process of political

engagement and social action (Darder et al.,2009). Critical pedagogy has been

influenced by the works of critical theorists such as Freire (1970), Giroux (1983),

McLaren (1989), Delpit (1990), hooks (1994), Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995), Shor

(1999), Aronowitz (2004), and Darder and Torres (2004), four of whom will be discussed

in this review.

38  
 Freire’s (1970) work has provided a solid foundation and impetus for the

development of a critical pedagogical philosophy of education. He offered a critique of

the traditional banking concept of education. The traditional banking concept, he argues,

perpetuates and maintains an oppressive society in which (a) the teacher teaches and the

students are taught; (b) the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing; (c)

the teacher thinks and the students are thought about; (d) the teacher talks and the

students listen; (e) the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined; (f) the teacher

chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply; (g) the teacher acts and the

students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher; (h) the teacher

chooses the program content, and the students adapt to it; (i) the teacher confuses the

authority of knowledge with his own professional authority, which he sets in opposition

to the freedom of the students; and (j) the teacher is the subject of the learning process,

while the pupils are mere objects.

As a counter to the banking concept of education, Freire (1970) proposed

problem-posing education. Through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-students and the

students-of-the-teacher cease to exist and teacher-students and student-teachers emerge in

problem-posing education. The teacher is no longer the only one who teaches, but is also

taught through dialogue with the students. Freire’s (1970) purpose for promoting the

problem-posing education was to transform the structure of education so that individuals

became “beings for themselves” by engaging in problem-posing education, instead of

continuing as “beings for others,” as they were in a system that employs the banking

model of education.

39  
 The work of McLaren (1989) focused on the significance of dialectical theory, the

nature of knowledge, the concepts of hegemony and ideology, and the effects of the

hidden curriculum on public schooling. He argued that critical theorists believe that men

and women are essentially unfree and live in a world filled with contradiction and

differences in power and privilege. Dialectical thinking, as termed by McLaren (1989),

allowed researchers to see school both as a model of socialization and an opportunity for

students to become empowered and transformed. The purpose of dialectical educational

theory was to provide students with a model that permitted them to examine the

underlying political, social, and economic foundations of the larger society.

Hegemony and ideology are two key terms that McLaren (1989) identified.

Hegemony is the maintenance of domination not by the sheer exercise of force but

primarily through the consensual social practices and social forms produced in specific

sites such as the state, church, the school, and the political system. Hegemony is a

struggle in which the powerful win the consent of those who are oppressed, with the

oppressed unknowingly participating in their own oppression. Ideology is the production

of representation, ideas, values, and beliefs, and the manner in which they are expressed

and lived out by both individuals and groups.

McLaren (1989) argued that the curriculum represents the introduction to a

particular form of life that serves in part to prepare students for dominant or subordinate

positions in existing society. The hidden curriculum refers to the unintended outcomes of

the schooling process, which includes teaching and learning styles that are emphasized in

the classroom, governance structures, teacher expectations, and grading procedures.

40  
 Another contributing theorist to critical pedagogy is hooks (1994). Her critical

perspective calls attention to the fact that class is not discussed in the classroom, which,

she explained, creates an environment in which it is difficult for students from certain

class levels to be successful. Because students from lower classes are not aware of the

bourgeois values that must be followed, hooks (1994) argued, their ability to truly

participate in the entire academic experience is undermined. She further stated that these

values have traditionally been allowed to continue mainly because they are not discussed

in the classroom. Additionally, teachers who fail to discuss these issues in fact perpetuate

the cycle of underserving students from working-class/poor backgrounds because these

students come to school and find that they are ill equipped to meet the unwritten

requirements of behavior necessary to be successful in the current education system.

hooks (1994) further argued that no one ever directly states the rules that govern

our conduct; they are taught by example and rewarded. Similar to Freire’s (1970)

banking model of education, hooks’s book (1994) proposed that silence and obedience in

the classroom are most rewarded, and if students want to stay in the good graces of their

teachers they will quickly learn to be obedient. Unfortunately, students who come from a

working-class background, or from a culture different from that of the dominant majority

often have difficulty fitting into this mold, as they may display the loudness, anger,

emotional outbursts, and even unrestrained laughter that is common in many cultures.

Students who display these behaviors are molded into submission as they want to “save

face” and will ultimately conform to the classroom norms instead of choosing to be an

outsider— thus causing students to feel some sort of resentment toward the classroom

experience.

41  
 Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) approached critical pedagogy through the lens of

critical race theory, describing the critical race movement as follows:

…racism is not a series of isolated acts, but is endemic to American life, deeply
ingrained legally, culturally, and even psychologically; a call for reinterpretation
of civil-rights law…showing that laws to remedy racial injustices are often
undermined before they can fulfill their promise; a challenge to the traditional
claims of legal neutrality, objectivity, color-blindness, and meritocracy as
camouflages for the self interest of dominant groups in American society; an
instance of subjectivity and the reformulation of legal doctrine to reflect
perspectives of those who have experienced and been victimized by racism
firsthand; the use of stories or first-person accounts. (p. 171)

Their intent was to create a discourse that looks to create a critical race theoretical

perspective in education analogous to that of critical race theory in legal scholarship by

developing three propositions: (a) race continues to be significant in the United States;

(b) U.S. society is based on property rights rather than human rights; and (c) the

intersection of race and property creates an analytical tool for understanding inequity.

Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) presented race as a factor of inequity in

America. Race has become a way of referring to and disguising forces, events, classes,

and expressions of social decay and economic division far more threatening to the body

politic. They have argued that race is critical to explaining inequity because it has

become clear that gender and class-based explanations are not enough to explain

disparities in the performance of minority students.

Lastly, Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) theorized the concept of “whiteness” as it

functions in American education. They situated their argument based on four rights: (a)

The Rights of Disposition—when whiteness is conferred upon student performances, it is

considered alienable because students are rewarded for conformity to perceived “white

norms” or cultural practices, which can be considered property; (b) Rights to Use and

42  
Enjoyment—whiteness is “shown” in schools when there are differences between those

who possess the right to use and enjoy what schools can offer (Whites) and those who do

not (minorities); (c) Reputation and Status Property—this “right” is demonstrated through

legal cases of libel and slander, where damaging someone’s reputation is tantamount to

damaging some aspect of his/her personal property. In the case of schools, when a school

is considered nonwhite, its reputation is diminished; and (d) The Absolute Right to

Exclude—this right was demonstrated initially by denying Blacks access to schooling

completely and then, again, by segregating schools. Schools have recently been

resegregated through tracking, instituting gifted and honors programs, and offering

advanced placement classes.

These key theorists of critical pedagogy have established a rationale for exploring

the everyday interactions between teacher and student. High efficacy teachers that

embrace a critical pedagogy perspective are clearly needed in our schools.

43  
 CHAPTER THREE: METHODS

This chapter describes the methods used in this study, specifically, describing the

participants, measures, stimulus materials, and procedures.

Participants

Participants were 89 (73 females, 15 males, 1 gender unspecified) classroom

teachers recruited from an urban school district in Southern California. They were

chosen from schools at which at least 50% of their student population was either Hispanic

or Black and at least 50% of its student population qualified for free or reduced lunch.

Participants had a mean of 15.80 years teaching experience (SD = 9.18) and a mean age

of 44.22 (SD = 10.67). The majority (59; 66.3%) reported that they were White, non-

Hispanic, with the remainder reporting Hispanic (16; 18%), Asian American (4; 4.5%),

African American (3; 3.4%), and Mixed (5; 5.6%); two did not report race or ethnicity.

Measures

Descriptive Measure

A five-item demographic background questionnaire measured participants’ years

of teaching experience, grade level of students taught, and age, gender, and ethnicity

For the purpose of this study, this survey was titled Demographic Survey (See Appendix

A).

Predictive Measure

Teacher efficacy was assessed using the short form of the Teacher’s Sense of

Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). This short form contained 12

items, each on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Nothing) to 9 (A Great Deal). A

factor analysis yielded three moderately correlated factors, Efficacy in Student

44  
Engagement, Efficacy in Instructional Practices, and Efficacy in Classroom Management

(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). However, for this study, all items were

summed to create a single total score, with a possible range from 12 to 98, where higher

scores indicated a teacher’s greater sense of efficacy. For the purpose of this study, the

name of the Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy Scale was Classroom Teacher Questionnaire

(See Appendix B).

