Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560 www.elsevier.

com/locate/cedpsych

A top-down analysis of high school teacher motivation q

Keith D. Ciani
a

a,*

, Jessica J. Summers b, Matthew A. Easter

Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, College of Education, University of Missouri, 16 Hill Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA b Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of Arizona, P. O. Box 210069, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA Available online 30 May 2007

Abstract Classroom instruction may be aected by school contexts that are increasingly performance-driven because of legislative demands. Interpreting this as a need to investigate the relationships between school context and classroom practice, this study took a top-down approach by examining contextual elements of school goal structure and teacher community on teachers sense of selfand collective ecacy, and classroom goal structures. After collecting data from teachers in four Midwestern high schools, results indicated that teachers in highly performance-oriented schools reported signicantly less adaptive motivational beliefs, lower community, and more performanceoriented instruction than teachers in a low performance-oriented school. Furthermore, a path analysis revealed that classroom goal structures were signicantly and indirectly related to teacher community. We discuss how academic context may aect teachers motivational beliefs as well as classroom practices, and make recommendations for future research and practice. 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Teacher community; Goal structures; Collective ecacy; Teacher self-ecacy; No Child Left Behind

q Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 2006, and at the 4th International Biennial Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Research Conference, Ann Arbor, July 2006. We thank the principals and teachers of participating schools for their time, and David Bergin for his comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. * Corresponding author. Fax: +1 573 884 5989. E-mail address: kdcgd4@mizzou.edu (K.D. Ciani).

0361-476X/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.04.002

534

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

1. Introduction The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 represents the most signicant involvement of the federal government in public education in United States history, requiring that 100% of each states students reach prociency standards in both math and reading-language arts by the 20132014 school year (Yell & Drasgow, 2005). Henceforth, Americas public schools are presumed to be more performance-oriented as a result of accountability testing. Numerous theories of human learning and motivation posit that problems may arise when certain academic contexts transcend administrative and organizational agendas to permeate the teaching stas beliefs about their teaching capabilities and classroom instruction (Alexander & Riconscente, 2005). Midgley, Kaplan, and Middleton (2001) suggest that this emphasis on performance goals can alter teachers instructional practices in the classroom: The state puts pressure on the district, the district puts pressure on principals, principals put pressure on teachers, and teachers put pressure on students to demonstrate ability on these tests and to score better than others to look good in media accounts and to receive monetary rewards (p. 83). In light of NCLB legislation, school administrations may feel pressured to control the instructional planning and practices of teachers (McDermott, 2007). Thus, the current state of teachers academic context may signicantly aect everything from their motivational beliefs and classroom practices (Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995), to teachers sense of community within a school (Fives & Alexander, 2004). Woolfolk Hoy, Davis, and Pape (2005) have proposed an ecological model of teachers sense of ecacy that appears to support the top-down directionality of Midgley et al.s (2001) observation. The model depicts a teachers sense of self, identity, and ecacy being at the heart of the immediate school context. All of these constructs are encompassed by the greater context of state and national school reform and accountability assessment. Results from numerous studies provide empirical support for the directionality of inuence. In separate studies, signicant relationships have been identied between the academic context and teachers perceived collective ecacy (Adams & Forsyth, 2006; Lynch, Duggan, Husman, & Pennington, 2006; Ross & Gray, 2004) as well as self-ecacy (Woolfolk Hoy & BurkeSpero, 2005). Furthermore, perceived collective ecacy has been identied as a predictor of teacher self-ecacy (Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Lynch, 2007), and teacher self-ecacy has been linked with classroom goal structure (Deemer, 2004; Wolters & Daugherty, 2005, 2007). However, no one has examined these relationships in unison from a top-down perspective, including a contextual variable as the top predictor and teachers beliefs about their instructional capabilities as the bottom predictors. When asked about the inuence of state mandated exams on classroom instruction, teachers report sound instruction (a focus on thinking, creativity, and understanding) being compromised by pressures to increase test scores (Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus, 2003; Urdan & Paris, 1994). Sheldon and Biddle (1998) label this phenomenon as a risk accompanying a testing-sanctioning educational approach, suggesting that Too much focus on tests can lead teachers to adopt a narrowed curriculum, dampening student interest and inhibiting critical thinking (p. 174). For instance, when teachers perceive pressure to raise students test scores, they tend to report using more controlled, teacher-centered instructional and assessment strategies, and these strategies are typically

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

535

designed to teach to the test in order to meet performance standards (Deci, Spiegel, Ryan, Koestner, & Kauman, 1982; Flink, Boggiano, & Barrett, 1990; Pedulla et al., 2003). Given the relevance of theories such as achievement goal theory in understanding how contextual pressures may be inuencing sound instruction (Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006), there is a need for studies to examine teachers motivation with the assumption that schools may be increasingly performance-oriented. The current study focused on teacher perceptions of two contextual variables, performance school goal structure and teachers sense of community, that may be aected by pressures to meet NCLB mandates. The following sections describe these contextual variables and their proposed relationships to teacher motivation. 1.1. Teachers beliefs about academic context 1.1.1. Teacher community John Goodlad (1975) identied teachers as a critical part of school community, and described community as the optimal unit for educational change (p. 175). In describing the relationships among primary participants in the community (e.g., teachers and administrators) he states the following: The interactions of these people, the language they use, the traditions they uphold, the beliefs to which they subscribe, and so forth, make up the culture of the school. It is not necessarily a healthy ecosystem but it exists, often with surprising tenacity (p. 175). Researchers have since asked the question, What makes teacher community dierent from a gathering of teachers? (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2000). To answer this question, Grossman, Wineburg, and Woolworth (2001) and Tschannen-Moran (2001) found that trust, encouragement, collaboration, and support from administration can be conceptualized as subcomponents of teacher community. Similarly, having a sense of community in schools has been deemed crucial to the shared vision, aect, and motivational beliefs of teaching faculty (Dewey, 1938; Greenberg, 1969; Noddings, 1992). A strong sense of community in schools, reected by shared expectations and supportive relationships among teachers and administration, may not only facilitate teachers instructional eorts, but also their personal well-being and job satisfaction (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Grossman et al., 2001; Irwin & Farr, 2004; NCES, 1996). It has been said that community is a component that is prominently missing from school reform, conceivably the result of its sharp contrast with standards-based evaluation (Strike, 2004). In light of NCLB legislation, the contextual variable of teacher community may have great importance to the motivation and classroom practices of teachers. Research has found a positive correlation between teacher commitment to community and faculty judgments of academic capabilities (Ross & Gray, 2004). In addition to this relationship, judgments of collective teacher ecacy have been shown to predict teacher self-ecacy (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). Thus, teachers in supportive academic contexts may perceive themselves as being capable of promoting learning in their respective classrooms. Given these ndings, it seems likely that a faculty who exhibit a strong sense of community will also report a strong sense of self- and collective ecacy. We believe that teacher community may serve as a powerful source of teachers sense of ecacy, in particular,

