kishawoods.weebly.comkishawoods.weebly.com/.../4/2/25425845/woods850-1.docxweb viewteacher...
TRANSCRIPT
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
Teacher Self-Efficacy and its Impact on Teacher Retention in Urban School Contexts
Kisha Woods
George Mason University
EDUC 850: Study of Teaching
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
“National studies on teachers in the United States find that nearly 50% of new teachers
quit the profession after the first five years; and of this percentage, 40% of teachers claim they
will never teach again” (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Latham & Vogt, 2007; Perrachione, Rosser, &
Peterson, 2008; Hughes 2012; Bolich, 2001 and Kim, 2009). With 50% of the population leaving
teaching, and 90% of those teachers whothat leave expressing that they will never return to the
teaching profession, demonstrates that there are issues in the school or with the teachers, that
force them to leave. This is alarming because, “Before 1990, new teachers expected to make
education their lifetime careers. Considered a "semi profession," teaching was a job for women,
or a holding pattern for men on their way up to a "real" career” (Moore Johnson and Birkeland,
2003 as cited by Boutelle, 2009, p.2). Teaching was considered a profession that women could
consider retiring fromin, but now they are leaving 20 plus years before they reach the year of
retirement. We are losing both experienced and inexperienced teachers. Hughes (2012) and
Ingersoll (2001) indicates that the, “The loss of inexperienced and experienced teachers results in
a combined turnover rate of approximately 13%-15% per year” (p. 245). This illustrates that each
year, we lose at least 13% of teachers that just entered the profession, and teachers that have at
least been teaching for five or more years.
Reasons for Attrition
According to many researchers, “The shortage of teachers is an issue of grave concern in
education. Researchers across many countries have tried to identify the factors contributing to
the teacher shortage, such as an increasing number of retirees” (e.g. Carroll & Foster, 2009;
Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley, 2006; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004; Hunt &Carroll, 2002;
Ingersoll, 2001, 2003, 2009; White & Smith, 2005). This shows that teacher attrition is not just a
concern in the United States educational system, but in education systems around the globe.
2
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
Ingersoll (2009), Carroll and Foster (2009), and Hong (2010) highlight the reasons for attrition in
schools, “Retirement rates have been growing each year, and a large number of teachers hired in
the 1960s and 1970s are now approaching retirement. However, the number of new teachers
entering each year exceeds the retirement rates.” Attrition was at one point, expected from
retirees, but now the majority of the teachers that are retiring, are new teachers. So along with the
teachers that are retiring, the new teachers are leaving at a rapid pace. Many researchers attest to
this, “The attrition rate is high for young teachers during their early stage of professional life,
low for middle-aged teachers, and high again for older teachers approaching retirement”
(Grissmer & Kirby, 1987; Murnane, Singer, & Willett, 1989; Singer, 1993; Shen, 1997; Adams,
1996; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004; Ingersoll, 2001, 2003; Kirby, Grissmer, & Hudson,
1991; Murnane, Singer, & Willett, 1989; Hughes 2012; Achinstein, 2006; Darling-Hammond,
1999; Fantilli & McDougall, 2009; Guarino et al., 2006; Haberman, 2004; Johnson & Birkeland,
2003; Kersaint, Lewis, Potter, & Meisels, 2007; Quartz, 2003; Ulvik, Smith, & Helleve, 2009;
Weiess, 1999; Hong, 2012). Not only are the new teachers leaving rapidly, but “there are more
teachers exiting than entering the field” (Rubalcava, 2005, National Commission on Teaching
and America's Future, 2003 as cited by Boutelle, 2009, p.2-3). The fact that there are more
teachers leaving the profession of teaching, than there are entering, there must be some serious
concerns and issues that teachers have that force them to leave the profession.
There are many different reasons that teachers decide to leave the profession. From the
analysis of schools and staffing survey and teacher follow-up survey data, Ingersoll (2001, 2003)
and his colleagues identified four major reasons for teacher attrition: “including school staffing
action, family or personal reason, pursuit of another job and dissatisfaction” (as cited by Hong,
2012, p. 418). Teachers leave the profession due to issues in the school building and/or personal
3
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
reasons concerning their family or better opportunities. The issues in the school building can
range from the administration, to the students. Among these, researchers also highlighted that
the, “pursuit of another job and dissatisfaction as the major contributors for teacher attrition.
They further listed reasons for dissatisfaction, which include poor salary, student discipline
problems, poor administrative support, poor student motivation and a lack of faculty influence”
(Ingersoll, 2001, 2003; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003, Hong, 2012, Berliner, 1988; Angelle, 2006;
Moore, Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2003; U.S. Department of Education,
2005). Many teachers leave the profession because they are not satisfied with the ways in which
the administration handles the issues at the job. Also, teachers are not paid according to the
amount of issues (lack of administrative support and teacher influence; lack of student
achievement and discipline issues) that they have to deal with in schools. The more issues that
are prevelant in the school will possibly push the teachers to leave the profession, especially the
working conditions—context of the school.
Attrition in Urban Schools
Attrition is a serious issue in urban schools. Eckert (2012) attests to this, “Retaining
teachers is especially challenging for schools in high poverty/high minority urban schools.” (p.