The construct validity of the TSES has been assessed by correlations of this

measure to other existing measures of teacher efficacy. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk

Hoy (2001) confirmed that the total scores on the short form TSES was strongly related

to both RAND items (Rotter, 1966) as well as to both the personal teaching efficacy

(PTE) and the general teacher efficacy factors of the Gibson and Dembo (1984) measure.

Dependent Measure

The Students in the Classroom Survey employed 35 items from Auwarter and

Aruguete (2008). It consisted of the following scales: (a) future expectations for the

student (Cronbach’s α = .79) consisted of nine statements rated on a 5-point, Likert-type

scale (e.g., “This student has a good chance of dropping out of high school.”); (b) need

for academic support services (Cronbach’s α = .70) consisted of three 5-point, Likert-

type statements (e.g., “This student could benefit from extra tutoring in math.”); (c)

personal characteristics (Cronbach’s α = .86) consisted of 13 7-point questions on a

semantic differential scale (e.g., “Competent” to “Incompetent”); (d) believability

(Cronbach’s α = .80) consisted of four 5-point, Likert-type items measuring the

believability that children like this are common in the school system (e.g., “Students

45  
often behave like the student in the scenario”). For the purpose of this study, this survey

was titled Students in the Classroom Survey (See Appendix C).

For this study, that factor structure was not assumed; therefore, a principal

components factor analysis was performed on the 35 items, using orthogonal rotation.

Because the original measure was intended to have four scales, the number of dimensions

was constrained to four.

Table 1 presents factor loadings for items loading on each factor. Items with

factor component loadings of at least .45 were retained. Four items were dropped on the

basis of this analysis. Scales reliabilities are reported in Table 1.

Items loaded on each factor then were used to four subscales by computing an

average of the responses to each item corresponding to that factor. In the process of

doing this, however, internal consistency reliability using Cronbach’s α was run for each

subscale. Because reliabilities were substantially increased by some item deletions, four

items were pulled from use in these subscales. Alphas are reported in Table 1. Scores

could range from 1 to 5 for each scale. Factor 1, academic support services, speaks to

specific academic interventions outside the regular classroom. Factor 2, personal

characteristics, speaks to work habits of the student. Factor 3, future prediction, speaks

to how well the depicted student will perform academically in the future. Factor 4,

emotional/behavioral factors, speaks to family and/or home-related factors that the

depicted student might be dealing with.

46  
Table 1: Principal Components Analysis of Students in the Classroom Questionnaire:

Factor Loadings

alpha= .82 .79 .78 .66

Component
1 2 3 4
Best place for this student is special education -.58 .11 .30 -.15
Incompetent -.46 .23 .38 .06
Needs Supervision .48 -.13 .24 .29
Needs Prompting .52 .37 .13 .09
This student probably would need to learn study skills .69 .08 -.01 .04
An intervention with this student is needed .71 .02 -.08 .26
This student could benefit from a math buddy .78 -.07 .02 -.02
The student could benefit from extra tutoring in math .87 .09 -.14 .09
Lazy -.32 .50 -.02 .01
NonProductive -.24 .55 .03 .24
Gives up Easily -.01 .57 .22 -.18
Lacks Self Discipline -.03 .59 -.01 .04
Does not take initiative .15 .60 -.10 -.22
Sluggish .00 .63 .03 .02
Low Self-regard .27 .63 .05 .06
Unstable .18 .63 .13 .16
Not Ambitious -.01 .69 .21 -.27
This student's math grades will not improve in the future -.35 .22 .50 .08
This student will perform poorly on standardized tests .01 .00 .50 -.12
Unskilled in Math .04 .14 .51 -.47
This student will not perform well in applied math class .03 .12 .55 -.28
Unskilled in Language -.06 .03 .58 -.52
Students like the one described above will most likely aspire to
low paying jobs -.07 .27 .62 -.08
This student's chances of dropping out of HS are high .18 -.31 .65 .22
This student will have difficulty to complete his current grades
successfully -.01 -.07 .65 .27
Two years from now this student still will be struggling
academically -.21 .11 .67 .20
This student probably has emotional problems .27 -.01 .24 .51
This student has good language skills .09 -.22 -.31 .52
The teachers who work with this student will have a difficult
time dealing with his class behavior -.16 -.09 .09 .57
This student will continue to have behavior referrals .09 .12 -.02 .60
This student is probably disruptive in class .10 .06 -.06 .67
Note: See narrative for names given each factor.

47  
Manipulation Check

To assess whether participants recognized the intended manipulations, two open-

ended questions were added to the end of the survey. One was “What was the race or

ethnicity of this student?” The other was: “What was the socioeconomic status of this

student?”

Materials

Six vignettes were developed for this study. They were identical except for

certain key descriptors. The manipulation involved varying the ethnicity (Black,

Hispanic, White) and student’s socioeconomic status (SES) (high, low) to produce six

experimental conditions: (a) White, high SES; (b) White, low SES; (c) Hispanic, high

SES; (d) Hispanic, low SES; (e) Black, high SES; and (f) Black, low SES. Ethnicity in

the vignettes was varied by (a) use of names and (b) providing the race or ethnicity of the

student. Socioeconomic status in the vignettes was varied by the alteration of parents’

professions. The vignettes were:

White, High SES: Mark Hall is a White student in a large, urban district in

Southern California. He lives with both parents and is the middle child in the family.

His mother is a physician and his father is an attorney. He has an average IQ but is

earning poor grades and failing in math. He has not been turning in his homework in

several subjects and does not use his time efficiently in class. Mark used to have a

positive attitude about school, earned good grades, and was well liked by his teachers.

Recently, he has become withdrawn and has begun to receive a number of behavioral

referrals. For example, he has become aggressive with his peers by getting into both

48  
verbal and physical fights at least once a week. His parents have met with the teacher

and school counselor on a few occasions, but the situation has not improved.

White, Low SES: Mark Hall is a White student in a large, urban district in

Southern California. He lives with both parents and is the middle child in the family.

His mother cleans rooms in a local motel and his father is currently unemployed. He has

an average IQ but is earning poor grades and failing in math. He has not been turning in

his homework in several subjects and does not use his time efficiently in class. Mark

used to have a positive attitude about school, earned good grades, and was well liked by

his teachers. Recently, he has become withdrawn and has begun to receive a number of

behavioral referrals. For example, he has become aggressive with his peers by getting

into both verbal and physical fights at least once a week. His parents have met with the

teacher and school counselor on a few occasions, but the situation has not improved.

Hispanic, High SES: Jose Chavez is an Hispanic student in a large, urban district

in Southern California. He lives with both parents and is the middle child in the family.

His mother is a physician and his father is an attorney. He has an average IQ but is

earning poor grades and failing in math. He has not been turning in his homework in

several subjects and does not use his time efficiently in class. Jose used to have a

positive attitude about school, earned good grades, and was well liked by his teachers.

Recently, he has become withdrawn and has begun to receive a number of behavioral

referrals. For example, he has become aggressive with his peers by getting into both

verbal and physical fights at least once a week. His parents have met with the teacher

and school counselor on a few occasions, but the situation has not improved.

49  
 Hispanic, Low SES: Jose Chavez is a Hispanic student in a large, urban district in

Southern California. He lives with both parents and is the middle child in the family.

His mother cleans rooms in a local motel and his father is currently unemployed. He has

an average IQ but is earning poor grades and failing in math. He has not been turning in

his homework in several subjects and does not use his time efficiently in class. Jose used

to have a positive attitude about school, earned good grades, and was well liked by his

teachers. Recently, he has become withdrawn and has begun to receive a number of

behavioral referrals. For example, he has become aggressive with his peers by getting

into both verbal and physical fights at least once a week. His parents have met with the

teacher and school counselor on a few occasions, but the situation has not improved.

Black, High SES: Tyrone Johnson is a Black student in a large, urban district in

Southern California. He lives with both parents and is the middle child in the family.

His mother is a physician and his father is an attorney. He has an average IQ but is

earning poor grades and failing in math. He has not been turning in his homework in

several subjects and does not use his time efficiently in class. Tyrone used to have a

positive attitude about school, earned good grades, and was well liked by his teachers.