536

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

their judgments of collective ecacy. Existing models of teacher beliefs support the notion that a schools social context serves as an important inuence of teachers beliefs (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2004; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2005); however, more research is needed that examines the sources of teachers sense of ecacy in schools (see Usher & Pajares, 2006, for a review). For example, the four sources of self- and collective ecacy appear congruent with teacher community. Mastery experiences are provided when teachers are allowed collaboration, vicarious experiences emerge when teachers observe others being successful and helping one another, social persuasion is present from administrators and fellow teachers, and many teachers have had the experience of being in a school in which there exists a feeling of community in the form of positive aect. Accordingly, the current study proposes that community among high school teachers would be related to adaptive judgments for self- and collective ecacy, as well as classroom goal structure. In addition to the role of community as a contextual variable, we believed that school goal structure would have a similar role in predicting teacher motivation. 1.1.2. School goal structure In an eort to advance achievement goal theory, Maehr reemphasized the importance of analyzing the academic context as a source of motivation, suggesting that because achievement as often as not occurs in groups, in the context of others, the eects of these others need to be taken into account (2001, p. 184). One concept of achievement goal theory, goal structures, has allowed researchers to examine the eect of the psychological environment on both teacher and student motivation. A goal structure can be dened as, the type of achievement goal emphasized by the prevailing instructional practices and policies within a classroom, school, or other learning environment (Wolters, 2004, p. 236). In turn, these prevailing academic practices create contextual cues emphasizing mastery or performance-related goals to teachers and students (Maehr, 2001; Roeser, Marachi, & Gehlbach, 2002). At the school level, a mastery goal structure emphasizes students learning, selfimprovement, and the development of competence, whereas a performance school goal structure emphasizes competition among students, high test scores, and social comparison of ability. Studies of students perceptions of school goal structure contribute to the majority of research in this area (see Meece et al., 2006; Miller & Murdock, 2007, for reviews). For example, Roeser, Midgley, and Urdan (1996) found positive relationships among middle school students perceptions of a mastery school goal structure, their mastery goals, and sense of belonging. Similarly, positive relationships have been found between perceptions of a performance school goal structure and students performance goals (Roeser et al., 1996), as well as self-handicapping strategies (Midgley & Urdan, 1995). Furthermore, Kaplan and Maehr (1999) found positive relationships between perceptions of a mastery school goal structure and students well-being, as well as perceptions of a performance school goal structure and reports of disruptive behavior. While these studies address student perceptions of school goal structures, far less is known of the eect that teachers perception of the school goal structure has on their own motivational beliefs, instructional practices in the classroom, and subsequent student outcomes. Kumar (2006) used multilevel growth curve modeling, with school- and student-level data from 10 middle schools, and found that teachers perception of a mastery school goal structure was signicantly related to a decrease in students perceived

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

537

dissonance between school and home. Additional studies found that teachers perception of a mastery school goal structure was positively related to their ecacy beliefs (Marachi, Gheen, & Midgley, 2000; Midgley et al., 1995), and perceptions of a performance-oriented school goal structure was positively related to a performance classroom goal structure (Deemer, 2004). 1.2. Teachers beliefs about teaching 1.2.1. Perceived self- and collective ecacy 1.2.1.1. Teachers sense of ecacy. According to social cognitive theory, the construct of self-ecacy is a key mechanism inuencing human agency, serving as a powerful source of motivation (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1989, 1997). Predicting teacher ecacy beliefs, and the outcomes of those beliefs, have remained the program of study for many educational researchers. However, measuring and operationally dening the construct of teacher self-ecacy has not been without controversy (e.g., Ashton, Buhr, & Crocker, 1984; Ashton, Olejnick, Crocker, & McAulie, 1982; Coladarci & Fink, 1995; Henson, Kogan, & Vacha-Haase, 2001; Soodak & Podell, 1996). Theorists and researchers have had competing conceptions of the meaning of teacher self-ecacy, leading to numerous measurement issues and inconsistent ndings (see Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998, for a review). In order to help clarify these issues, Tschannen-Moran et al. operationally dened teacher self-ecacy as the teachers belief in her or his ability to organize and execute the courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specic task in a particular context (1998, p. 233). Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) subsequently designed the Teachers Sense of Ecacy Scale (TSES) to assess task-specicity (i.e., instructional strategies, student engagement, and classroom management), a feature missing from the earlier measures of personal and general teacher self-ecacy. Using the Teachers Sense of Ecacy Scale, signicant relationships have been found among teachers sense of ecacy, quality of school facilities, and teacher professionalism (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk, 2002), while also linking adaptive changes in teacher selfecacy to the level of support received (Woolfolk Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005). Additional research examining predictors of teacher ecacy beliefs found that between-school variance in teacher self-ecacy was signicantly explained by perceived collective ecacy above and beyond socioeconomic status and student achievement (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). For consistency, when we refer to teacher self-ecacy (including measurement) throughout the remainder of this article, we are referring to the construct as dened by Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998), and as measured by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001). 1.2.1.2. Teachers perceived collective ecacy. In addition to ones self-referent judgments of ecacy, collective ecacy beliefs refer to the perceived performance capabilities of the social system in which one collectively interacts and operates (Bandura, 1997). For schools, perceived collective ecacy is dened as the judgments of teachers in a school that the faculty as a whole can organize and execute the courses of action required to have a positive eect on students (Goddard et al., 2004, p. 4). Congruent with social cognitive theory, perceived collective ecacy is hypothesized to be inuenced by mastery experiences such as teacher successes and collective student achievement. Studies have identied the collective ecacy perceptions of a schools teaching sta as a signicant predictor of

538

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

student achievement across grade levels, subjects, and school demographics (Bandura, 1993; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000; Goddard, LoGerfo, & Hoy, 2004; Hoy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002). Thus, schools in which teachers judge themselves as capable tend to promote a positive atmosphere necessary for the development of student learning and achievement (Bandura, 1993, 1997). Similar to the terminological distinction with teacher self-ecacy, perceived collective ecacy does not refer to the collective eectiveness of a schools teaching faculty, but rather the perceptions of the groups capabilities to foster student learning. Bandura (2000) explains, perceived collective ecacy is not simply the sum of the ecacy beliefs of individual members. Rather, it is an emergent group-level property (p. 76). Researchers have also varied on how to measure the construct of perceived collective ecacy by aggregating the perceived self-ecacy of teachers to the faculty-level, having the collective group arrive at a single judgment of ecacy (Guzzo, Yost, Cambell, & Shea, 1993), or by assessing the amount of variance (or agreement) around the arithmetic mean of a facultys collective ecacy (Goddard, 2001). Currently, researchers suggest that when measuring and assessing the collective ecacy beliefs of a fairly interdependent group, such as a schools faculty, one should aggregate individual perceptions of group capability (Bandura, 2006; Goddard et al., 2004; Hoy, Tarter, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2006). In accordance with the most current theoretical and empirical distinctions, when we refer to perceived collective ecacy throughout this article (including measurement), we are referring to the aggregate of individual group members perceptions of group capability (Goddard et al., 2004, p. 7). While research on the eect of school context on general constructs of teacher agency is nothing new (e.g., Lee, Dedrick, & Smith, 1991; Newman, Rutter, & Smith, 1989; Raudenbush, Rowen, & Cheong, 1992), few studies have addressed the relationship between community-type variables and perceived collective ecacy. Those that have examined the aforementioned relationships have found results supporting the notion that a sense of community among teaching faculty may function to positively inuence the teachers sense of agency. For example, signicant positive correlations have been reported between perceived collective ecacy and teachers commitment to professional community (caring, trust, and commitment to sharing teaching ideas with each other; Ross & Gray, 2004) and goal consensus (Kurz & Knight, 2004). Recently, Adams and Forsyth (2006) have also addressed this important gap in the literature by examining the eects of school structure, collaboration, and trust on teachers sense of collective ecacy. Through the use of path analysis, Adams and Forsyth (2006) found that, in addition to past student performance, an enabling school structure and teacher collaboration each had a positive direct eect on the collective ecacy perceptions of teachers. Following a review of studies that examined sociocultural inuences of teachers ecacy beliefs, Fives and Alexander (2004) identied emergent patterns relating to an adaptive school context, including the following: (1) teachers with a strong sense of self- and collective ecacy are often found in schools that promote student learning over mere grades; (2) teachers report a greater sense of ecacy when they perceive support from the principal or administration; and (3) teachers perceive themselves as more ecacious when they are encouraged, and given opportunities, to work collaboratively with colleagues and experiment with instructional strategies. Given that Teachers beliefs in their ecacy aect their general orientation toward the educational process as well as their specic instructional activities (Bandura, 1997, p. 241), more research is needed that,