78) Attrition is a serious issue in urban schools, because their environment has many issues that
influence teacher’s decisions to leave. Issues in urban schools include but are not limited to,
“high levels of student discipline problems, poor student motivation, inadequate time, and
classroom intrusions” (Eckert, 2012, p. 78). In urban schools there are discipline problems with
the students not abiding by the rules of the school. Also, in some urban schools, there is a lack of
structure from the administration, to address student misbehavior. Along with student’s
misbehavior, the students are not motivated to achieve academically, and there is not enough
4
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
time to adequately address the students that are behind. There also many disruptions that keeps
the teachers from teaching their classes. The disruptions can range from overwhelming
paperwork for new initiatives in the building to address the lack of academic achievement to
student misbehavior in the classrooms and in the hallways. Viadero (2008) and Boutelle (2009)
agrees with the issues that are prevelant in urban schools, especially the working conditions,
“These included lack of support and mentoring, increased numbers of students with disabilities,
increased numbers of non-English speaking students, and the poverty level of the schools,
including the physical condition of the school plan” (p. 5). Not only are the conditions of the
school difficult to teach in but the disabilities that the students may have makes teaching
difficult. Students that are living in poverty may come to school with a host of issues that prevent
them from focusing in school. On top of the student’s disabilities and poverty issues that the
teachers have to address, they lack support in the effort of addressing the issues, or sometimes
any issues that are present in the school. Teachers are in need of mentorship to assist with their
challenges, but the school fails to provide the resources needed for teachers to be successful.
Many other researchers also exemplify the issues that are present in urban schools for students,
“The students in these schools come from neighborhoods burdened with gang violence, have the
highest rates of dropping out and getting pregnant, and have the lowest scores on standardized
tests” (Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010; Lankfordt, Loeb, & Wykcoff, 2002: Milanowski et.
al., 2009; Noguera & Wells, 2011 as cited by Eckert, 2013, p. 76). Not only do the students have
mental and physical disabilities but they all so have issues in their neighborhood, that can distract
them from achieving in school. With the violence that is present in their neighborhood, the
students are exposed to things that can also steer them from academic achievement. Students
sometimes become products of their environment, because they are accustomed to encountering
5
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
people in their families or neighborhoods that don’t value education. The issues in urban schools
expand beyond the students and are complex in nature; however, there are also issues that
teachers have that contribute to attrition too.
Urban schools are difficult and challenging for all parties involved. Shen (1997) states,
“Teachers who work in large urban districts tend to have shorter teaching careers than do
teachers working in smaller suburban districts” (p. 82). Many of the issues that are present in
urban school districts do not occur in suburban districts, and if there are issues in suburban
districts, they are not magnified as urban school issues are. Suburban school districts have more
resources, highly qualified teachers, administrative, parental, and community support, and
functional school buildings. With the assets that suburban schools have, the teachers are less
likely to leave as rapidly, as the teachers in urban schools. The issues that are present in urban
schools are so difficult, that is pushes teachers to leave. The reasons that the teachers leave can
be the working conditions and the students, but sometimes the teachers are not effectively
prepared. Many researchers agree with this notion, “The teachers in these schools in particular,
according to rhetoric, are unprepared, ineffective, and transitory” (Darling-Hammond & Green,
1990; Ingersoll, 2001; Jacob, 2007; Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003 as cited by Eckert, 2013, p.
75). Many of the teachers who enter teaching, are not prepared to teach. Not only are the teachers
not prepared to teach, the are definitely not prepared to teach in an urban school, with the issues
that may arise. Ingersoll (2004) and Eckert (2013) elaborates on this:
In addition to the many challenges associated with education students living in poverty,
the teachers in these schools are generally less experienced and have much higher
attrition. These schools also tend to hire later than wealthy suburban districts, have
6
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
trouble attracting (and keeping) teachers, and have the fewest resources available to
thoroughly evaluate incoming teachers (p. 75).
Many teachers are not interested in teaching in urban schools, because they are aware of the
issues that are prevelant in an urban school. There are some teachers whothat have a passion to
work in urban schools, and address the inequities that are present, but many are not prepared to
work with students in an urban context. The schools struggle to retain these teachers because
they are not prepared, and along with the lack of preparation, the teachers don’t have the
resources they need to be successful in the urban context. The teachers lack of preparation to
teach and especially in the context of urban schools, further complicates the issue of teacher
attrition in urban schools because not only is the environment challenging, there is a lack of
student achievement, and the teachers are not prepared to deal or teach in these conditions. Kim
(2009) and Friedman (1991) highlight the ending result of this revolving cycle, “Unfortunately,
the bombardment of constant change in urban schools leads to high teacher burnout rates.
Ultimately, this burnout then leads to teacher attrition which threatens teacher resiliency” (p. 1).
It is inevitable that teachers will burn out and leave the profession if they are not prepared to deal
with the issues present in urban schools.
Literature Review
Teacher Retention
Teacher attrition is detrimental to the field of education, so we must begin to understand
the importance of teacher retention and how to increase the amount of teachers that stay in the
schools. Teacher retention is defined as, “Teachers who remain in the classroom or at their
school sites” (Kim, 2009, p. 16). The amount of years that a teacher remains in a specific school,
or teaching in general is imperative. Researchers agree with this, “Teacher retention, whether a
7
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
teacher stays in his or her current school (or teaching altogether), is an extremely important
concept in understanding the health of schools based on the positive impact on students of
measures such as length of teaching experience and stability of a school” (Boyd et al., 2010;
Fetler, 1999; Murnane & Philips, 1981; Watlington, Shockely, Guglielimino, & Felsher, 2010 as
cited by Eckert, 2012, p. 78). In order to retain teachers, schools have to improve their school
environment. Improving the school environment, will keep the teachers in the school, and in
turn, their tenure will improve student achievement. Student achievement will improve, because
they will have the same teacher in the building, and not a new teacher every year. Ingersoll and
Smith (2003) attest to this:
Employee turnover has especially serious consequences in workplaces that require
extensive interaction among participants and that depend on commitment, continuity, and
cohesion among employees. From this perspective, the high turnover of teachers in
schools does not simply cause staffing problems but may also harm the school
environment and student performance (p. 31).