Recently, he has become withdrawn and has begun to receive a number of behavioral

referrals. For example, he has become aggressive with his peers by getting into both

verbal and physical fights at least once a week. His parents have met with the teacher

and school counselor on a few occasions, but the situation has not improved.

Black, Low SES: Tyrone Johnson is a Black student in a large, urban district in

Southern California. He lives with both parents and is the middle child in the family.

His mother cleans rooms in a local motel and his father is currently unemployed. He has

50  
an average IQ but is earning poor grades and failing in math. He has not been turning in

his homework in several subjects and does not use his time efficiently in class. Tyrone

used to have a positive attitude about school, earned good grades, and was well liked by

his teachers. Recently, he has become withdrawn and has begun to receive a number of

behavioral referrals. For example, he has become aggressive with his peers by getting

into both verbal and physical fights at least once a week. His parents have met with the

teacher and school counselor on a few occasions, but the situation has not improved.

Procedures and Recruitment

Data were collected via Internet survey. Prospective participants (N = 454) were

emailed an invitation to participate and were provided a URL link to the survey that

consisted of the Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), one of six vignettes

(randomly assigned), and the dependent measure (Students in the Classroom Survey).

The response rate was 19.6%.

Other than the manipulated changes in the paragraphs, all information about the

student was constant across vignettes. Participants were instructed to read the paragraph

and then fill out a questionnaire, answering questions as if they had been the teacher of

the student in the paragraph. The questionnaire packet contained four measures: (a)

academic support services, (b) student personal characteristics, (c) future prediction, and

(d) emotional/behavioral factors.

51  
 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

This chapter reports the study’s results. It is organized into two sections. The

first section reports descriptive statistics and preliminary analyses; the second reports

examinations of the three research questions.

Descriptive Statistics and Preliminary Analyses

Results from descriptive analyses are presented in this section. Specifically,

between-variable correlations are discussed, followed by a presentation of mean and

standard deviation differences on selected variables of interest. Also, the success of

randomization is reported with respect to teacher self-efficacy; the success of the

manipulation is tested as well.

Before any analyses were run, missing data were imputed. Relatively few data

were missing, and in each case they were replaced by the mean value of that variable.

Between-Variable Relationships

Correlations were computed to examine the relationship between variables. These

results are presented in Table 2. Not surprisingly, age was significantly and positively

correlated with years of teaching (.68). But teacher efficacy was not significantly related

either to teacher age (-.06) or classroom experience (.07).

Teacher self-efficacy was significantly and negatively correlated (-.29) with the

personal characteristics of the student in the classroom scenario given (.05, two-tailed).

Overall, most correlation coefficients were in the expected direction. Furthermore, given

the model being tested, variables that were expected to relate to each other showed

significant correlations.

Table 3 reports means and standard deviations for each of the for SCS scales by

race/ethnicity conditions and SES levels. Inferential statistics related to these data are

52  
reported in the following section.

Table 2

Between-Variable Correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M SD
1 Self Efficacy 70.03 8.05
2 Age -.06 44.23 10.67
3 Years teaching .07 .68 15.81 9.18
4 Academic Support
Services .19 .00 -.02 4.02 .64
5 Personal -
Characteristics -.29 .11 -.14 .08 3.13 .61
6 Future Prediction -.16 .09 .05 -.13 .22 2.84 .51
- -
7 Emotional/Behavioral -.07 .19 -.05 .27 .00 .05 3.40 .54
Note: Variables 4-7 are scales for the teacher perceptions.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics for the Four Scales by Experimental Condition

Scales of the Students in the Classroom Survey

Students' Student's Academic
Race/ SES Support Personal Future Emotional/
Ethnicity Level N Services Characteristics Prediction Behavioral
M SD M SD M SD M SD
White High 14 3.99 .70 3.17 .44 2.56 .47 3.50 .74
Low 16 4.10 .71 3.09 .73 3.05 .43 3.48 .47
Hispanic High 10 3.93 .77 2.97 .45 2.80 .58 3.26 .50
Low 15 3.94 .76 2.96 .68 3.04 .53 3.21 .60
High 18 3.99 .58 3.15 .58 2.75 .63 3.51 .51
Black Low 16 4.11 .39 3.36 .66 2.80 .26 3.35 .40

Check on Randomization: Self-Efficacy as the Relevant Variable

Table 3 reports means and standard deviations of teacher self-efficacy for

participants assigned to the six conditions: A 3 race/ethnicity conditions X 2 SES levels,

two-way ANOVA revealed no statistically significant between-group differences, which

supports the randomization to condition.

53  
Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations

Self-Efficacy Age Years Teaching

Students' Student's
Race/ SES
Ethnicity Level N M SD M SD M SD
White High 14 68.29 8.65 41.86 12.50 11.89 7.41
Low 16 71.06 8.94 46.06 9.26 18.72 9.11
Hispanic High 10 72.40 6.79 39.50 9.32 12.90 8.93
Low 15 71.50 8.73 45.00 11.08 12.14 7.58
High 18 68.28 9.31 46.61 10.98 18.67 9.71
Black Low 16 69.75 5.05 44.06 10.62 18.13 9.84

Manipulation Check

Table 5 reports the results of the manipulation check. Participants were asked two

open-ended questions at the end of the Students in the Classroom Questionnaire. One

question related to the race/ethnicity of the student in the given vignette. All 89

participants responded to this particular question. All 34 participants (100%) who were

assigned a Black student responded correctly to the manipulation check. Participants

who were assigned an Hispanic student responded correctly 23 out of 25 times (92%).

Participants who were assigned a White student in the given vignette responded correctly

30 out of 30 times (100%). Given these percentages, the participants demonstrated an

understanding of the race/ethnicity of the given student in the vignette assigned.

The second open-ended question at the end of the Students in the Classroom

Questionnaire related to the socioeconomic status of the student in the given vignette.

There were 88 responses to this question from the 89 participants. Participants who were

assigned a student with low socioeconomic status responded correctly 46 out of 46 times

(100%). Participants who were assigned a student with high socioeconomic status

54  
responded correctly 39 out of 42 times (92.8%). Given these percentages, the

participants demonstrated an understanding of the socioeconomic status of the given

student in the vignette assigned.

Table 5: Manipulation Check

Proportion Identifying Condition

Intended Condition Correctly
Race/ Ethnicity
Black 34/34; 100%
Hispanic 23/25; 92%
White 30/30; 100%
SES Level
Low 46/46; 100%
High 39/42; 92.9%

Research Questions

This section reports analyses used to examine the three research questions. These

questions are restated immediately below. Because expectation and perceptions of the

student in each case were operationalized in four ways, corresponding to the four SCS

scales (academic support services, personal characteristics, future prediction, and,

emotional/behavioral factors), each question has four specific subparts.

Research Question 1: To what degree does a teacher’s sense of efficacy affect that

teacher’s perceptions of students depicted in a vignette as varying by race or

ethnicity (Black, Hispanic, White) and by socioeconomic status (high versus

low)?

Research Question 2: Do teachers’ expectations for student performance capabilities

remain the same across racial/ethnic groups (Black, Hispanic, White)?

55  
 Research Question 3: Do teachers’ expectations for student performance capabilities

remain the same across socioeconomic levels (high, low)?

Students’ Need for Academic Support Services

To examine Research Questions 1-3, focusing on academic support services, a 2-

way (race/ethnicity X SES) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was run, with participant

self-efficacy as the covariate. No statistically significant differences were obtained.

Students’ Personal Characteristics

To examine Research Questions 1-3, focusing on students’ personal

characteristics, a 2-way (race/ethnicity X SES) ANCOVA was run, with participant self-

efficacy as the covariate. The relationship between self-efficacy and the criterion

variable was statistically significant, which had already been noted in discussions of

Table 2, which depicted a positive correlation between the two variables; that is, the

higher the teacher’s self-efficacy, the more positively she or he regarded the depicted

students’ personal characteristics—namely, the student’s work habits in the classroom.

However, there was not a statistically significant main effect for race/ethnicity or

for SES; nor was there a statistically significant interaction between the two.

Future Predictions about the Student

To examine Research Questions 1-3, focusing on future predications about the

student, a 2-way (race/ethnicity X SES) ANCOVA was run, with participant self-efficacy

as the covariate. The relationship between self-efficacy and the criterion variable was

statistically significant, which suggests that the higher the teacher’s self-efficacy, the

more positively his or her predictions about the student’s future.