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

539

in addition to antecedents, further scrutinizes outcomes of teachers judgments of self- and collective ecacy, such as classroom goal structure. 1.2.2. Classroom goal structure Achievement goal theory provides a framework to explain academic behavior related to learning and performance. Whereas performance-oriented individuals strive to outperform others in a demonstration of their competence, mastery-oriented individuals are motivated to learn for intrinsic reasons (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Teachers with a performance-orientated approach to instruction create an external goal structure, emphasizing high test scores, competitive practices, and social comparison of ability.1 Teachers with a mastery-oriented approach to instruction focus more on individual development and learning. Research suggests that the more performance-oriented students believe their teachers to be, the more performance-oriented the students tended to be themselves. On the other hand, the more mastery-oriented perceptions of teachers, the more students report themselves as being mastery-oriented (Friedel, Cortina, Turner, & Midgley, 2007; Gutman, 2006; Husman, Brem, & Duggan, 2005; Wolters, 2004). For the most part, a mastery classroom goal structure is associated with positive student outcomes, whereas a performance classroom goal structure is associated with negative or inconsistent outcomes (e.g., Karabenick, 2004; Turner et al., 2002; Wolters, 2004). There exists an inconsistency in goal structure terminology depending on if a student or teacher is being surveyed. For example, the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (Midgley et al., 2000) has both teacher and student scales assessing classroom goal structure. For students, these scales measure their subjective perceptions of either a mastery or performance classroom goal structure. For teachers, the scales measure their mastery- or performance-oriented approach to instruction (2000). Teachers approach to instruction creates their classroom goal structure, making these terms synonymous. As labeling teachers classroom goal structure as either a mastery- or performance-oriented approach to instruction could be confused with the ubiquitous approach terminology in achievement goal theory (e.g., Elliot, 1999), when we refer to teachers approach to instruction throughout the reminder of the article, we use the terms classroom goal structure or teachers mastery- or performance-oriented instructional practices. Moreover, classroom goal structures may emphasize both mastery and performance, or one more than the other (Kaplan, Middleton, Urdan, & Midgley, 2002; Linnenbrink, 2005; Turner, Meyer, Midgley, & Patrick, 2003); however, research on multiple goal contexts is relatively new. Therefore, the current study aimed to explore contextual predictors of both mastery and performance as separate measures of classroom goal structure. While several studies provide strong support for the general hypothesis that masteryoriented teacher practices are associated with positive student outcomes, and perfor-

While classroom goal structures are generally referred to as either mastery or performance, scales measuring performance goal structures focus on the approach orientation (e.g., I encourage students to compete with each other) rather than the avoidance orientation. Hence, researchers (Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001; Wolters & Daugherty, 2005) have begun to make the distinction in terminology, suggesting it seems appropriate to refer to the research on performance goal structures as generally reecting performance-approach goal contexts (Linnenbrink, 2005, p. 199). However, it is our opinion that this semantic dierentiation is not important when assessing teacher reports of classroom goal structure, but is quite relevant when assessing student perceptions of the classroom goal structure.

540

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

mance-oriented practices are associated with negative student outcomes, it is important to note that these studies used student reports of their teachers goal structure (see Anderman & Cupp, 2006; Friedel, Marachi, Midgley, & Turner, 2002; Gheen & Midgley, 1999; Gutman, 2006; Kaplan & Midgley, 1999; Karabenick, 2004; Kumar, 2006; Marachi, Friedel, & Midgley, 2001; Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Turner et al., 2002; Turner & Patrick, 2004; Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998; and Wolters, 2004, for examples). The extent to which teachers self-reported classroom goal structure inuences student outcomes is far less empirically researched (Miller & Murdock, 2007). In the few studies using teacher reports of classroom goal structure, ndings consistent with student perception studies have been found. Using multilevel modeling techniques, Anderman et al. (2001) found that students who had teachers reporting the use of performance-oriented instructional practices experienced longitudinal declines in valuing of math and reading, and Urdan et al. (1998) found that students were more likely to report using avoidance strategies when their teachers reported using performance-oriented instructional practices. In contrast, Ryan, Gheen, and Midgley (1998) found no eect of teacher reports of classroom goal structure on students self-handicapping. Yet another study observed the instructional practices of teachers and found that they generally matched student perceptions of the classroom goal structure (Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001). Finally, teacher reports of a mastery classroom goal structure have been linked to student perceptions of those same practices, which in turn were related to lower incidences of disruptive behavior (Kaplan, Gheen, & Midgley, 2002). It is evident that more research is needed to examine predictors of teachers classroom goal structures with regard to the immediate school context. 1.3. Research questions and hypotheses We had two main research questions: The rst question was, are their dierences between schools that report varying levels of performance school goal structure? We hypothesized that, in high performance-oriented schools, teachers would report lower levels of community, self- and collective ecacy perceptions, and mastery-oriented instructional practices in the classroom, while reporting a more performance-oriented classroom goal structure. In this hypothesis, the independent variable represents the context, or top of the top-down analysis. Our second question was, does the contextual variable of teacher community serve as a predictor of teachers sense of self- and collective ecacy, as well as the classroom goal structures of high school teachers? Previous research has examined student outcomes of teachers classroom goal structures, and this study takes the research a step further by investigating direct and indirect predictors of both mastery- and performance-oriented instructional practices using path analysis, thus hypothesizing a top-down model of teachers sense of community on their motivational beliefs and instructional practices in the classroom (see Fig. 1). It was therefore hypothesized that rst, teacher community would be a positive predictor of perceived collective ecacy and the three dierent scales of teachers sense of ecacy: (1) engaging students, (2) instructional strategies, and (3) classroom management. Second, we expected that teacher community would positively predict mastery classroom goal structure, and would be a negative predictor of performance classroom goal structure. Third, we expected that perceived collective ecacy would be a positive predictor of all three self-ecacy

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

541

Fig. 1. Theoretical model depicting hypothesized relationships among teacher community, perceived collective ecacy, self-ecacy, and classroom goal structures.

variables. Fourth, we expected that perceived collective ecacy would all have a positive eect on mastery classroom goal structure, while having a negative eect on performance classroom goal structure. Fifth, we expected that each of the three self-ecacy variables would positively predict mastery classroom goal structure and negatively predict performance classroom goal structure. Sixth and nally, we expected positive correlations among all three teacher self-ecacy variables as well as a positive correlation between classroom goal structures. Given the hypothesized negative relationships among many of this studys variables with performance classroom goal structure, and positive relationships with mastery classroom goal structure, it may seem counterintuitive to anticipate a positive correlation between the two. We based this hypothesized relationship on the results from existing studies that found small but positive correlations between teacher reports of mastery and performance goal structures, particularly in high school contexts. In one study, Marachi et al. (2000) reported a correlation of .06 for elementary teachers, .10 for middle school teachers, and .12 for high school teachers, the strongest of the three. In another study, Wolters and Daugherty (2007) reported a signicant correlation of .25 with a sample comprised of 1024 pre-kindergarten through 12th grade teachers. In an eort to explain this positive correlation, Wolters and Daugherty suggest that the two goal structures are not opposite ends of a continuum but perhaps are more orthogonally related (2007, p. 190). As the current study involved high school teachers, we hypothesized a positive, but not necessarily signicant, correlation between teachers mastery and performance classroom goal structures.