Working in urban schools, require extensive interaction amongst the teachers and the students
because they have to operate in a context that may not have all the resources one needs to
address the needs of students who may have familial and environmental issues that impact their
achievement in school. If there is a lack of administrative support in addressing these issues, then
not only will the teacher’s effectiveness be faulty, but the school environment will also be
negatively impacted. Schools have to discover ways to address the teacher attrition in schools,
and formulate a way to retain teachers or the school environment, and most importantly the
students, will continue to be negatively impacted.
8
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
There are many important factors that contribute to teacher retention. Hughes (2012)
highlights one, “Thus, the preponderance of evidence to date suggests that gender is an important
factor in teacher retention with males exhibiting greater longevity” (p. 246). Although the
majority of the population of teachers are women, men tend to stay longer in the profession. This
is ironic because the population of teachers, is full of women. If this is so, one way that schools
could address this issue would be to improve and increase the recruitment of male teachers in
schools. Along with gender, Hughes (2012) and Borman & Dowling (2006) also highlights the
importance of race in improving teacher retention, “Teacher ethnicity is also related to retention;
White teachers are 1.36 times more likely to leave teaching than non-White teachers” (p. 246).
The majority of the population of teachers is of the white descent. This also illustrates that if
schools want to retain more teachers, they should improve their recruitment efforts and increase
the amount of teachers of color, who work in the schools.
Along with biological factors, the school structure is also important in understanding
teacher retention. Some researchers indicate X argued that, “Retention rates also differ among
grade levels and content area. Elementary teachers are more likely to remain than secondary
teachers. Middle school teachers also leave at higher rates due to the problems associated with
adolescence” (Guarino et al., 2006; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009: Murnane et al., 1989, Brill &
McCartney, 2008 as cited by Hughes 2012, p. 246). This demonstrates that teaching different
grade levels can impact teacher retention, because of the stages of development of students.
Elementary school students are at a stage where the teachers easily influence them. Middle
schools students are at the stage of pre-adolescence; many days they want to embrace their
maturity, and other days they want to take on the actions of an elementary student. They struggle
to understand their role, along with dealing with puberty. This could definitely be a difficult time
9
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
for teachers because the student’s behaviors fluctuate daily, and the management of their
behavior could be difficult to maintain. This is important for schools to understand and take into
consideration, so that they are mindful of who they hire and choose to teach each grade level.
The teachers who teach the most difficult grade levels, have to have experience and expertise
working with students at different developmental stages, and true passion for the students in
general. Along with student’s stages of development and grade level content, Shen (1997) also
suggests that in order to understand retention, schools must understand the presage variables of
teachers, “mature women stay and younger women leave” (p. 82). Shen is suggesting that older
teachers stay longer than younger teachers, which closely aligns with the current data concerning
attrition of new teachers. However, teachers must be mature to remain in the area of teaching,
which is a characteristic that they must develop on their own, regardless of age. These important
factors of retention become even more complicated in urban schools.
Retention in Urban Schools
Retaining teachers in urban schools is indeed difficult and complicated. Eckert (2012)
explains the seriousness of leaving an urban school prematurely, “If teachers in high
poverty/high minority urban schools leave before their 3rd year of teaching, not only are they
unlikely to have fulfilled their full potential, but the schools also have to consistently replace
teachers—often with teachers who have not yet reached their critical 3-year mark” (p. 78).
Staying at an urban school, or any school, for at least three years is imperative in order for
teachers to reach their full potential. Leaving any time before the three-year mark could
jeopardize the learning experience a teacher has; really understanding their content and the
dynamics of the school. Some researchers have highlighted the characteristics of teachers who
are able to stay beyond the three-year limit. Shen (1997), Dworkin (1980), Bloland & Shelby
10
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
(1980) illustrates the race of teachers who stay in urban schools, “majority teachers in urban
areas are more likely to leave than are minority teachers and that Black teachers are less likely to
leave teaching than are White teachers” (p. 82). This finding could be justified because most of
the students in urban schools are students of color, and the teachers of color possess cultural
competence; the ability to connect with the students academically, personally, and socially.
Although this reason for attrition is justifiable, many researchers believe that teacher retention in
urban schools, is more complicated than just race.
Many researchers believe that the reasons teachers stay is correlated with a teacher’s self-
confidence and beliefs—teacher-self efficacy. According to Hong (2012), Evans &and Tribble
(1986), and Tait (2008), teacher self-efficacy is extremely important when understanding teacher
retention in an urban school:
It seems that teachers who have a stronger sense of efficacy perceive difficulties as
challenges rather than threats, and thus invest their effort in the face of adversities and
direct their efforts in resolving problems. Whereas those who have a low sense of
efficacy believe there is little they can do to change the problems they perceive, and thus
put forth less effort and do not strongly persevere when difficulties arise. Consequently,
teachers who cannot persevere in the face of obstacles may not remain in the profession
(p. 420).