56  
 And, whereas there was neither a race/ethnicity X SES interaction effect nor a

main effect for race/ethnicity, a statistically significant result was obtained for SES

(F(1,81) = 6.87, p = .01. That is, regardless of the depicted student’s race or ethnicity,

participants were more negative about the future of the lower SES student (M = 2.96; SD

= 42.67) than of the higher SES student (M = 2.69; SD = .56); higher scores are more

negative.

Emotional/Behavioral Characteristics of the Student

To examine Research Questions 1-3, focusing on emotional/behavioral

characteristics of the student, a 2-way (race/ethnicity X SES) ANCOVA was run, with

participant self-efficacy as the covariate. No statistically significant differences were

obtained.

57  
 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

The potentially powerful effect of teachers’ efficacy beliefs and their beliefs

regarding student performance capabilities has not gone unnoticed in the extant literature.

Many researchers have documented the positive behaviors of teachers, who believe they

have the ability to perform the actions necessary to positively influence student behavior

and academic performance (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). However,

few studies have linked teachers’ efficacy with teachers’ expectations for performance

capabilities, particularly with students of varied race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

This study highlighted the relationship between teachers’ efficacy and teachers’

expectations, and expanded the literature in both areas of research.

This chapter will highlight the findings and implications of the current study. The

discussion will consist of four main parts: (a) interpretations of the findings, (b)

limitations to the study, (c) implications for future research, and (d) implications for

practice.

Interpretation of the Findings

In this section, findings and interpretations pertaining to each of the three research

questions are discussed. Because teachers’ expectations for performance capabilities

were operationalized by four subscales (academic support services, personal

characteristics, future prediction, and emotional/behavioral factors), each research

question is discussed in relation to these.

Results from this research showed teacher efficacy to be positively related to

teachers’ future predictions about the student in a given scenario. Specifically, the higher

the teachers’ efficacy, the more positive were his or her predictions about students’ future

58  
academic success, independent of race or SES level. Moreover, the significance is

specific to the socioeconomic status of the student, rather than to race or ethnicity:

regardless of the depicted students’ race or ethnicity, participants were more negative

about the future of the low socioeconomic status student than they were about that of the

high socioeconomic status student.

The results are consistent with the work of a number of theorists and researchers.

For example, hooks’ (1994) employed a critical perspective to call attention to the fact

that class is not discussed in the classroom, which creates an environment in which it is

difficult for students from certain class levels to be successful. As hooks (1994)

explained, this environment undermines the ability of lower class students to truly

participate in the academic experience. Additionally, teachers perpetuate the cycle of

underserving students from working-class/poor backgrounds because these students come

to school and find that they are ill-equipped to meet the unwritten requirements of

behavior that are necessary for students to be successful in the current education system

(hooks, 1994).

Auwarter and Aruguete (2008) observed in their study that teachers rated

hypothetical students in low-SES scenarios as having less promising futures than

identical students portrayed as having high SES. This data supported the findings of

other researchers (Hamilton, Sherman, & Ruvolo, 1990; Jussim, 1986; and Rist, 1970):

that children from higher SES backgrounds are judged more favorably than equally

performing children of lower SES backgrounds.

But this study included the additional factor of teachers’ self-efficacy; therefore, it

is useful to note that teachers who believe that SES is a predetermining factor for student

59  
achievement are apparently ineffective in working with low-SES students. These

feelings of low efficacy may lead to less teaching effort, which in turn perpetuates low

student achievement. In low-income schools, about 75% of teachers show low teacher

efficacy. Finding interventions that combat both teachers’ low expectations of poor

children and the low efficacy of teachers should be a priority for the field.

This study also showed the relationship of teachers’ efficacy and perceptions of

students’ personal characteristics and work habits to be significant, though in an inverse

relationship. That is, the higher the teacher’s efficacy, the more positively she or he

regarded the students’ personal characteristics and work habits, regardless of the

race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status of the depicted student.

These results can be explained by research that stemmed from Rotter’s (1966)

work related to efficacy. Specifically, RAND researchers conceived of teacher efficacy

as the extent to which teachers believed that they could control the reinforcement of their

actions. They assumed that student characteristics and performance were significant re-

enforcers of teaching behaviors. The RAND items measured general teaching efficacy

and personal teaching efficacy.

General teaching efficacy suggested that teachers’ beliefs about external factors,

such as student characteristics, play a significant role and may overwhelm any power that

teachers can exert in schools. Personal teaching efficacy suggested that teachers may

have experienced past success in boosting students’ achievement, and thus are able to get

through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students. Teachers with high personal

teaching efficacy indicated having confidence in their abilities as teachers to overcome

students’ personal characteristics that could make learning difficult for students.

60  
 Several expected findings in this research did not, in fact, manifest. First, was the

prediction that teachers with low efficacy were more likely to support the idea that

students need academic support services if they were struggling academically. Gibson

and Dembo (1984) predicted that teachers who score high on general teaching efficacy

and personal teaching efficacy would be active and assured in their responses to students

and that these teachers would persist longer, provide greater academic focus in the

classroom, and exhibit different types of feedback than teachers who had lower

expectations of their ability to influence student learning. Conversely, they predicted that

teachers who scored low on both general teaching efficacy and personal teaching efficacy

would give up readily and therefore refer students to academic support services if they

did not get positive results. Hence, it would be reasonable to predict that low self-

efficacy teachers would perceive a greater need for academic support services for the

student depicted in the vignette. The results of this study, however, did not demonstrate

that predicted outcome.

Another prediction was that a particular student’s emotional/behavioral factors

(home environment, disruption in class, anger, etc.) would be significant in their

relationship to teachers’ efficacy. General teaching efficacy has supported the idea that

factors such as conflict, violence, or substance abuse in the home or community; the

value placed on education in the home; and the physiological, emotional, and cognitive

needs of a particular child all have had a very real impact on a student’s motivation and

performance in school. This study’s results were expected to support these findings, but

no statistical significance was evident between teacher efficacy and the

emotional/behavioral factors of the student in a given scenario.

61  
 Lastly, it was expected that teachers’ age and classroom experience would be

significantly related to their efficacy. Bandura (1997) defined efficacy expectations as

beliefs about whether actions affect outcomes. He postulated four sources of efficacy

expectations, with two of them (mastery experience, vicarious experiences) related to

experience. Bandura (1997) supported the idea that mastery experiences are the most

powerful source of efficacy information. The perception that a performance has been

successful raises efficacy beliefs, which contributes to the expectation that performance

will be proficient in the future. Therefore, one would expect that teachers with more

teaching experience have had more mastery experiences, leading in turn to higher self-

efficacy.

Vicarious experiences are those in someone else models the skill in question

(Bandura, 1997). The degree to which the observer identifies with the model moderates

the effect of the observer’s self-efficacy. The more closely the observer identifies with

the model, the stronger the impact on efficacy. Again, one would expect teachers with

more teaching experience to have more meaningful vicarious experiences than teachers

with less experience. In this research, however, no relationship between teacher efficacy

and teaching experience was observed.

In summary, this research indicated that a strong relationship exists between a

teacher’s sense of efficacy and his/her expectations for students of low-income families.

The extant literature supports the fact that class and income play an important role in

schools. Many students who come from low-income families come to school with less

background knowledge and academic vocabulary to be successful in school. Teachers

with a low sense of self-efficacy are not likely to persist when these students struggle

62  
academically. Therefore, teachers will not provide the background knowledge and

academic vocabulary necessary, and do not present a problem-posing education. A more

detailed explanation and discussion for future research will be addressed.

Limitations

No study is perfect and so it is important to address the limitations that could have

affected the interpretation of findings.

One limitation was that the teachers in this sample had relatively high efficacy

beliefs, approaching almost a ceiling effect. Across the six possible vignettes, levels of

teachers’ overall efficacy ranged from 68.28 to 72.40 (on a scale up to 84.00). Therefore

this sample of teachers apparently believed they could exert from “some” influence to

“quite a bit” of influence on student performances. Because data collection took place

via an Internet survey, the very teachers with higher efficacy may have decided to

complete the survey due to strong beliefs in their own teaching abilities. As such,

teachers with lower levels of self-efficacy may have chosen not to share their thoughts,

because of low beliefs in their ability to carry out a variety of teaching tasks. Regardless

of the reason, the attenuated range in scores lowered the strength of observed, between-

variable relationships.