542

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

2. Method 2.1. Participants and procedure Participants were 156 teachers from four public senior high schools located in either a suburban or semi-rural region of a Midwestern state. Participating high schools employed a range from approximately 30 to 115 teachers, with an approximate mean of 55 (actual number of certied sta varied by source). School 2 was the only high school, with the exception of alternative schools, belonging to a district with more than one senior high school, while schools 1, 3, and 4 served as the main high school in three separate districts. Table 1 presents demographic and socioeconomic indicators for the four participating high schools. Teacher surveys were researcher administered to faculty at all four schools during teacher inservice meetings. Surveys were collected from approximately 80% of the teachers at School 1, 60% of the teachers at School 2, and 85% of the teachers at schools 3 and 4. Due to the method of data collection at School 2, fewer teachers at were able to participate compared to the other three schools. These teachers were surveyed during approximately nine sections of interdisciplinary faculty development meetings that were spaced out over three consecutive days. Approximately 1015 teachers were assigned to attend a specic time and day, but numerous teachers missed the inservice session due to other academic, personal, or extracurricular obligations. Because we were interested in measuring context and scrutinizing school as the subject of comparison, we attempted and were successful at surveying the majority of teachers in each school. Correlations and descriptive statistics for all constructs with complete cases are listed in Table 2. 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Teacher community The 5-item scale from the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative Teacher Survey (BASRC, 2002) was used to measure teachers sense of community. Teachers rated how well each statement described the current conditions in their school on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The scale was selected due to the scope of the items, and their ability to measure the multifaceted aspects of teacher community. The community items were: I feel supported by colleagues to try out new ideas, Teachers in this school trust each other, Teachers in this school feel responsible to help each other do their best, Teachers in this school are encouraged to experiment with their teaching, and Teachers use time together to discuss teaching and learning. Reliability for the teacher community scale has been reported at .86 (BASRC, 2002). The alpha coecient in the present study was also .86. 2.2.2. School goal structure Teachers perceptions of the school goal structure were measured using two scales from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (Midgley et al., 2000): (1) a mastery goal structure for students (7 items; Students are told that making mistakes is OK as long as they are learning and improving); and, (2) a performance goal structure for students (6 items; Students are encouraged to compete with each other academically). Teachers rate statements about their schools goal structure on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

Table 1 Demographic and socioeconomic indicators for participating high schools Participating high school 1 2 3 4
a b

Total student enrollmenta 725 1600 425 350

Free and reduced luncha (%) 35 11 20 20

Total minority enrollmenta (%) 12 19 1 4

Senior high schools in district 1 2 1 1

Grade span 912 1012 912 912

Approximate participating teachersa (%) 80 60 85 85

Years at current schoolb (M, SD) 7.88 8.82 6.96 8.65 (9.14) (8.59) (6.68) (7.42)

Total years of teaching experienceb (M, SD) 13.24 13.25 15.77 12.50 (10.07) (9.63) (9.80) (8.46)

To avoid undue identiers, statistics are rounded approximations. Descriptives for participating teachers only.

543

544 K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

Table 2 Intercorrelations, descriptive statistics, and alpha coecients (N = 138) Teacher variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
a b c * ** ***

1 1.00 0.60*** 0.12 0.21* 0.09 0.06 0.46*** 0.18* 0.02

2 1.00 0.25** 0.37*** 0.20* 0.15 0.56*** 0.25** 0.08

M 4.25 4.26 7.56 6.18 7.49 3.29 3.79 2.38 3.28

SD 0.71 0.63 0.94 0.97 0.90 0.56 0.56 0.73 0.76

a 0.86 0.83 0.71 0.71 0.78 0.65 0.74 0.71 0.65

Teacher communitya Perceived collective ecacyb Self-ecacy for instructional strategiesc Self-ecacy for student engagementc Self-ecacy for classroom managementc Performance school goal structurea Mastery school goal structurea Performance classroom goal structurea Mastery classroom goal structurea Scale range of 15. Scale range of 16. Scale range of 19. p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

1.00 0.44*** 0.41*** 0.17* 0.36*** 0.11 0.32***

1.00 0.47*** 0.08 0.37*** 0.02 0.20*

1.00 0.01 0.26** 0.08 0.15

1.00 0.13 0.44*** 0.12

1.00 0.03 0.34***

1.00 0.18*

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

545

disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Midgley et al. (2000) reported a reliability coecient of .81 for the mastery, and .70 for the performance school goal structure scales respectively. In the present study, the alpha coecient was .74 for mastery school goal structure, and .65 for performance school goal structure. 2.2.3. Perceived collective ecacy The 12-item short form of the Collective Ecacy Scale (Goddard, 2002) was designed to measure the perceived collective ecacy of teachers (Teachers here are condent they will be able to motivate their students). Teachers rate perceived eectiveness as a sta on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Goddard (2002) reported a reliability of .94 for the short form. The alpha coecient in the present study was .83. 2.2.4. Teachers sense of self-ecacy The Teachers Sense of Ecacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) was designed to measure ecacy judgments for the most valued, important, and specic tasks of teaching (Shaughnessy, 2004). The 12-item short form was used to measure teachers sense of ecacy in: (a) student engagement (4 items; How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work); (b) instructional strategies (4 items; How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies); and, (c) classroom management (4 items; How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules). Teachers rate their perceived eectiveness on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = nothing to 9 = a great deal). Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) reported an alpha coefcient of .81 for the student engagement subscale, and .86 for the instructional strategies and classroom management subscales. In the present study, the alpha coecient was .71 for both the student engagement and instructional strategies subscales, and .78 for the classroom management subscale. A conrmatory factor analysis was conducted in EQS (Bentler, 1993) to add to the growing body of literature on the Teachers Sense of Ecacy Scale (TSES), as well as to answer the call for teacher self-ecacy researchers to validate their measures with the underutilized methodology of conrmatory factor analysis (Henson, 2002; Roberts & Henson, 2001). Specically, we examined how the factor structure of the short form performed for the current sample of high school teachers (N = 148 complete cases on the TSES). Table 3 depicts the item text and standardized loadings of the 12 items. Results revealed that the three-factor oblique model showed acceptable t to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999): v2(51) = 74.89, p = .02; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .95; Non-normed Fit Index (NNFI) = .94; Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = .89; Standardized Root Mean-Square Residual (SRMR) = .06; Root Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .06 (.03, .08). The signicant v2 statistic indicated a lack of t; however, convergent validity was demonstrated as all scale items loaded signicantly on their hypothesized latent factor (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Cronbachs alpha was a .82, indicating a good level of internal consistency for the measure (Nunnally, 1978). The construct reliability and variance extracted were calculated to further judge the psychometric properties of each factor. Latent factor 1, Student Engagement, demonstrated a construct reliability of .75, and accounted for 43% of the variance in the four observed variables. Latent factor 2, Instructional Strategies, demonstrated a construct reliability of .73, and accounted for 40% of the variance in the four observed variables. Latent

546

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

Table 3 Standardized solution, with R2 values, by conrmatory factor analysis for the three-factor model (N = 148) Item Latent Factor 1: Teachers sense of ecacy for student engagement 2. How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work? 3. How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work? 4. How much can you do to help your students value learning? 11. How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school? Latent Factor 2: Teachers sense of ecacy for instructional strategies 5. To what extent can you craft good questions for your students? 9. How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies? 10. To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused? 12. How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom? Latent Factor 3: Teachers sense of ecacy for classroom management 1. How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? 6. How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? 7. How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? 8. How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students? Note. Correlations between latent factors: F1 and F2 = .51*; F1 and F3 = .62*; F2 and F3 = .58* * p < .001. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 R2 .68* .78* .72* .40* .72* .63* .68* .48* .64* .64* .70* .78* .46 .61 .51 .16 .52 .40 .46 .23 .41 .42 .49 .61

factor 3, Classroom Management, demonstrated a construct reliability of .79, and accounted for 48% of the variance in the four observed variables. The construct reliability of each factor exceeded the recommended cuto value of .70. No factor met the recommended threshold of .50 for average variance extracted (Steenkamp & Trijp, 1991). Further inspection of the standardized solution revealed that the lowest standardized loading was item 11 (How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school) on the student engagement factor. More specically, latent factor 1 (teachers sense of ecacy for engaging students) explained only 16% of the variance in item 11. It is plausible that the moderate loading (.40) was due to the sample of high school teachers. That is, more of the items variance may have been explained by the latent factor if the sample had been comprised of primary or elementary school teachers, as it is generally the norm to see a negative relationship between age of student and amount of parental contact with teachers.