Having a strong sense of self-efficacy is imperative in urban schools, because of the difficulties
teachers have to encounter daily. When a teacher has strong self-efficacy, they believe that the
challenges are an opportunity to make change and difference in the school or with their students,
not a threat to their position as a teacher. Hong (2012), Bandura (1977), Pajares (1996) expands
on this idea further:
11
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
As efficacy beliefs work to determine how much effort people will expend on an
endeavour and how long they will persevere when confronting obstacles, those who have
weak self-efficacy beliefs will put forth less effort and will not strongly persevere when
difficulties arise. Teachers who put less effort into their work do not seek to improve their
own knowledge and expertise, and those who cannot persevere in the face of obstacles
may not remain in the profession (p. 428).
Having strong teacher self-efficacy also demonstrates the effort teachers put forth in their
classroom and school. If a teacher does not have a strong self-efficacy, they will not put forth the
effort to face their challenges, or improve their craft in working with students in urban
environments. Self –efficacy encompasses not only your beliefs, but your efforts also. Teachers
with a low self-efficacy will be consumed by the challenges, and give up as oppose using the
challenges as opportunity to address the issues and advocate for change in their schools. Hughes
(2012), Ingersoll & Smith (2003), and Stockard & Lehman (2004) indicate that, “Teachers’
decisions to remain in teaching are also impacted by their perceptions of effectiveness with their
students, with 6% of new teachers leaving due to lack of influence” (p. 247). Teachers who have
a negative perception about the students that they teach, will not be able to effect change with the
students. They will have to utilize the challenges and issues that the students encounter as an
opportunity to influence students to break the cycle of failure for students of color. Yost (2006)
and Boutelle (2009) argues this further:
Philosophical differences in how a teacher views teaching and the school culture can also
have an effect on the rate of teacher attrition or retention at a particular school. A poor
match between a teacher candidate and a school environment encourages high efficacy
teachers to transfer to other schools rather than leave the profession. [I]t seems logical to
12
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
conclude that if a teacher's philosophy is not in line with a school's shared vision then a
teacher must make a choice to join the collective group stance, align him or herself to
minority opposing views, or leave either the school or teaching profession entirely (p. 7).
If a teacher has high self-efficacy, and a passion for teaching in general, she/hethey will not
allow the conditions of any urban school, or the behavior of students, deter them from their
passion of teaching. If they have a passion for teaching, and the school that they are teaching in,
is not compatible, they will find another school to educate students. Regardless of the school, if
teachers believe that they can make a difference and have the influence to change the lives of the
students, then they will stay in the profession.
Background Information: Presage Variables & Teacher Self-Efficacy
There have been researchers that have studied presage variables that teachers possess that
influence them to stay in the teaching profession. Mitzel (1960) “introduced the concept of
presage variables. The term denotes dimensions of teacher personality and teachers’ experience
in teacher education programs that are considered to be potential predictors, or ‘presages,’ of
teaching effectiveness” (as cited by Gage, 2009, p. 43). Presage variables are dimensions of a
teacher’s personality that the teacher possesses prior to entering the teaching profession, or it is
developed over time, while in their teaching career. According to Mitzel (1984), there are at least
four types of presage variables, “…(a) teacher personality attributes, (b) characteristics of
teachers in training, (c) teacher knowledge and achievement, and (d) in-service teacher status
characteristics” (as cited by Gage, 2009, p. 43). The types of presage variables, illustrate the
complexity of a teacher’s personality. For example, the teacher’s personality that he/she
developed prior to teaching, what is added to or subtracted from their personality while in
teacher training, the knowledge that the teacher acquires or possess about their content
13
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
knowledge, and the characteristics that a teacher develops once they start teaching in their
classroom. Gage (2009) elaborates on this further, “The presage category also includes the
teacher’s stable affective characteristics: intentions, beliefs, attitudes, values, appreciations, and
the like, as traits that the teacher has acquired from experience, including experience in a teacher
education program” (p. 48). Gage highlights the intrinsic traits that teachers have that can impact
the way they teach, which can be developed prior to teaching, during teacher training, or while
they are teaching. Teacher’s traits impact the perceptions they have about the students and
environment in which they teach.
Since a presage variable is a dimension of a teacher’s personality, it is closely related to
teacher self-efficacy. As one dimension of a teacher’s personality, teacher self-efficacy qualifies
as a presage variable worth studying further. Bandura (1977) identified teacher efficacy as a
“type of self-efficacy—a cognitive process in which people construct beliefs about their capacity
to perform at a given level of attainment. These beliefs influence how much effort put forth, how
long they will persist in the face of obstacles, how resilient they are in dealing with failure, and
how much stress or depression they experience in coping with demanding situations” (as cited by
Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998, p. 203). Teacher self-efficacy is under the umbrella of a
psychological lens, because it focuses on the way in which a teacher thinks about his or her own
abilities. A teacher’s confidence level impacts the effort they put forth and how they deal with
challenging situations. Teacher self-efficacy measures a teacher’s perceptions of their abilities
and preparedness to be effective teachers. Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) highlights the
dimensions of teacher efficacy:
Teacher efficacy consists of two distinct, but related, sets of beliefs: personal teacher
efficacy (PTE) and general teacher efficacy. PTE measures how prepared a teacher feels
14
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
to engage in and construct learning for his or her students. GTE, on the other hand,
represents a type of outcome expectancy—a teacher’s confidence in his or her ability to
encourage tangible success from his or her teaching regardless of the situation or context
(as cited by Eckert, 2013, p. 77).