Another limitation was that participants were recruited from a single district in

Southern California. It is possible that there were unique factors in this environment or

that people drawn to working in this environment were unique in ways that affected the

results. Therefore, including participants from a broader range of settings may well have

changed the findings in some unknown ways.

63  
 A related issue is sample size. The 89 teachers were deliberately chosen from

schools where at least 50% of their student population was either Black or Hispanic and

at least 50% of their student population qualified for free or reduced lunch, which limited

the size of the population upon which to draw. Choosing participants across school

districts would possibly have increased the sample size. As well, the return rate for

participants was lower than expected, with 454 invitations to participate sent out and 89

actual participants responding (19.6% return rate). This issue opens concerns about

selection bias, as noted above with respect to teachers’ self-efficacy.

Lastly, teacher efficacy was assessed using the short form of the Teacher’s Sense

of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The construct validity of

this measure has been established. But because previous research examining teachers’

self-efficacy has produced numerous conceptualizations of the construct, measurement of

teacher efficacy has been inconsistent and imprecise (see Chapter 2 for a complete

discussion). This lack of measurement consistency is one possible cause of the

contradictory results found in the literature examining teacher expectations for

performance capabilities in relation to teachers’ sense of efficacy (not a limitation of this

study, per se, but rather one of this domain of research). Therefore, it is possible that

different relationships would have been observed had a different self-efficacy measure

been used.

Implications for Future Research

As with most studies, this study presented both unexplainable results as well as

outcomes contrary to comparable research. It is suggested, therefore, that further study in

identified areas would be beneficial in completing the study’s comprehensive outcomes.

64  
 The notion that an insignificant relationship exists between teaching experience

and teacher efficacy seems counterintuitive. Gisbson and Dembo (1984) reported that

teachers who score high on both general teaching efficacy and personal teaching efficacy

would persist longer, provide greater academic focus in the classroom, and exhibit

different types of feedback than teachers who had lower expectations of their ability to

influence student learning. Teachers who scored lower on both general and personal

efficacy were expected to give up easily if they did not get results.

Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) however, noted that years of teaching experience is

positively related to personal teaching efficacy and negatively related to general teaching

efficacy. More experienced teachers felt strong in their ability to effectively teach

challenging learners (personal teaching efficacy), but questioned their ability to overcome

the negative effects of the home environment (general teaching efficacy). It is important

to distinguish between the two types of teacher efficacy. Therefore, further examination

of personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy and their relationship to

teaching experience would be beneficial.

A second implication for future research would be to address the lack of an

observed relationship between emotional/behavioral factors and teachers’ efficacy.

Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) work yielded two factors of efficacy, personal teaching

efficacy and general teaching efficacy. RAND item 1 (“When it comes right down to it, a

teacher really can’t do much because a student’s motivation and performance depends on

his or her home environment”) was loaded on the general teaching efficacy factor, and

RAND item 2 (“If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or

unmotivated students”) was loaded on the personal teaching efficacy scale.

65  
 Research on general teaching efficacy has supported the idea that factors such as

conflict, violence, or substance abuse in the home or community; the value placed on

education in the home; and the physiological, emotional, and cognitive needs of a

particular child all have had a very real impact on student motivation and performance in

school. Further research is needed to determine whether results for student

emotional/behavioral factors differ for teachers when distinctly separating personal

teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy.

A final implication for future research would be to explore the relationship

between teachers’ efficacy and students’ need for academic support services. Again,

Gibson and Dembo (1984) concluded that teachers with high personal teaching efficacy

and high general teaching efficacy attend to students having academic difficulties longer

and persist longer in providing support. Future research in this area is needed to clarify

whether personal teaching efficacy or general teaching efficacy is the cause for this

relationship.

Implications for Practice

This study and others indicate that a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy is a powerful

but somewhat elusive construct. Notably, although this study did not differentiate

between personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy, practice to raise

teachers’ overall sense of efficacy involves raising both.

Bandura (1997) presented four sources of efficacy expectations: mastery

experience, physiological and emotional states, vicarious experiences, and social

persuasion. Mastery experiences are the most powerful source of efficacy information.

The perception that a performance has been successful raises efficacy beliefs, which

66  
contributes to the expectation that performance will be proficient in the future. It is

imperative, from a practitioner point of view, that teachers be exposed to multiple

opportunities for mastery experience, whether through staff development, working with

small groups of students, or teaching a concept to the whole class.

Vicarious experiences are those in which the skill in question is modeled by

someone else, such as a coach or a mentor (Bandura, 1997). When a model with whom

the observer identifies performs well, the observer’s efficacy is enhanced. In order to

raise the achievement of these students. effective instructional coaching models in which

low-efficacy teachers plan, observe, and debrief with instructional coaches should be a

priority for schools with low-income students.

Social persuasion can contribute to successful performances to the extent that a

persuasive boost in self-efficacy leads a person to initiate a task, attempt new strategies,

or try hard enough to succeed (Bandura, 1982). The potency of persuasion depends on

the credibility, trustworthiness, and expertise of the persuader. A school principal can

raise teachers’ self-efficacy with timely, specific feedback about a completed teaching

task. Also, the power of teacher collaboration to discuss instructional and classroom

management strategies can contribute to social persuasion, positively impacting a

teacher’s sense of efficacy.

Conclusion

This study’s results have reported that teachers’ sense of self-efficacy is directly

related to teachers’ expectations for the future academic success of low-income students.

The higher a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy was, the higher that teacher’s future

prediction for a poor student’s academic success. The lower a teacher’s sense of self-

67  
efficacy was, the lower that teacher’s future prediction for a poor student’s academic

success.

These results call for a critical perspective that involves teaching for social

justice. Researchers have identified the teaching practices of high-efficacy teachers and

high-expectations teachers. These instructional practices include experimenting more

with methods of teaching to better meet their students’ needs, planning more, persisting

longer with students who struggle, being less critical of student errors, providing greater

academic focus in the classroom, exhibiting different types of feedback, praising correct

answers, allowing students to choose their learning activities, giving regular feedback,

using higher level questioning, and providing a socioemotional climate that is positive

and caring.

Subsequently, theorists such as Freire (1970) and hooks (1994) have supported a

critical pedagogy that emulates that of high-efficacy, high-expectations teachers. Freire

(1970) proposed a problem-posing education. Through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-

students and the students-of-the-teacher cease to exist and teacher-students and student-

teachers emerge. This model of education supports interactions such as allowing students

to choose their learning activities, being less critical of student errors, and using higher

level questioning.

hooks (1994) observed that silence and obedience in the classroom are most

rewarded, and if students want to stay in the good graces of their teachers they will

quickly learn to be obedient. Unfortunately, students who come from working class or

low-income cultures often have difficulty fitting into this mold, as they can display

loudness, anger, emotional outbursts, and even unrestrained laughter. Students who

68  
display these behaviors are coerced into submission and will ultimately conform to

classroom norms instead of choosing to be an outsider; this response can lead to students

feeling some sort of resentment toward the classroom experience. These negative

experiences for low-income students will subsequently reinforce that teacher’s sense of

low-efficacy.

A clear need for high-efficacy teachers in our poorest schools has been

established. Efforts must be made to place teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy into

schools of poverty.

69  
 APPENDIX A

CLASSROOM TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

Please indicate your opinions about the statements below.

Question How much can you do?

Some Influence

A Great Deal
Very Little

Quite a Bit
Nothing
1. How much can you do to control disruptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
behavior in the classroom?
2. How much can you do to motivate students who 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
show low interest in school work?
3. How much can you do to get students to believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
they can do well in school work?
4. How much can you do to help your students value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
learning?
5. To what extent can you craft good questions for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
your students?
6. How much can you do to get children to follow 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
classroom rules?
7. How much can you do to calm a student who is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
disruptive or noisy?
8. How well can you establish a classroom 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
management system with each group of students?
9. How much can you use a variety of assessment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
strategies?

10. To what extent can you provide an alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

explanation or example when students are confused?
11. How much can you assist families in helping their 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
children do well in school?
12. How well can you implement alternative strategies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
in your classroom?