2.2.5. Classroom goal structure Teachers classroom goal structures were measured using two scales from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (Midgley et al., 2000): (1) a mastery-oriented classroom goal structure (4 items; I give a wide range of assignments, matched to students needs and skill levels); and, (2) a performance-oriented classroom goal structure (5 items; I encourage students to compete with each other). Teachers rate statements about their classroom goal structure on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

547

Midgley et al. (2000) report a reliability coecient of .69 for each scale. In the present study, the alpha coecient was .65 for mastery classroom goal structure, and .71 for performance classroom goal structure. 3. Results 3.1. Performance-oriented schools and teacher motivation Contrasting participating high schools by performance school goal structure is essential as this study proposed a possible inuence of a performance-oriented context on numerous teacher variables. To determine the amount of performance orientation exhibited by each of the four participating high schools, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with school as the independent variable and teachers perception of their respective schools performance school goal structure serving as the dependent variable. Results revealed a signicant main eect of school, F(3, 150) = 6.50, p < .001, partial g2 = .12. Levenes test of equality of variances was not signicant. Tukeys post hoc mean comparisons revealed that School 2 demonstrated a signicantly lower performance school goal structure than Schools 1, 3, and 4 at p < .05 to p < .01. There were no significant dierences between Schools 1, 3, and 4. Mean scores of performance school goal structure were as follows: School 1 (M = 3.50, SD = .59, n = 37); School 2 (M = 3.08, SD = .50, n = 66); School 3 (M = 3.48, SD = .54, n = 25); School 4 (M = 3.40, SD = .58, n = 26). Additionally, School 2s mean was the only one to fall below the median of 3.33. Therefore, School 2 was labeled as being a low performance-oriented school, while Schools 1, 3, and 4 were characterized as highly performance-oriented. A one-way MANOVA revealed a signicant Wilkss lambda = .69, F(8, 130) = 7.31, p < .001, partial g2 = .31. Boxs test of equality of covariance matrices was not signicant. Inspection of univariate tests revealed signicant mean dierences on six of the eight dependent variables (see Table 4 for means, standard deviations, F values, and eect sizes). Specically, between-subjects eects revealed that teachers in the high performance-oriented school group reported signicantly lower mean scores for the following: self-ecacy for instructional strategies, self-ecacy for classroom management, perceived collective ecacy, teacher community, and perceived mastery school goal structure. Additionally, teachers in the high performance-oriented school group reported a signicantly higher performance-oriented classroom goal structure. There were no signicant mean dierences for teachers sense of ecacy for student engagement, nor was there a signicant dierence for teachers mastery classroom goal structure. The lack of signicance between high and low performance-oriented schools on teachers reports of mastery classroom goal structure was of interest. Specically, this nding is important considering the assertion of this study that a perceived performance-oriented school goal structure may have a maladaptive eect on teacher motivation and eective classroom instruction. We examined the nonsignicance by including teachers tenure status at their current school as a variable. This analysis then allowed for an inspection of how the amount of exposure to the school goal structure might aect the outcome. Teachers tenure at current school was dichotomized into two groups: (1) rst year at current school (regardless of prior teaching experience elsewhere); and, (2) two or more years at current school. A two-way ANOVA was then run with school group (high or low performance school goal structure) and year group as the independent variables, and level of

548

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

Table 4 Univariate results and mean scores on dependent variables by school goal structure Teacher variables Low performance school goal structure (n = 65) M (SD) 6.30 (0.94) High performance school goal structure (n = 74) M (SD) 6.09 (0.98) F (1, 137) g2 p

Self-ecacy for student engagement Self-ecacy for instructional strategies Self-ecacy for classroom management Perceived collective ecacy Teacher community Mastery school goal structure Mastery classroom goal structure Performance classroom goal structure
* ** ***

1.74

0.01

7.92 (0.80)

7.24 (0.95)

20.32***

0.13

7.65 (0.75)

7.32 (1.01)

4.87*

0.03

4.52 (0.46) 4.54 (0.57) 3.95 (0.50) 3.39 (0.74) 2.18 (0.62)

4.04 (0.67) 4.01 (0.74) 3.66 (0.57) 3.18 (0.77) 2.58 (0.77)

23.60*** 21.95*** 10.51** 2.72 10.96**

0.15 0.14 0.07 0.02 0.07

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

mastery classroom goal structure as the dependent variable. Results revealed no main eect of either school or year group. However, there was a signicant interaction eect, F(1, 141) = 4.71, p < .05, partial g2 = .03. Levenes test of equality of error variance was not signicant. Mean comparisons with the Bonferroni adjustment indicated that rst year teachers in the low performance-oriented school group reported a signicantly higher level of mastery classroom goal structure (M = 3.55, SD = .70) than rst year teachers in the high performance-oriented school group (M = 2.90, SD = .63) at p < .05. Additionally, rst year teachers in the high performance-oriented school group reported a signicantly lower level of mastery classroom goal structure (M = 2.90, SD = .63) than teachers with two or more years in the same school group (M = 3.38, SD = .83) at p < .05. Results indicate that the mastery-oriented classroom practices of high school teachers may be compromised during early tenure in highly performance-oriented schools. 3.2. Teacher community, self- and collective ecacy perceptions, and classroom goal structures To test a top-down model examining teacher community as a contextual variable, we hypothesized that teacher community would be a signicant predictor of perceived collective ecacy, teachers self-ecacy for engaging students, instructional strategies, and classroom management, as well as mastery and performance classroom goal structures. Furthermore, perceived collective ecacy was hypothesized to predict each of the three

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

549

teacher self-ecacy variables and both classroom goal structures, while the three self-ecacy variables were hypothesized to predict classroom goal structures (see Fig. 1). While it would have been optimal to use latent factors, we did not have a large enough sample size to use structural equation modeling with the number of parameters to be estimated. Additionally the sample size of each participating schools faculty was far below what is required to test the t of the proposed model independently in each high school. Therefore, the model was constructed using the combined data from all four high schools, and with the observed variables. All path analyses were conducted in the software program EQS (Bentler, 1993), and utilized the maximum likelihood (ML) estimator of t and coecients. Because all variable means were measured using Likert or Likert-type scales, only coecients from the standardized solution are reported (analogous to beta weights in linear or multiple regression). Cases with missing data were removed, resulting in 138 teacher surveys used in the analysis. Table 2 contains the intercorrelations and descriptive statistics for the seven variables included in the path analysis. The path analysis was conducted in two steps. First, we ran the hypothesized model. Fit statistics for the proposed model could not be calculated as it was just-identied, with zero degrees of freedom. Next, nonsignicant paths were trimmed from the model, and the more parsimonious model was run. As recommended (Bollen & Long, 1993; Kline, 2005), goodness of t was evaluated using multiple indices. The model provided a very good t to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999), v2(11) = 3.34, p > .05, CFI = 1.0, NNFI = 1.0, AGFI = .98, SRMR = .02, RMSEA = .0. The nal model is depicted in Fig. 2, and was considered nal as: (a) all direct, and indirect, eects were signicant; and, (b) no significant improvements could be made.

Fig. 2. Final model depicting the relationships among teacher community, perceived collective ecacy, selfecacy, and classroom goal structures.