Personal teacher efficacy illustrates a teacher’s feelings about his/her ability to construct learning
in the classroom for students. General teacher efficacy is the teacher’s expectancy of the
outcome of the teacher’s instruction—student achievement, or lack their of.
Recent Research Studies
There have been recent studies that have sought to find a correlation between teacher’s
presage variables and/or teacher self-efficacy that contributes to attrition or retention. Hughes
(2012) conducted a quantitative study to discover how teacher characteristics (years teaching
experience, gender, educational level, ethnicity, grade level, and subject or content area), school
characteristics (size, socioeconomic status {SES}, standardized test performance, and student
ethnicity), organizational characteristics (salary and workload, facilities and resources, parent
and student cooperation, and principal support), and teacher efficacy (instructional, student
motivation, classroom management, and technology) relate to teacher retention (p. 248). This
study was conducted utilizing a 60-item response survey that was disseminated to over 1100700
people and only 78945 people responded. Hughes sought to understand the complexity of
teaching, teacher’s personal characteristics, student achievement, and school’s environment, and
its impact on teacher retention. Hughes’s findings were similar to Ingersoll’s (2001) national
average teacher retention findings of 13.2%--15%. Hughes (2012) also found that, “the reasons
for leaving teaching, the most cited reason was advancement within education, rather than
leaving the profession. Thus a total of 90% reported plans to continue in education either in the
15
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
classroom or in another capacity”(p.252-253). Most of the teachers in Hughes’s study left
teaching because they were given an opportunity to advance their career within the field of
education. So although they left teaching, they did not leave the realm of education. The data
suggested that, “characteristics of schools and teachers’ beliefs in their own abilities have a
negligible impact on teacher retention beyond the characteristics of teachers themselves” (p.
253). This study demonstrates that teacher self-efficacy and the school environment does not
play a major role in the retention of teachers. The data also suggests that, “schools can expect to
retain teachers who have remained for 10 years or more regardless of whether the teachers’
decision to remain is from joy for teaching or from an investment in the profession” (Hughes,
2012, p. 253). This illustrates that it doesn’t matter what challenges teachers encounter, if they
last beyond 10 years, they will remain in the profession. The limitations of this study are that it
was conducted in only one state, so it does not demonstrate the responses of the entire education
population. Also, teachers whothat left the field were not surveyed.
Another study that seeks to discover the correlation relationship between a teacher’s
presage variables and teacher retention is Eckert’s (2012) mixed method study. Eckert (2012)
sought to explore how “readily available surface measures of incoming teacher qualifications
predict teacher confidence and teacher retention in high poverty/high minority urban schools” (p.
76). This study discovered that thehow teacher preparation that teachers receive predicts
teacher’s confidence and retention in urban schools. The study began with a collection and
analysis of quantitative data from the National Center for Education Statistics, and then a
qualitative study interviewing novice teachers who left or areis currently teaching, to capture an
in depth analysis of the quantitative data, that illustrated teacher efficacy. Eckert (2012) found
that, “Teachers who completed more coursework and had lengthier student teaching experiences
16
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
are likely to have high self-confidence. They can also encourage student success.” This study
demonstrates teacher’s self-efficacy is enhanced through a teacher preparation program that
provides more time for teacher’s to develop and learn about teaching in their coursework, and to
practice their instructional and management strategies acquired during their student teaching
experience. The limitations to this study is that teacher retention was defined as completing one
year, and “Teacher efficacy is dependent upon an individual’s perception and teacher retention
can be influenced by any number of elements beyond preparation for teaching” (Eckert, 2012, p.
77). Unlike Hughes’s (2012) study, this study illustrates that there is a correlation relationship
between teacher self-efficacy and teacher retention; however, there are other elements that also
impact teacher retention. The limitation of this study is the amount of years that are considered
retention, which are too low; especially in urban schools where the attrition rates are
significantly high.
One other study that seeks to highlight the relationshipcorrelation between teachers’s
presage variables and teacher retention is Kim’s (2009) mixed method study. Kim conducted this
study to discover the ways in which six identified school factors: collegiality/collaboration,
shared power, leadership, teacher efficacy, commitment and values, and professional
development, synthesized from research predict teacher resiliencey in public, urban elementary
schools. This study is similar to Eckert’s (2012) because illustrates the complexity of
understanding teacher retention. Kim (2009) first conducted a survey to aggregate data that
illustrated the correlation interrelationships of the six factors described above, and teacher
resiliency and/or retention in a school. Once the survey was conducted, she interviewed the
participants to ensure that the information on the survey was accurate, and to also give the
participants the opportunity to provide additional information about teacher resiliency and
17
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
retention, outside of the six categories provided. Kim found that “Commitment and values,
shared power, urban school dynamics, intrinsic motivation, and community are significant school
factors which promote teacher resiliency as identified in this study. If schools want to stop
nationwide teacher attrition rates plaguing schools (Bolich, 2001), schools need to view reform
through a resiliency model” (p.111). Kim (2009), and Howard & Johnson (2004) describes
teacher resiliency as:
Confident they can overcome problems, and therefore, they do not feel overwhelmed by
problems. Second, resilient teachers do not agonize over their problems even if they
believe they could have made better decisions. Rather, they move on quickly and learn
from their experiences. Finally, resilient teachers talk themselves through unpleasant
circumstances by determining the cause of their problems. Resilient teachers are
reflective of their circumstances in order to build greater compassion for others; this
prevents resilient teachers from harboring discouragement and bitterness towards the
situation or people involved” (p. 33).