70  
 APPENDIX B

STUDENTS IN THE CLASSROOM SURVEY #1

Please read the case scenario below about a hypothetical student and answer the

questions regarding the student from the scenario.

Case Scenario: Mark Hall is a White student in a large, urban District in

Southern California. He lives with both parents and is the middle child in the family.

His mother is a physician and his father is an attorney. He has an average IQ but is

earning poor grades and failing in math. He has not been turning in his homework in

several subjects and does not use his time efficiently in class. Mark used to have a

positive attitude about school, earned good grades, and was well liked by his teachers.

Recently, he has become withdrawn and has begun to receive a number of behavioral

referrals. For example he has become aggressive with his peers by getting into both

verbal and physical fights at least once a week. His parents have met with the teacher

and school counselor on a few occasions, but the situation has not improved.

Please rate the student from the scenario currently on each of the following

characteristics. We realize you may not have all of the information needed to fill out this

rating scale. Make your best prediction when answering questions about this child.

There are no correct or wrong answers.

71  
1) Incompetent Competent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2) Lazy Industrious

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3) Nonproductive Productive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4) Unsuccessful Successful

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5) Low Self-Regard High Self-Regard

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6) Unstable Stable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7) Needs Prompting Self-Starter

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8) Sluggish Energetic

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9) Lacks Self-Discipline Possess Self-Discipline

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10) Does Not Take Initiative Takes Initiative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

72  
11) Not Ambitious Ambitious

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12) Gives Up Easily Perseveres at Work

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13) Poor Wealthy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14) Needs Supervision Works Independently

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15) Unskilled in Mathematics Skilled in Mathematics

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16) Unskilled in Language Skilled in Language

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17) The best placement for this student is in a special education class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18) This student could benefit from extra tutoring in math.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19) An intervention with this student is needed.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

73  
20) This student would probably need to learn study skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21) This student could probably benefit from a math buddy.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22) This student probably has emotional problems.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23) This student is probably disruptive in class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24) The teachers who work with this student will have a difficult time dealing with
his behaviors in class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25) This student will not be socially accepted by his peers.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26) This student will probably continue to have behavior referrals.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27) The student’s chances of dropping out of high school are high.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

74  
28) This student’s math grades will not improve in the future.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29) Two years from now this student will probably still be struggling academically.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30) This student will not perform well in applied mathematics classes.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31) This student is more likely to succeed in subjects that require verbal skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32) This student will probably perform poorly on standardized tests.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33) This student will have difficulty to complete his current grade successfully.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34) Students like the one described above will most likely aspire to low paying
occupations.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35) The student probably has good language skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7  

75  
 Students in the Classroom Survey #2

Please read the case scenario below about a hypothetical student and answer the

questions regarding the student from the scenario.

Case Scenario: Mark Hall is a White student in a large, urban District in

Southern California. He lives with both parents and is the middle child in the family.

His mother cleans rooms in a local motel and his father is currently unemployed. He has

an average IQ but is earning poor grades and failing in math. He has not been turning in

his homework in several subjects and does not use his time efficiently in class. Mark

used to have a positive attitude about school, earned good grades, and was well liked by

his teachers. Recently, he has become withdrawn and has begun to receive a number of

behavioral referrals. For example he has become aggressive with his peers by getting

into both verbal and physical fights at least once a week. His parents have met with the

teacher and school counselor on a few occasions, but the situation has not improved.

Please rate the student from the scenario currently on each of the following

characteristics. We realize you may not have all of the information needed to fill out this

rating scale. Make your best prediction when answering questions about this child.

There are no correct or wrong answers.

76  
1) Incompetent Competent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2) Lazy Industrious

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3) Nonproductive Productive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4) Unsuccessful Successful

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5) Low Self-Regard High Self-Regard

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6) Unstable Stable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7) Needs Prompting Self-Starter

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8) Sluggish Energetic

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9) Lacks Self-Discipline Possess Self-Discipline

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10) Does Not Take Initiative Takes Initiative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

77  
11) Not Ambitious Ambitious

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12) Gives Up Easily Perseveres at Work

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13) Poor Wealthy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14) Needs Supervision Works Independently

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15) Unskilled in Mathematics Skilled in Mathematics

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16) Unskilled in Language Skilled in Language

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17) The best placement for this student is in a special education class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18) This student could benefit from extra tutoring in math.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19) An intervention with this student is needed.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

78  
20) This student would probably need to learn study skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21) This student could probably benefit from a math buddy.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22) This student probably has emotional problems.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23) This student is probably disruptive in class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24) The teachers who work with this student will have a difficult time dealing with
his behaviors in class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25) This student will not be socially accepted by his peers.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26) This student will probably continue to have behavior referrals.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27) The student’s chances of dropping out of high school are high.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

79  
28) This student’s math grades will not improve in the future.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29) Two years from now this student will probably still be struggling academically.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30) This student will not perform well in applied mathematics classes.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31) This student is more likely to succeed in subjects that require verbal skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32) This student will probably perform poorly on standardized tests.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33) This student will have difficulty to complete his current grade successfully.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34) Students like the one described above will most likely aspire to low paying
occupations.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35) The student probably has good language skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

80  
 Students in the Classroom Survey #3

Please read the case scenario below about a hypothetical student and answer the

questions regarding the student from the scenario.

Case Scenario: Jose Chavez is a Hispanic student in a large, urban District in

Southern California. He lives with both parents and is the middle child in the family.

His mother is a physician and his father is an attorney. He has an average IQ but is

earning poor grades and failing in math. He has not been turning in his homework in

several subjects and does not use his time efficiently in class. Jose used to have a

positive attitude about school, earned good grades, and was well liked by his teachers.

Recently, he has become withdrawn and has begun to receive a number of behavioral

referrals. For example he has become aggressive with his peers by getting into both

verbal and physical fights at least once a week. His parents have met with the teacher

and school counselor on a few occasions, but the situation has not improved.

Please rate the student from the scenario currently on each of the following

characteristics. We realize you may not have all of the information needed to fill out this

rating scale. Make your best prediction when answering questions about this child.

There are no correct or wrong answers.

81  
1) Incompetent Competent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2) Lazy Industrious

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3) Nonproductive Productive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4) Unsuccessful Successful

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5) Low Self-Regard High Self-Regard

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6) Unstable Stable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7) Needs Prompting Self-Starter

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8) Sluggish Energetic

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9) Lacks Self-Discipline Possess Self-Discipline

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10) Does Not Take Initiative Takes Initiative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

82  
11) Not Ambitious Ambitious

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12) Gives Up Easily Perseveres at Work

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13) Poor Wealthy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14) Needs Supervision Works Independently

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15) Unskilled in Mathematics Skilled in Mathematics

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16) Unskilled in Language Skilled in Language

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17) The best placement for this student is in a special education class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18) This student could benefit from extra tutoring in math.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19) An intervention with this student is needed.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

83  
20) This student would probably need to learn study skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21) This student could probably benefit from a math buddy.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22) This student probably has emotional problems.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23) This student is probably disruptive in class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24) The teachers who work with this student will have a difficult time dealing with
his behaviors in class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25) This student will not be socially accepted by his peers.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26) This student will probably continue to have behavior referrals.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

84  
27) The student’s chances of dropping out of high school are high.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28) This student’s math grades will not improve in the future.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29) Two years from now this student will probably still be struggling academically.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30) This student will not perform well in applied mathematics classes.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31) This student is more likely to succeed in subjects that require verbal skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32) This student will probably perform poorly on standardized tests.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33) This student will have difficulty to complete his current grade successfully.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34) Students like the one described above will most likely aspire to low paying
occupations.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

85  
35) The student probably has good language skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

86  
 Students in the Classroom Survey #4

Please read the case scenario below about a hypothetical student and answer the

questions regarding the student from the scenario.

Case Scenario: Jose Chavez is a Hispanic student in a large, urban District in

Southern California. He lives with both parents and is the middle child in the family.

His mother cleans rooms in a local motel and his father is currently unemployed. He has

an average IQ but is earning poor grades and failing in math. He has not been turning in

his homework in several subjects and does not use his time efficiently in class. Jose used

to have a positive attitude about school, earned good grades, and was well liked by his

teachers. Recently, he has become withdrawn and has begun to receive a number of

behavioral referrals. For example he has become aggressive with his peers by getting

into both verbal and physical fights at least once a week. His parents have met with the

teacher and school counselor on a few occasions, but the situation has not improved.