550

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

Results from the path analysis indicated the following signicant direct paths: (a) teacher community positively related to perceived collective ecacy, (b) perceived collective ecacy positively related to teacher self-ecacy for engaging students, instructional strategies, and classroom management, and negatively related to performance classroom goal structure, (c) teachers sense of ecacy for instructional strategies positively related to mastery classroom goal structure. There were also positive and signicant correlations among all three teacher self-ecacy variables, as well as between mastery performance classroom goal structures. While teacher community did not have a signicant direct eect on either mastery or performance classroom goal structure, it did have a signicant indirect eect on each. Specically, the standardized coecient for the total indirect eect of teacher community on mastery classroom goal structure was positive (b = .05, p < .05), while the standardized coecient for the total indirect eect of teacher community on performance classroom goal structure was negative (b = .15, p < .01). Thus, results indicate that the negative eect of teacher community on performance classroom goal structure was due to the mediating inuence of perceived collective ecacy. Additionally, the positive eect of community on mastery classroom goal structure was due to the mediating inuences of both perceived collective ecacy and self-ecacy for instructional strategies. A multiple-group test of invariance was conducted on the path coecients to asses how the predictive characteristics of the model would perform across the high and low performance-oriented school groups from our initial MANOVA (i.e., Schools 1, 3, and 4 vs. School 2). Using the GROUP function in EQS, the low and high performance-oriented school groups were analyzed simultaneously on the model. All six direct paths and four correlations were constrained to be equal across groups. Evidence of path invariance was exceptionally demonstrated as: (a) the model provided a good t to the data v2(32) = 31.68, p > .05, CFI = 1.0, NNFI = 1.0, AGFI = .90, SRMR = .09, RMSEA = .0; (b) a dierence test between the pooled and constrained models revealed a nonsignicant v2 value (Dv2(21) = 28.34, p > .05); and, most importantly, (c) the Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test did not call for the release of any of the 10 constraints. Results from the multi-group analysis indicate that the model does apply across groups, and does display path invariance. This nding lends strong support for the models applicability to various high schools, regardless of their level of performance orientation. That is, teaching faculty within the highly performance-oriented school group reported signicantly lower levels of teacher community, perceived collective ecacy, self-ecacy for instructional strategies and classroom management, and higher levels of performance classroom goal structure; however, the predictive qualities among variables did not significantly dier between groups. 4. Discussion 4.1. Performance-oriented schools and teacher motivation The current study examined the relationships between academic context (as measured with teacher community and school goal structure) and the motivational beliefs and classroom practices of teaching faculty from four Midwestern senior high schools. In our rst analysis, a MANOVA indicated signicant dierences between high schools categorized as having either a high or low performance-oriented school goal structure with regards to

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

551

teachers motivational beliefs and classroom goal structure. Specically, teachers in the low performance-oriented school group reported a signicantly higher perceived collective ecacy, sense of ecacy for classroom management and instructional strategies, and teacher community. Additionally, teachers in the low performance-oriented school group reported a lower performance classroom goal structure for students, and higher perceived mastery school goal structure. We found nonsignicant dierences between school groups in self-ecacy for engaging students and mastery classroom goal structure. The theoretical importance of school goal structure on classroom goal structure (Kaplan, Middleton, et al., 2002) prompted a post hoc analysis that revealed the lack of signicance in mastery classroom goal structure was likely due to a signicant interaction between a performanceoriented school goal structure and amount of cumulative teaching experience in the current school. That is, there were signicantly higher reports of mastery classroom goal structure by teachers in their initial year in the low performance-oriented school group vs. those teachers new to the high performance-oriented schools. The MANOVA results could have signicant implications for schools in which teachers perceive a performance-oriented school goal structure for students. More specically, when schools overly stress the importance of high test scores, academic competition, and use the highest achieving students as models for all students, teachers may tend to feel less community, perceive less self-ecacy for using a variety of instructional strategies, and may be more likely to use performance-oriented instructional practices in the classroom. While this analysis found lower reports of motivation and community in schools reporting a high performance school goal structure, some theorists suggest that eorts to increase the emphasis on mastery goals in the classroom may bear more fruit than will eorts to decrease the emphasis on performance goals (Urdan & Midgley, 2003, p. 546). We believe that this observation, based on empirical data, can be applied to school goal structure. That is, performance goals may be omnipresent in todays public high schools, but researchers using achievement goal theory to guide educational reform may see more adaptive outcomes from focusing on improving mastery at the school, classroom, and student levels. Longitudinal data is needed to better understand the outcomes associated with teachers perceptions of performance vs. mastery school goal structure. 4.2. Teacher community, self- and collective ecacy perceptions, and classroom goal structures In the results from our second analysis, a path analysis provided further support for the hypothesized top-down model of context on classroom beliefs and instructional practices as teacher community was signicantly related to high school teachers sense of collective and self-ecacy, as well as classroom goal structures. Furthermore, the positive indirect eect of teacher community on mastery classroom goal structure, and negative indirect eect on performance classroom goal structure were the result of mediating inuences of judgments of ecacy. In this particular study, context did not have a direct eect on teachers sense of ecacy or classroom goal structure. Rather, signicant indirect eects emerged only through the mediating qualities of perceived collective ecacy and teachers sense of ecacy for instructional strategies. Also of interest in the path model were the varying levels of signicance among perceived collective ecacy, the teachers sense of ecacy variables, and classroom goal structures. By using more contemporary measures of teacher self-ecacy, this study extends

552

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

upon existing research identifying collective judgments of ecacy as a signicant predictor of personal teacher self-ecacy (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). Our results revealed that perceived collective ecacy is positively related to teachers sense of ecacy for all three subscales of Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoys (2001) Teachers Sense of Ecacy Scale, but at varying levels of signicance (see Fig. 2). Furthermore, teachers sense of ecacy for instructional strategies was the only subscale found to be signicantly related to either classroom goal structure (b = .33, p < .001, to mastery classroom structure). This nding may indicate that teachers who have a command of their subject-matter content are not afraid of trying out a variety of instructional strategies to promote student learning. In other words, this relationship may represent a strong command of pedagogical content knowledge, or knowing the ways of representing and formulating the subject matter that make it comprehensible to others as well as understanding what makes the learning of the specic topics easy or dicult (Even, 1993, pp. 9495). Studies have shown that teachers deep understanding of subject-matter knowledge and mastery experiences may be powerful sources of, and requisites for, pedagogical content knowledge (Driel, Verloop, & Vos, 1998). Furthermore, teachers pedagogical content knowledge has been associated with the eective teaching of abstract concepts (Clermont, Borko, & Krajcik, 1994), knowledge of students problem solving and reasoning skills (Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, & Carey, 1988; Geddis, 1993; Marks, 1990), and interest in using a variety of instructional strategies (Clermont et al., 1994). Alternatively, teachers that lack pedagogical content knowledge report problems with teaching in general (Rovengo, 1992), and often resort to lock-step sequence of instruction without concern for student understanding (Even, 1993). There is also evidence to suggest that teachers mastery-oriented instructional practices are associated with student reports of good pedagogical skills (Murdock, Miller, & Kohlhardt, 2004). The items measuring teachers sense of ecacy for instructional strategies (e.g., To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused; see Table 3) and the items measuring teachers mastery classroom goal structure (e.g., I give a wide range of assignments, matched to students needs and skill level), are consistent with the notion that teachers who have strong pedagogical content knowledge use a variety of instructional strategies and are able to create motivationally adaptive learning environments. In previous research, these relationships have only been tested by Wolters and Daugherty (2005), who found that teachers sense of ecacy for instructional strategies and engaging students were each positive and signicant predictors of a mastery classroom goal structure. In our study, the path from self-ecacy for engaging students to a mastery classroom goal structure was not signicant, even though the two had a positive and signicant correlation. These results could suggest that by taking contextual variables into account, teachers personal beliefs for engaging students may be suppressed, while self-ecacy for instructional practices remains predictive of a mastery-oriented classroom goal structure. Path analysis results also provided strong support for suggestions and eorts by researchers to measure self-ecacy at the task-specic level (Bandura, 2006; Lynch, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). This study has shown unique eects of the three-factor teachers sense of ecacy scale, eects that would have been lost by merely collapsing subscales into a second-order factor, or using a dated measure of general or personal teacher ecacy. In the path model, teachers sense of ecacy for instructional practices was positively related to mastery classroom goal structure, but unrelated to performance classroom goal