The way in which the researchers define resiliency is closely related to how teachers are retained
in difficult schools, such as urban schools. They suggest that in order to understand attrition and
retention, especially in urban schools, one must pay close attention to the resiliency model.
One last study that seeks to demonstrate the correlation relationship between teachers’s
presage variables and teacher retention is Hong’s (2012) qualitative study. Hong’s study sought
to understand “both leavers and stayers, and how they are similar or different in negotiating and
interpreting external environments. In particular, this study foregrounds the role of psychological
factors such as self-efficacy, beliefs, values and emotions as the lens to understand the protective
process of resilience” (p. 419-420). This study is similar to Kim’s (2009) study in understanding
18
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
teacher attrition and retention and its relation to teacher self-efficacy. Hong believes that in order
to understand resiliency, one must understand how self-efficacy is related to retention and
attrition. The study focuses on teacher self-efficacy that is developed while teaching. Kim
conducted in depth semi-structured interviews to discover teachers innate beliefs, emotions, and
values—self-efficacy (p.422). Hong (2009) found that Leavers: left due to personal and familial
issues, dissatisfaction with work, moving on to another job. Some would have stayed if issues of
dissatisfaction were addressed and handled. There was a lack of efficacy that the teachers
possessed to manage their classroom and behavior. They focused on the teacher’s role, and not
the student’s responsibility. They also believed that their personality was not fit for the job. They
carried emotional feelings home with them concerning the issues that occurred at school and they
also took negative emotional issues personally (pp.425-430). This demonstrates that most of the
reasons teachers leave are due to the conditions of the school, and their lack of self-efficacy to
believe that they can make a difference in the school or the students. The leavers also struggle
with separating their career from their personal lives. Hong (2012) also found that the stayers:
had a strong self-efficacy. They had the ability to manage their classes, and a strong support from
the administration. They believed that students are owners of their own learning and they know
how to manage emotional stress (pp. 425-430). This demonstrates that if teachers have a strong
self-efficacy, they will be successful in their classroom because they have the confidence that
they will do well, and they have the support of the administration in their endeavors. The
limitations of this study are that the participants were only teachers that completed a secondary
science certification; teachers from other disciplines were not interviewed. The teachers had only
completed five years or less of teaching, which narrowed the years of retention. All of the studies
have great components that illustrate the research I would like to conduct but their limitations are
19
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
ideas I would like to omit or expand upon to understand how teacher self-efficacy is related to
teacher retention in urban schools.
Purpose StatementUrban schools have a negative reputation and are the highlight of the reasoning for the
achievement gap in the United States because of the students who are a major part of the
population, students of color. Henderson & Milstein (2003) states, “American culture today
focuses on negative labels and diagnoses, and this disparaging ideology permeates the school
belief systems… Unfortunately, this “damage model” has implications for school systems which
focus on analyzing schools and students based on labels of weaknesses, deficits, illnesses,
diseases, and negatives” (as cited by Kim, 2009, p. 9). Even with the researchers that have
attempted to address this issue, the research that is most cited are a negative view of urban
schools, and the teachers who do not stay. Levine (2006) and Eckert (2013) attests to this, “The
research community has been unable to determine not only how best to prepare teachers for the
tasks of teaching and staying in these high-needs urban schools but also how to measure and
evaluate incoming teacher qualifications” (p. 75). Not only does urban schools have a negative
reputation, but there is a lack of research on how to improve urban schools. Darling-Hammond
(1998) has a point when she states, “Urban school teachers are plagued with high rates of
stress...Yet, it is these same teachers experiencing burnout that are expected to motivate students
to move from the risk of drop out to the hope of resiliency; and this ability to motivate students
to change seems dismal when teachers are burnt-out” (as cited by Kim, 2009, p. 111). This is
even more reason to research the teachers that are staying in urban environments to improve the
schools and increase student achievement. This research study will address the detrimental
language of urban schools and highlight teachers who have a passion for this environment. This
study will illustrate how teacher’s self efficacy, impacts their decision to continue to teach at an
20
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
urban school.
Research Question Based on the research that illustrates teacher self-efficacy and retention in urban schools,
and the lack of research that highlights the positive aspects of urban schools, this study proposes
to address the following research question: How does teacher self-efficacy contribute to teacher
retention in urban schools? This is the next best study because it will not focus on teacher self-
efficacy that is developed or enhanced in a teacher education program, but efficacy that they
have prior to entering the program.
Methodology
The present study will employ a qualitative design. The nature of this study demands a
qualitative study because the voices of the teachers are very imperativeimportant to understand,
as opposed to allowing numbers to speak for the teachers. The teachers will be given the
opportunity to express their ideas through interviews, because “The open-ended nature of the
qualitative approach allows teachers to provide intricate details of their perceptions and
experiences in their own words without being limited by predetermined questions” (Bogdan &
Biklen, 1982; Patton, 2002). This study will provide the opportunity for in-depth interview
questions, so that teachers can openly discuss their emotions, beliefs, and confidence as a teacher
that developed prior to becoming a teacher that possibly contributes to their successful
performance and retention in an urban school.
Context, Participants, and Data Collection
The study will be conducted in urban school contexts, located in the District of Columbia,
Maryland, and Virginia. Teachers from all of these states will be interviewed, so the data areis
not limited to just one state. The participants will be teachers whothat have been teaching for ten
plus years. Unlike the studies described above, the years of retention will be longer, because as
21
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
Eckert (2012) states, “If teachers in high poverty/high minority urban schools leave before their
3rd year of teaching, not only are they unlikely to have fulfilled their full potential but the schools
also have to consistently replace teachers—often with teacher who have not yet reached their
critical 3-year mark” (p. 78). Interviewing teachers that have been teaching for at least ten years,
in some cases guarantees that the teachers will remain in the profession, as Hughes’s (2012)
study indicated.