Please rate the student from the scenario currently on each of the following

characteristics. We realize you may not have all of the information needed to fill out this

rating scale. Make your best prediction when answering questions about this child.

There are no correct or wrong answers.

87  
1) Incompetent Competent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2) Lazy Industrious

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3) Nonproductive Productive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4) Unsuccessful Successful

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5) Low Self-Regard High Self-Regard

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6) Unstable Stable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7) Needs Prompting Self-Starter

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8) Sluggish Energetic

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9) Lacks Self-Discipline Possess Self-Discipline

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10) Does Not Take Initiative Takes Initiative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11) Not Ambitious Ambitious

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

88  
12) Gives Up Easily Perseveres at Work

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13) Poor Wealthy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14) Needs Supervision Works Independently

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15) Unskilled in Mathematics Skilled in Mathematics

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16) Unskilled in Language Skilled in Language

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17) The best placement for this student is in a special education class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18) This student could benefit from extra tutoring in math.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19) An intervention with this student is needed.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20) This student would probably need to learn study skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21) This student could probably benefit from a math buddy.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

89  
22) This student probably has emotional problems.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23) This student is probably disruptive in class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24) The teachers who work with this student will have a difficult time dealing with
his behaviors in class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25) This student will not be socially accepted by his peers.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26) This student will probably continue to have behavior referrals.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27) The student’s chances of dropping out of high school are high.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28) This student’s math grades will not improve in the future.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29) Two years from now this student will probably still be struggling academically.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30) This student will not perform well in applied mathematics classes.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

90  
31) This student is more likely to succeed in subjects that require verbal skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32) This student will probably perform poorly on standardized tests.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33) This student will have difficulty to complete his current grade successfully.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34) Students like the one described above will most likely aspire to low paying
occupations.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35) The student probably has good language skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

91  
 Students in the Classroom Survey #5

Please read the case scenario below about a hypothetical student and answer the

questions regarding the student from the scenario.

Case Scenario: Tyrone Johnson is a Black student in a large, urban District in

Southern California. He lives with both parents and is the middle child in the family.

His mother is a physician and his father is an attorney. He has an average IQ but is

earning poor grades and failing in math. He has not been turning in his homework in

several subjects and does not use his time efficiently in class. Tyrone used to have a

positive attitude about school, earned good grades, and was well liked by his teachers.

Recently, he has become withdrawn and has begun to receive a number of behavioral

referrals. For example he has become aggressive with his peers by getting into both

verbal and physical fights at least once a week. His parents have met with the teacher

and school counselor on a few occasions, but the situation has not improved.

Please rate the student from the scenario currently on each of the following

characteristics. We realize you may not have all of the information needed to fill out this

rating scale. Make your best prediction when answering questions about this child.

There are no correct or wrong answers.

92  
1) Incompetent Competent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2) Lazy Industrious

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3) Nonproductive Productive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4) Unsuccessful Successful

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5) Low Self-Regard High Self-Regard

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6) Unstable Stable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7) Needs Prompting Self-Starter

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8) Sluggish Energetic

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9) Lacks Self-Discipline Possess Self-Discipline

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10) Does Not Take Initiative Takes Initiative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

93  
11) Not Ambitious Ambitious

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12) Gives Up Easily Perseveres at Work

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13) Poor Wealthy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14) Needs Supervision Works Independently

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15) Unskilled in Mathematics Skilled in Mathematics

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16) Unskilled in Language Skilled in Language

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17) The best placement for this student is in a special education class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18) This student could benefit from extra tutoring in math.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19) An intervention with this student is needed.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

94  
20) This student would probably need to learn study skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21) This student could probably benefit from a math buddy.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22) This student probably has emotional problems.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23) This student is probably disruptive in class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24) The teachers who work with this student will have a difficult time dealing with
his behaviors in class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25) This student will not be socially accepted by his peers.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26) This student will probably continue to have behavior referrals.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27) The student’s chances of dropping out of high school are high.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

95  
28) This student’s math grades will not improve in the future.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29) Two years from now this student will probably still be struggling academically.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30) This student will not perform well in applied mathematics classes.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31) This student is more likely to succeed in subjects that require verbal skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32) This student will probably perform poorly on standardized tests.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33) This student will have difficulty to complete his current grade successfully.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34) Students like the one described above will most likely aspire to low paying
occupations.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35) The student probably has good language skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

96  
 Students in the Classroom Survey #6

Please read the case scenario below about a hypothetical student and answer the

questions regarding the student from the scenario.

Case Scenario: Tyrone Johnson is a Black student in a large, urban District in

Southern California. He lives with both parents and is the middle child in the family.

His mother cleans rooms in a local motel and his father is currently unemployed. He has

an average IQ but is earning poor grades and failing in math. He has not been turning in

his homework in several subjects and does not use his time efficiently in class. Tyrone

used to have a positive attitude about school, earned good grades, and was well liked by

his teachers. Recently, he has become withdrawn and has begun to receive a number of

behavioral referrals. For example he has become aggressive with his peers by getting

into both verbal and physical fights at least once a week. His parents have met with the

teacher and school counselor on a few occasions, but the situation has not improved.

Please rate the student from the scenario currently on each of the following

characteristics. We realize you may not have all of the information needed to fill out this

rating scale. Make your best prediction when answering questions about this child.

There are no correct or wrong answers.

97  
1) Incompetent Competent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2) Lazy Industrious

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3) Nonproductive Productive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4) Unsuccessful Successful

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5) Low Self-Regard High Self-Regard

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6) Unstable Stable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7) Needs Prompting Self-Starter

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8) Sluggish Energetic

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9) Lacks Self-Discipline Possess Self-Discipline

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10) Does Not Take Initiative Takes Initiative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

98  
11) Not Ambitious Ambitious

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12) Gives Up Easily Perseveres at Work

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13) Poor Wealthy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14) Needs Supervision Works Independently

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15) Unskilled in Mathematics Skilled in Mathematics

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16) Unskilled in Language Skilled in Language

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17) The best placement for this student is in a special education class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18) This student could benefit from extra tutoring in math.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19) An intervention with this student is needed.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

99  
20) This student would probably need to learn study skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21) This student could probably benefit from a math buddy.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22) This student probably has emotional problems.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23) This student is probably disruptive in class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24) The teachers who work with this student will have a difficult time dealing with
his behaviors in class.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25) This student will not be socially accepted by his peers.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26) This student will probably continue to have behavior referrals.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27) The student’s chances of dropping out of high school are high.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

100  
28) This student’s math grades will not improve in the future.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29) Two years from now this student will probably still be struggling academically.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30) This student will not perform well in applied mathematics classes.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31) This student is more likely to succeed in subjects that require verbal skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32) This student will probably perform poorly on standardized tests.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33) This student will have difficulty to complete his current grade successfully.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34) Students like the one described above will most likely aspire to low paying
occupations.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35) The student probably has good language skills.

Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

101  
 APPENDIX C

DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY

Please answer the following questions:

How many total years of teaching experience do you have?

_________Years Teaching

What grades have you taught? Elementary Middle High School

What is your age? _____________________

Are you: male female

What is your ethnicity? Asian Black Hispanic White

Other please specify____________

102  
 REFERENCES

Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices
of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 17, 86-95.

Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and
students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal
of Educational Research, 34(2), 148-165.

Alvidrez, J., & Weinstein, R. S. (1999). Early teacher perceptions and later student
academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 731-746.

Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge.

Armor, D. Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A. et al.
(1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles
minority schools. (Report No. R-2007-LAUSD, ERIC Document Reproduction No.
130 243). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Aronowitz, S. (2004). Against schooling: Education and social class. Social Text, 22,
13-35.

Ashton, P. T. (1985). Motivation and teachers’ sense of efficacy. In C. Ames & R.

Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 2. The classroom milieu (pp.
141-174). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Ashton, P. T., Olejnik, S., Crocker, L., & McAuliffe, M. (1982). Measurement problems
in the study of teachers’ sense of efficacy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference; Teachers’ sense of efficacy
and student achievement. New York: Longman.