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

553

structure. The relationships among these variables may have implications for teacher practices in the classroom. Wolters and Daugherty (2005) found similar relationships using multiple regression, and stressed the implications for interventions aimed to isolate mastery-oriented instructional practices given the maladaptive student outcomes associated with performance-oriented classroom environments. That is, teachers sense of ecacy for instruction may increase teachers mastery classroom goal structure, while not significantly aecting performance-oriented instructional practices. While teachers sense of ecacy was unrelated to performance classroom goal structure, perceived collective ecacy had a signicant negative direct eect on the performance-oriented classroom practices of high school teachers. The idea that performance classroom goal structure is not signicantly related to teacher learning community, teachers sense of self-ecacy, or collective ecacy in a positive way is important in light of Brophys suggestion that researchers should be cautious about encouraging teachers to say or do anything that might foster performance goals, even performance approach goals, in their students (2005, p. 174). Consistent with previous research involving high school teachers (Marachi et al., 2000; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007), mastery and performance classroom goal structures were found to be positively correlated with low to moderate signicance. In order to help explain this phenomenon, it is important to note that mastery and performance classroom goal structures are not inversely related, but are believed to be more orthogonally related (e.g., Urdan, 2004; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Given federal legislation for states to demonstrate adequate yearly progress en route to universal prociency, performance goals and goal structures may simply be omnipresent in todays public high schools (Bong, 2001; Deemer, 2004). Results from this study suggest that focusing on improving teachers sense of community and perceived collective ecacy may mitigate teachers use of performance-orientated instructional practices in the classroom. Overall, the t of the path model indicates that higher levels of teacher community are associated with greater perceptions of collective ecacy, which in turn are negatively related to a performance classroom goal structure for students. Perceptions of collective ecacy are also positively related to teachers sense of ecacy for engaging students, utilizing an array of eective instructional strategies, and managing student behavior in the classroom. Teachers perceived self-ecacy for instructional strategies was positively and directly related to a more mastery-oriented classroom goal structure. Thus, researchers and school administrators can benet from the ndings of this model, which suggests that teacher community may serve as a supportive context in which teachers beliefs about their group capabilities to promote student learning are developed and fostered. These collective beliefs extend to judgments of individual ecacy in the classroom, and serve as a powerful source of teachers use of instructional practices that promote understanding, learning, and progress over a more controlled, teacher-centered approach. Opportunities for teacher community are created and fostered by administration. Providing time for the collaborative sharing of ideas and concerns lends itself to the shared responsibility, trust, and support among a schools faculty. It is possible that faculty who work together, with the support of administration, will likely gain judgments of collective ecacy that impact student learning. 4.3. Limitations It is important to note limitations of the current study and its ndings. First, and most signicant, this study did not test causal relationships among the variables. All

554

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

data from each of the four participating high school were collected at one time point, and therefore relationships among constructs from each analysis remain correlational. In order to imply theoretical relationships, variables were positioned in a manner that demonstrates plausible and testable antecedents and outcomes that subsequent studies can assess. Future research could incorporate a longitudinal design to analyze the eect of manipulating the contextual variables addressed in this study. While references to prediction among variables are speculative, and future studies should not only examine the possible cyclical nature of the path model but how variables may interact, this study provides an important snapshot into the multilevel perceptions of high school teaching faculty. A second limitation may be a function of labeling each participating high school as exhibiting either a high or low performance school goal structure for the rst MANOVA analysis. We chose to target the performance school goal structure variable due to its relationship with the growing pressures teaching faculty are likely facing as a result of NCLB legislation. While we did nd signicantly lower levels of teacher motivation in the high performance-oriented school group, we do not know if these dierences were explicitly the result of school goal structure, school characteristics, or a combination of both. An examination of Table 1 reveals that the low and high low performance-oriented school groups (School 2 vs. Schools 1, 3, and 4) dier in many respects. Specically, School 2 serves a substantially higher number of students, has a lower percentage of students on free and reduced lunch, a greater percentage of minority enrollment, is part of a larger district, and only serves Grades 1012. While we believe that our classication by performance school goal structure is valid, we also recognize that the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of public high schools are likely related to school goal structure and the outcomes addressed in this study. For example, studies have shown that socioeconomic characteristics of schools can signicantly relate to teachers perceptions of ecacy and community (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Goddard, 2001; Lynch et al., 2006); however, less is known about these issues in relation to teacher reports of school and classroom goal structures. Third, the sample used for this study was comprised of high school teachers, who often teach numerous subjects and have classes varying in size. While we did measure task-specic self-ecacy, we failed to assess self-ecacy towards a specic class. Thus, we cannot be sure which specic classes teachers were referring to when assessing their sense of ecacy and classroom goal structures. In accordance with suggestions from researchers (Woolfolk Hoy & Davis, 2006; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2005), future studies should design the questionnaire to measure the context-specic (e.g., subject and section) perceptions of self-ecacy (Bandura, 2006). A fourth limitation involves the absence of student data. Ultimately, the purpose of studying teachers beliefs and instructional practices is to enhance student motivation and learning. However, examining the eects of context on teacher beliefs and practices is just as important as examining student beliefs of teacher practices in their classrooms (Bong, 2001; Roeser et al., 2002). Understanding the sources of teachers motivational beliefs and instructional patterns will allow for improved eorts to implement and replicate eective interventions targeted at improving not only student learning, but teacher motivation. Finally, having access to a greater number of participating schools would allow for more appropriate multilevel analysis, in which contextual variables may, more accurately, account for dierences between schools in teacher motivation and classroom goal structure.

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

555

5. Conclusion The current study heeded the advice of Pintrich (2000) to scrutinize contextual constructs as the unit of analysis in order to gain insight into how they facilitate or enervate such education outcomes as school and teacher eectiveness. Still, much more research is needed to address additional contextual, sociocultural, and social-emotional predictors of teachers beliefs and instructional patterns in the classroom, as well as how they aect student motivation, learning, and well-being. Specically, examining the longitudinal inuence of teacher community and school goal structure is imperative. This line of research will yield a more lucid understanding of how teacher and student motivation is supported or undermined. Interventions in which teacher community or goal structure is targeted at the school level may result in an adaptive shift in the outcome variables addressed in this study. The continuation of this research agenda is requisite as every public school in America receiving federal funds is required under NCLB to demonstrate 100% student prociency levels in both math and reading-language arts by the 20132014 school year (NCLB, 2001; Yell & Drasgow, 2005). As performance standards and accountability testing will continue to be ubiquitous in this nations public school system, never has it been more apropos to examine the processes by which some schools are successfully able to moderate these pressures, while others seem to be usurped. References
Abrams, L. M., Pedulla, J. J., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers opinions of statewide testing. Theory into Practice, 42, 1829. Adams, C. M., & Forsyth, P. B. (2006). Exploring the inuence of school conditions on collective ecacy beliefs. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Alexander, P. A., & Riconscente, M. M. (2005). A matter of proof: Why achievement learning. In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues: Vol 1. Scientically based education research and federal funding agencies: The case of the No Child Left Behind legislation (pp. 2736). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261271. Anderman, E. M., & Cupp, P. K. (2006). Impulsivity and academic cheating. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA. Anderman, E., Eccles, J., Yoon, K., Roeser, R., Wigeld, A., & Blumfeld, P. (2001). Learning to value mathematics and reading: Relations to mastery and performance-oriented instructional practices. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 7695. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411423. Ashton, P. T., Buhr, D., & Crocker, L. (1984). Teachers sense of ecacy: A self- or norm-referenced construct? Florida Journal of Educational Research 26, 2941. Ashton, P. T., Olejnick, S., Crocker, L., & McAulie, M. (1982). Measurement problems in the study of teachers sense of ecacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-ecacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 11751184. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-ecacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117148.