To conduct this study, a survey will be disseminated to urban schools in the District of
Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia to identify teachers who have been teaching for 10 years or
more. The urban schools will not only be schools that are low performing schools, but schools
that are high performing, with students of color, who live in poverty. To obtain this information,
I will view different school’s report cards to verify their performance. Interviewing teachers that
stay in both contexts will provide the opportunity to address the detrimental language that is
present about urban schools, and analyze the data from different perspectives. Purposeful
sampling (Glesne 2011; & Maxwell 2013) will be utilized to select the participants for the study.
Teachers will be selected for the study if they have been teaching for ten or more years.
Data Collection
Each participant will engage in two 45-minute semi-structured interviews (Glesne 2011;
& Maxwell 2013). Semi-structured interviews will be conducted to provide the opportunity for
the participants and the researcher, flexibility to elaborate and probe for details that were not
preplanned in the original questions, or to clarify content discussed. Follow up emails will also
be sent to provide another opportunity for teachers to clarify anything that they may forget to
mention or want to elaborate on, that we did not cover in the interview. The interviews will be
audio taped with the participants consent, and transcribed and used for data analysis. Constant
22
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
comparison method (Butler-Kisber 2010) will be utilized to analyze the data. This method will
allow the researcher to condense the data into common themes.
Limitations and Validity
Completing this research project will inevitably have some limitations, due to my
researcher bias, lack of interviews, and interview participants reactivity. The limitations and
validity of this research study are common in conducting research in an area where you work—
your backyard. As a teacher in the Maryland area, there is a strong possibility that participants
will be recruited from schools were I am familiar with the teachers. Reactivity and reflexivity
(Maxwell, 2013) between the participants and I could exist because of existing knowledge of one
of the school systems in the Maryland area. Researcher bias (Maxwell, 2010) will also be
present, because I have a bias towards researchers who only illustrate urban schools in a negative
manner. I could possibly be blinded by the enormous data and issues that are present in urban
schools, by attempting to find schools that are urban and high achieving. When creating the
research questions and conducting interviews, I will have to force myself to step outside of my
bias to learn more about each teacher’s self-efficacy and retention regardless of the performance
of their school, and stereotypical views of urban students. I will also have to make sure that I do
not probe the participants during the interview to get the answers I desire for the research study,
Another limitation present in this study will be the amount of times participants are
interviewed. I will only complete two interviews with each participant, so the breadth of the
study, could be questionable. However, triangulation (Maxwell, 2013) will be present; I will
utilize the sources, interviews, emails, memos, transcriptions, and notes to formulate themes that
were present in the data. Critical friends (Samaras, 2010) will be consulted to review the
23
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
transcripts to ensure those themes were present, and transcripts are reviewed at least three times
to ensure validity.
This study would be the perfect opportunity for other researchers to expand by studying
the qualitative findings, to discover the correlation between teacher self-efficacy and teacher
retention, and develop a quantitative or mixed-method study. Both a qualitative and quantitative
study can reach different audiences. As Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk, & Hoy (1998) also
suggest, the study could be expanded if it is studied from the cultural meaning of efficacy in
terms of the roles, expectations, and social relations that are important in the construction of
those teacher beliefs. This angle of research is imperative to study because of the importance of
understanding culture with students of color.
Kisha, I fully realize that you’ve never done anything like this before. As a first try, you did well. Many of my concerns are with your use of APA, quoting, and use of language, but I understand that you are still forming yourself in these areas and have not had much opportunity to learn methods yet. In general, your argument flowed well. As you move through the program, we can work on these important writing features so that by the time to get to writing your dissertation proposal, you’ll have developed a better sense of how to construct the argument and have it culminate in research questions and appropriate methods. A
24
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
References
Achinstein, B. (2006). New teacher and mentor political literacy: Reading, navigating and
transforming induction contexts. Teachers and Teaching, 12(2), 123–138.
Adams, G. (1996). Using a Cox regression model to examine voluntary teacher turnover. Journal
of Experimental Education, 64, 267-285.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bloland, P.A., & Shelby, T.J. (1980). Factors associated with career change among secondary
school teachers: A review of the literature. Educational Research Quarterly, 5,. 13-24.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolich, A. (2001). Reduce your losses: Help new teachers become veteran teachers. Atlanta, GA:
Southern Regional Education Board.
Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2006). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and
narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 28(no?), 25–48.
Boutelle, J.C. (2009). Factors influencing teacher retention in an urban secondary school
district (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database.
Boyd, D., Grlowssman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wykcoff, J. (2010. The influence
of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research
Journal, (2047)(10), 1-31.
Brill, S., & McCartney, A. (2008). Stopping the revolving door: Increasing teacher retention.
Politics & Policy, 36, 750-774.
25
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
Carroll, T.G., & Foster, E. (2009, April). Learning teams: creating what’s next. Washington,
DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Retrieved from
http://www.nctaf.org/resources/research_and_reports/nctaf_research_reports/index.htm.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and standards:
How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for every child. New
York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Green, J. (1990). Teacher quality and equality. In J. Goodlad & P.
Keatings (Eds), Access to knowledge: An agenda for our nation’s schools (pp. 237-259).