Auwarter, A. E. & Aruguete, M. S. (2008). Effects of student gender and socioeconomic

status on teacher perceptions. Journal of Educational Research, 101(4), 242-246.

Babad, E. (1993). Teachers’ differential behavior. Educational Psychology Review, 5,

347-376.

Babad, E., & Taylor, P. J. (1992). Transparency of teacher expectations across language
and cultural boundaries. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 120-125.

Bamburg, J. (1994). Raising expectations to improve student learning. Oak Bridge,

Illinois: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

103  
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,

37, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1996). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Banks, J. A. (2004). Teaching for social justice, diversity, and citizenship in a global
world. Educational Forum, 68, 289-298.

Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal
programs supporting educational change: Vol. VII. Factors affecting implementation
and continuation (Report No. R-1589/7- HEW). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. (Eric
Document No. ED140-432)

Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1991). Influence of self-efficacy on

self-regulation and performance among junior and senior high school age students.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 14, 153-164.

Brophy, J. E. (1982). How teachers influence what is taught and learned in classrooms.
Elementary School Journal, 83(1), 1-13.

Brophy, J. E. (1995). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of and reported strategies for

coping with twelve types of problem students. East Lansing, MI: Institute for
Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.

Brophy, J. E. & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers' communication of differential

expectations for children's classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 61(5), 365-374.

Burley, W. W., Hall, B. W., Villeme, M. G., & Brockmeier, L. L. (1991, April). A path
analysis of the mediating role of efficacy in first-year teachers’ experiences,
reactions, and plans. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

104  
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in
teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal

of Experimental Education, 60, 323-337.

Cooper, H., & Good, T. (1983). Pygmalion grows up: Studies in the expectation
communication process. New York: Longman.

Darder, A. & Torres, R. D. (2004). After race: Racism after multiculturalism. New
York: New York University Press.

Darder, A., Baltodano, M. P. & Torres, R. D. (2009). The critical pedagogy reader.
New York: Routledge.

Delpit, L. (1990). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's
children. In N. M. Hidalgo, C. L. McDowell, and E. V. Siddle (Eds.), Facing racism
in education (Reprint Series No. 21,pp. 84-102). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Educational Review.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New
York: New Press.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals.

Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189.

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational

Researcher, 38(1), 47-65.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Press.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.

Gill, S., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Educational expectations and school achievement of
urban African American children. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 403-424.

Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education. Westport, CT: Greenwood

Publishing Group, Inc.

Good, T. L. (1987). Teacher expectations. In D. C. Berliner & B. V. Rosenshine (Eds.),

Talks to teachers (pp. 159-200). New York: Random House.

Gottfredson, D. C., Marcianiak, E. M., Birdseye, A. T., & Gottfredson, G. D. (1995).

Increasing teacher expectations for student achievement. The Journal of Educational
Research, 44, 111-116.

105  
Greenwood, G. E., Olejnik, S. F., & Parkay, F.W. (1990). Relationships between four
teacher efficacy belief patterns and selected teacher characteristics. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 23(2), 102-106.

Guskey, T. R. (1981). Measurement of responsibility teachers assume for academic

successes and failures in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 44-51.

Guskey, T. R. (1982). Differences in teachers’ perceptions of personal control of positive

versus negative student learning outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
7, 70-80.

Guskey, T. R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the

affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21,
245-259.

Guskey, T. R. (1987). Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy.

Journal of Educational Research, 81(1), 41-47.

Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the

implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1),
63-69.

Hall, B., Burley, W., Villeme, M., & Brockmeier, L. (1992, April). An attempt to
explicate teacher efficacy beliefs among first year teachers. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
CA.

Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Ruvolo, C. M. (1990). Stereotype-based

expectancies: Effects on information processing and social behavior. Journal of
Social Issues, 46(2), 35-60.

Hattie, J. A. C. (2002). What are the attributes of excellent teachers? In Teachers Make a
Difference: What is the Research Evidence? (pp. 3-26). Wellington: New Zealand
Council for Educational Research.

Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. R. (1985). The mediation of interpersonal expectancy

effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 363-386.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. New York: Routledge.

Hoy, W. K. & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 27, 279-300.

Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the
organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 356-372.

106  
Jussim, L. (1986). Self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and integrative review.
Psychological Review, 93, 429-445.

Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). Teacher expectations II: Construction and reflection of
student achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 947-961.

Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies:
Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 9, 131-155.

Jussim, L., Smith, A., Madon, S., & Palumbo, P. (1998). Teacher expectations. In J.
Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: Expectations in the classroom (Vol.
7, pp. 1-48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kagan, D. M., & Smith, K. E. (1998). Beliefs and behaviors of kindergarten teachers.
Educational Researcher, 30(1), 36-35.

Kenealy, P., Frude, N., & Shaw, W. (1991). Teacher expectation as predictors of
academic success. The Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 305-306.

Kohl, H. (2000). Teaching for social justice. Rethinking Schools, 15(2), 14.

Kuklinski, M. R., & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). Classroom and developmental differences

in a path model of teacher expectancy effects. Child Development, 72, 1554-1578.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt:

Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.

Ladson-Billings, G. & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education.

Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47-68.

Lane, K. L, Pierson, M. R., & Givner, C. C. (2003). Teacher expectations of student

behavior: Which skills do elementary and secondary teachers deem necessary for
success in the classroom? Education and Treatment of Children, 26, 413-430.

Lonberger, R. B. (1992). The belief systems and instructional choices of preservice

teachers. In N. D. Padak, T. V. Rasinksi, & J. Logan (Eds.), Literacy research and
practice, foundations for the year 2000 (pp. 71-78). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading
Association.
McLaren, P. (1989). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the
foundations of education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

McLeod, S. H. (1995). Pygmalion or Golem?: Teacher affect and efficacy. College

Composition and Communication, 46(3), 369-386.

107  
Midgely, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student
self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high
school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247-258.

Moore, W., & Esselman, M. (1992, April). Teacher efficacy, power, school climate and
achievement: A desegregating district’s experience. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Ohmart, H. (1992). The effects of an efficacy intervention on teachers’ efficacy feelings.

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Parkay, F. W., Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S., & Proller, N. (1988). A study of the
relationship among teacher efficacy, locus of control, and stress. Journal of Research
and Development in Education, 21(4), 13-22.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula,
T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.
102-119). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations. Harvard Educational
Review, 40, 411-451.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Publishers.

Rose, J. S., & Medway, F. J. (1981). Measurement of teachers’ beliefs in their control
over student outcomes. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 185-190.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement.
Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51-65.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-28.
Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2006). Teacher expectations and student self-perceptions:
Exploring relationships. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 537-552.

Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high-

and low-expectations teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 289-
306.

108  
Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best for students:
Teacher expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 429-444.

Saklofske, D. H., Michaluk, B., & Randhawa, B. (1988). Teachers’ efficacy and teaching
behaviors. Psychological Report, 63, 407-414.

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on
future student academic achievement. Research Progress Report. Knoxville:
University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

Scharlach, T. B. (2008). These kids just aren’t motivated to read: The influence of
preservice teachers’ beliefs on their expectations, instruction, and evaluation of
struggling readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47, 158-173.

Shor, I. (1999). Critical literacy in action: Writing words, changing worlds. Portsmouth,
NH: Boynton-Cook.

Solomon, D., Battistich, V., & Hom, A. (1996). Teacher beliefs and practices in schools
serving communities that differ in socioeconomic level. Journal of Experimental
Education, 64, 327-347.

Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in
special education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27, 66-81.

Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement:
The process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171-187.

Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it on their own: Preservice teachers’
experiences, beliefs, and classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2),
113-121.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an

elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.

Walmsley, S. A., & Allington, R. L. (1995). Redefining and reforming instructional

support programs for at-risk students. In R. L. Allington & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.),
No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary schools (pp. 19-
44). New York: Teachers College Press.

Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 74(5), 642-655.

109  
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving.

Review of Educational Research, 64, 557-573.

Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in schooling.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wiest, L. R. (1998). Using immersion experiences to shake up preservice teachers’

views about cultural differences. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 358-365.

Winfield, L. F. (1986). Teacher beliefs toward academically at-risk students in inner

urban schools. Urban Review, 18(4), 253-268.

Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context
effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57-67.

110