556

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-ecacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective ecacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 7578. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-ecacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-ecacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Bay Area School Reform Collaborative Teacher Survey (2002). Center for Research on the Context of Teaching. Available from http://www.stanford.edu/group/CRC/. Bentler, P. M. (1993). EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software. Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: Self-ecacy, task-value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 2334. Brophy, J. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from performance goals. Educational Psychologist, 40, 167176. Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The high school as community: Contextual inuences and consequences for students and teachers. Madison, WI: National Center on Eective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., & Carey, D. A. (1988). Teachers pedagogical content knowledge of students problem solving in elementary arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 385401. Church, M., Elliot, A., & Gable, S. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 4354. Clermont, C. P., Borko, H., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Comparative study of the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 419441. Coladarci, T., & Fink, D. R. (1995). Correlations among measures of teacher ecacy: Are they measuring the same thing? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Deci, E. L., Spiegel, N. H., Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Kauman, M. (1982). The eects of performance standards on teaching styles: The behavior of controlling teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 852859. Deemer, S. A. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research, 46, 7390. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. NY: Macmillan. Driel, J. H. van, Verloop, N., & Vos, W. de (1998). Developing science teachers pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 673695. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256273. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169189. Even, R. (1993). Subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: Prospective secondary teachers and the function concept. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education., 24, 94116. Fives, H., & Alexander, P. A. (2004). How schools shape teacher ecacy and commitment: Another piece in the achievement puzzle. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 329359). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching strategies: Undermining childrens selfdetermination and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 916924. Friedel, J. M., Cortina, K. S., Turner, J. C., & Midgley, C. (2007). Achievement goals, ecacy beliefs and coping strategies in mathematics: The roles of perceived parent and teacher goal emphases. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 434458. Friedel, J., Marachi, R., Midgley, C., & Turner, J. (2002). Stop embarrassing me! Relations among student perceptions of teachers, classroom goals, and maladaptive behaviors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming subject-matter knowledge: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in learning to reect on teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 673683. Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (1999). Id rather not do it the hard way: Student and classroom correlates of eighth graders avoidance of academic challenge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

557

Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective ecacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 467476. Goddard, R. D. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective ecacy: The development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 97111. Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of teacher and collective ecacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 807818. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher ecacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 37, 479507. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective ecacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33, 313. Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). High school accountability: The role of collective ecacy. Educational Policy, 18, 403425. Goodlad, J. I. (1975). The dynamics of educational change: Toward responsive schools. NY: McGraw-Hill. Greenberg, H. M. (1969). Teaching with feeling: Compassion and self-awareness in the classroom today. Toronto, Ontario: Macmillan. Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2000). What makes teacher community dierent from a gathering of teachers? Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Available at http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/Occasional.html#Community. Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103, 9421012. Gutman, L. M. (2006). How student and parent goal orientations and classroom goal structures inuence the math achievement of African Americans during the high school transition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 4463. Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Cambell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87106. Henson, R. K. (2002). From adolescent angst to adulthood: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas in the development of teacher ecacy research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 137150. Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study of the teacher ecacy scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 404420. Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement in high school: The signicance of collective ecacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 7793. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 425446. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cuto criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155. Husman, J., Brem, S., & Duggan, M. A. (2005). Student goal orientation and formative assessment. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9, 355359. Irwin, J. W., & Farr, W. (2004). Collaborative school communities that support teaching and learning. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 343364. Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002). Classroom goal structure and student disruptive behavior. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 191211. Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 330358. Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J., Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2002). Achievement goals and goal structures. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 2153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1999). The relationship between perception of the classroom environment and early adolescents aect in school: The role of coping strategies. Learning and Individual Dierences, 11, 187212. Karabenick, S. A. (2004). Perceived achievement goal structure and college student help seeking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 569581. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. Kumar, R. (2006). Students experiences of homeschool dissonance: The role of school academic culture and perceptions of classroom goal structures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 253279. Kurz, T. B., & Knight, S. L. (2004). An exploration of the relationship among teacher ecacy, collective teacher ecacy, and goal consensus. Learning Environments Research, 7, 111128.

558

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R., & Smith, J. (1991). The eect of the social organization of schools on teachers ecacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190208. Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple goal contexts to promote students motivation and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 197213. Lynch, C. S. (2007). Investigating novice teachers ecacy beliefs across time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Lynch, C. S., Duggan, M. A., Husman, J., & Pennington, N. (2006). The role of context on the teacher ecacy beliefs of beginning teachers. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA. Maehr, M. L. (2001). Goal theory is not deadnot yet, anyway: A reection on the special issue. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 177185. Marachi, R., Friedel, J., & Midgley, C. (2001). I sometimes annoy my teacher during math Relations between student perceptions of the teacher and disruptive behavior in the classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Marachi, R., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2000). Comparisons of elementary, middle, and high school teachers beliefs and approaches to instruction using a goal orientation framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modied conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 311. McDermott, K. A. (2007). Expanding the moral community or blaming the victim? The politics of state education accountability policy. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 77111. Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487503. Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Dierences between elementary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90113. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost?. Journal of Educational Psychology 93, 7786. Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., et al. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Available at http:// www.umich.edu/%7Epals/manuals.html. Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students use of self-handicapping strategies. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 385411. Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and performance goals: A further examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 6175. Miller, A. D., & Murdock, T. B. (2007). Modeling latent true scores to determine the utility of aggregate student perceptions as classroom indicators in HLM: The case of classroom goal structures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 83104. Murdock, T. B., Miller, A., & Kohlhardt, J. (2004). Eects of classroom context variables on high school students judgments of the acceptability and likelihood of cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 765777. National Center for Education Statistics (1996). Teachers sense of community: How do public and private schools compare? U.S. Department of Education (NCES IB-10-96). Newman, F. M., Rutter, R. A., & Smith, M. S. (1989). Organizational factors that aect school sense of ecacy, community, and expectations. Sociology of Education, 62, 221238. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-110 (2002). The Statue and PDF of the law are available online at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. NY: Teachers College Press. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers communication of goal orientations in four fth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 102, 3558. Pedulla, J., Abrams, L., Madaus, G., Russell, M., Ramos, M., & Miao, J. (2003). Perceived eects of statemandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy, Boston College. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Educational psychology at the millennium: A look back and a look forward. Educational Psychologist, 35, 221226.

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

559

Raudenbush, S., Rowen, B., & Cheong, Y. (1992). Contextual eects on the self-perceived ecacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150167. Roberts, J. K., & Henson, R. K. (2001). A conrmatory factor analysis of the new measure of teacher ecacy: Ohio State teacher ecacy scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Roeser, R. W., Marachi, R., & Gehlbach, H. (2002). A goal theory perspective on teachers professional identities and the contexts of teaching. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 205242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408422. Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating eects of collective teacher ecacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Rovengo, I. C. (1992). Learning to teach in a eld-based methods course: The development of pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 6982. Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination of the interplay among students academic ecacy, teachers social-emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 528535. Shaughnessy, M. F. (2004). An interview with Anita Woolfolk: The educational psychology of teacher ecacy. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 153176. Sheldon, K. M., & Biddle, B. J. (1998). Standards, accountability, and school reform: Perils and pitfalls. Teachers College Record, 100, 164180. Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1996). Teaching ecacy: Toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 401412. Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Trijp, H. C. M. van (1991). The use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 283299. Strike, K. (2004). Community, the missing element of school reform: Why schools should be more like congregations than banks. American Journal of Education, 110, 215233. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 308331. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher ecacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783805. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2002). The inuence of resources and support on teachers ecacy beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher ecacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202248. Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Midgley, C., & Patrick, H. (2003). Teacher discourse and sixth graders reported aect and achievement behaviors in two high-mastery/high-performance mathematics classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 103, 357382. Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. A., Kang, Y., & Patrick, H. (2002). The classroom environment and students reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88106. Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational inuences on student participation in classroom learning activities. Teachers College Record, 106, 17591785. Urdan, T. (2004). Using multiple methods to assess students perceptions of classroom goal structures. European Psychologist, 9, 222231. Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2003). Changes in the perceived classroom goal structure and pattern of adaptive learning during early adolescence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 524551. Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). The role of classroom goal structure in students use of selfhandicapping strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 101122. Urdan, T. C., & Paris, S. G. (1994). Teachers perceptions of standardized achievement tests. Educational Policy, 8, 137156. Usher, E., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of self-ecacy in schools: A conceptual review of the literature. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.

560

K.D. Ciani et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 533560

Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236250. Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. (2005). Teacher ecacy and goal structures: Their relation and their association to experience and academic level. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers sense of ecacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 181193. Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke-Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher ecacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343356. Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Davis, H. (2006). Teacher self-ecacy and its inuence on the achievement of adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-ecacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 117137). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H., & Pape, S. J. (2005). Teacher knowledge and beliefs. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 715737). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Yell, M. L., & Drasgow, E. (2005). No Child Left Behind: A guide for professional. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.