New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
Dworkin, A.G. (1980). The changing demography of public school teachers: Some implications
for faculty turnover in urban areas. Sociology of Education, 53, 65-73.
Eckert, S.A. (2012). What do teaching qualifications mean in urban schools? A mixed methods
study of teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(no?), 75-89.
Evans, E.D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and commitment
to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 81–85.
Fantilli, R., & McDougall, D. (2009). A study of novice teachers: Challenges and supports in the
first years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343–356.
Fetler, M. (1999). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test results. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 7(9), Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/544.
Friedman, I. A. (1991). High and low burnout schools: School culture aspects of teacher burnout.
The Journal of Educational Research, 84(6), 323-333.
Gage, N.L. (1963). Paradigms for research on teaching. In N.L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (pp.94-141). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
26
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
Gage, N.L. (2009). A conception of teaching. NY: Springer.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education.
Gregory, A., Skiba, R.J., & Noguera, P. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap:
Two sides of the same coin. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59-68.
Grissmer, D.W., & Kirby, S.N. (1987). Teacher attrition; The uphill climb to staff the nation’s
schools. Santa Monica, CA.: Rand Corporation.
Guarino, C.M., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G.A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A
review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 173-208.
Haberman, M. (1987). Recruiting and selecting teachers for urban schools. New York: ERIC
Clearing House on Urban Education
Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of
Human Resources, 39, 326-354.
Hong, J.Y. (2012). Why do some beginning teachers leave the school, and others stay?
Understanding teacher resilience through psychological lenses. Teachers and Teachings:
Teacher Theory, (18)4, 417-440.
Hughes, G.D. (2012). Teacher retention: Teacher characteristics, school characteristics,
organizational characteristics, and teacher efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research,
105, 245-255.
Hunt, J., & Carroll, T. (2002). Unraveling the ‘Teacher shortage’ problem: Teacher retention is
the key. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Retrieved from
http://www.nctaf.org/resources/research_and_reports/nctaf_research_reports/index.htm.
27
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
Ingersoll, R.M. (2009, April). The aging teaching workforce: A snapshot. Retrieved from the
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future:
http://www.nctaf.org/documents/NCTAFAgeDistribution408REG_000.pdf.
Ingersoll, R.M., & Smith, T.M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational
Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
American Education Research Journal, 38, 499-534.
Jacob, B.A. (2007). The challenge of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. Future of
Children, 17(1), 129-153.
Johnson, S., & Birkeland, S. (2003). Pursuing a ‘sense of success’: New teachers explain their
career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581–617.
Kersaint, G., Lewis, J., Potter, R., & Meisels, G. (2007). Why teachers leave: Factors that
influence retention and resignation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 775–794.
Kim, J.Y. (2009). If at first you don’t succeed. A study of teacher resiliency in sixteen public
urban elementary schools (Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database.
Kirby, S., Grissmer, D., & Hudson, L. (1991). Sources of teacher supply: Some new evidence
from Indiana. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 256-268.
Kukla-Acevedo, S. (2009). Leavers, movers, and stayers: The role of workplace conditions in
teacher mobility decisions. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 443–452.
Latham, N. I., & Vogt, W. P. (2007). Do professional development schools reduce teacher
attrition? Evidence from a longitudinal study of 1,000 graduates. Journal of Teacher
Education, 58, 153–167.
28
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mitzel, H.E. (1960). Teacher effectiveness. In C.W. Harris. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational
research. (3rd ed., pp. 1481-1486), New York: Macmillan.
Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., & Wilett, J. B. (1989). The influences of salaries and “opportunity
costs” on teachers’ career choices: Evidence from North Carolina. Harvard Educational
Review, 59, 325-346.
Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., Wilett, J.B., Kemple, J.J., Olsen, R.J. (1991). Who will teach?
Policies that matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Noguera, P., & Wells, L. (2011). The politics of school reform: A broader and bolder approach
for Newark. Berkley Review of EducaitonEducation, 2(1), 1-21.
Pajares, M.F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66(4), 543–578.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perrachione, B.A., Rosser, V.J., & Peterson, G.J. (2008). Why do they stay? Elementary teachers
perceptions of job satisfaction and retention. The Professional Educator, 32(2), 25-41.
Quartz, K.H. (2003). ‘Too angry to leave’: Supporting new teachers’ commitment to transform
urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 99–111.
Singer, J.D. (1993). Are special educators’ career paths special? Results from a 13 year
longitudinal study. Exceptional Children, 59, 262-279.
Shen, J. (1997). Teacher retention and attrition in public schools: Evidence from SASS91. The
Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 81-88.
29
Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY
Stockard, J., & Lehman, M. (2004). Influences on the satisfaction and retention of 1st-year
teachers: The importance of effective school management. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 40, 742–771.
Tait, M. (2008). Resilience as a contributor to novice teacher success, commitment, and
retention. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(4), 57–75.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review
of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
Ulvik, M., Smith, K., & Helleve, I. (2009). Novice in secondary school – the coin has two sides.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 835–842.
Watlington, E.M., Shockley, R., Guglielmino, P., & Felsher, R. (2010). The high cost of leaving:
An analysis of the cost of teacher turnover. Journal of Education Finance, 36(1), 22-37.
Weiss, E.M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale, career
choice commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 15(8), 861–879.
White, P., & Smith, E. (2005). What can PISA tell us about teacher shortage? European Journal
of Education, 40(1), 93–112.
30