The relationship between teacher belief systems and teacher effectiveness

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The relationship between teacher belief systems and teacher effectiveness
Physical Description:
ix, 148 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Agne, Karen Joy, 1941-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Teachers -- Psychology -- United States   ( lcsh )
Teachers -- In-service training -- Psychology -- United States   ( lcsh )
Teaching   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1991.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 131-146).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Karen Joy Agne.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 25248342
ocm25248342
System ID:
AA00011211:00001

Full Text










THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
TEACHER BELIEF SYSTEMS AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

















By

KAREN JOY AGNE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1991
































Copyright 1991

by

Karen Joy Agne



























This dissertation is dedicated

to Mother, whose love, and trust

in the paths of her children was always

unconditional, unlimited, and unceasing,

and

to Kori and Darrin, my beloved children,

who are my constant inspiration

and reason for striving.














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


A grateful acknowledgment is made to all those who

helped me in the preparation of this dissertation.

A supervisory committee of effective teachers grants

the candidate gifts of encouragement, wisdom, and priority.

It has been my good fortune to experience such a committee.

Especially deep is my indebtedness to my friend and

chair, Dr. Gordon E. Greenwood, who, through his caring and

challenging mentorship, has been the model of the effective

teacher about which this study was concerned. To Dr. John

M. Newell, my sometimes chair and always friend, whose

mentor gifts are far too numerous to consider, I will always

feel deep gratitude. I owe great debts of gratitude also to

Dr. M. David Miller for his generous time and statistical

expertise, and to Dr. H. Thompson Fillmer for his continual

support of me and my beliefs.

To each I repay these debts through my pledge to aspire

always to emulate their models, endeavoring to share the

gifts given me with students of the future.

I owe my own belief system to significant others in my

life. To my family, whose love is constant and whose trust

is unwavering, I owe my faith in myself. Finally, to my

beloved mate, David, who made the challenge lighter, I owe

the joy of the experience and the will to see it through.

iv














TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................ ............... iv

LIST OF TABLES .................................... vii

ABSTRACT ......................... ........ ..... ...... viii

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION ............. ..................... 1

Statement of the Problem......................... 1
Purpose of the Study............................ 15
Limitations....................................... 19
Significance of the Study ........................ 21
Questions ................ .................... .... 22
Hypotheses..... ................................. 23

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE......................... 24

Introduction ................................. 24
The A-B-C-D Link Model.......................... 24
Teacher Efficacy ......................... ...... 30
Teacher Locus of Control........................ 34
Pupil Control Ideology........................... 37
Teacher Stress................................... 41
Related Demographic Variables.................... 45
Gender............. ... ......... ............... 45
Years of Teaching Experience.................. 47
Highest Degree Earned............................ 49
Grade Level Taught......................... .... 50
Relatedness of the Four Belief Systems........... 50
Summary. .... ... ............ ...... ..... ...... 54

3 METHODOLOGY .................................... ... 56

Null Hypotheses................................... 56
Subject Selection................................ 57
Sampling and Data Collection.................... 58
Instrumentation.................................. 61
Teacher Efficacy Scale......................... 61
Teacher Locus of Control Scale.................. 63








page

Pupil Control Ideology Form..................... 64
Wilson Stress Profile for Teachers.............. 66
Statistic Analysis.............................. 67

4 RESULTS............................................. 71

Introduction.............. ............ 71
Descriptive Statistics........................... 72
Logistic Multiple Regression Analysis........... 73
Results of Logistic Regression Analyses......... 77
Further Analyses .................... .......... 80
Correlations of Teacher Belief Instruments........ 83

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......... 88

Summary ................................. ........ 88
Conclusions.............. ............... ......... 93
Significance of Pupil Control Beliefs........... 94
Significance of Highest Degree Earned.......... 97
Interrelatedness of Teacher Belief Constructs.. 99
Recommendations.............................. ... 102


APPENDICES

A LETTER TO TEACHERS............................... 114

B LETTER FROM THE DEAN............................ 116

C TEACHER BELIEF QUESTIONNAIRE.................... 117

D DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE........................ 126

E POST CARD ONE...................................... 127

F FOLLOW-UP LETTER................................ 128

G POST CARD TWO.................................... 129

H DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ON MAIN EFFECTS............ 130

REFERENCES......................... ................... 131

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................. 147















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 PERCENTAGES FOR TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS AND
ASSIGNMENTS..................................... 74

2 LOGISTIC REGRESSION FULL MODEL SUMMARY.......... 76

3 LOGISTIC REGRESSION SUMMARY REDUCED MODEL 1... 77

4 LOGISTIC REGRESSION SUMMARY REDUCED MODEL 2... 81

5 LOGISTIC REGRESSION SUMMARY REDUCED MODEL 3... 82

6 LOGISTIC REGRESSION SUMMARY REDUCED MODEL 4... 83

7 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
FOR TEACHER BELIEF INSTRUMENTS.................. 84


vii














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
TEACHER BELIEF SYSTEMS AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

BY

KAREN JOY AGNE

August 1991

Chair: Gordon E. Greenwood
Major Department: Foundations of Education


The purpose of this study was to examine whether

teachers, chosen as Teachers of the Year (TOY), differed

from inservice teachers (IT) in terms of four teacher belief

systems related to teacher effectiveness: (a) teacher

efficacy, (b) teacher locus of control, (c) pupil control,

and (d) teacher stress, and whether these beliefs were

related to teachers' gender, years of teaching experience,

grade level taught, or highest degree earned.

A sample of Teachers of the Year (n = 88) and a

comparison sample of inservice teachers (n = 92) completed a

composite teacher belief questionnaire consisting of four

teacher belief instruments: the Teacher Efficacy Scale

(TES), the Teacher Locus of Control Scale (TLC), the Pupil

Control Ideology Form (PCI), and the Wilson Stress Profile

for Teachers (WSPT), and a demographic information sheet.

viii








The combined samples responded from every state, were

two-thirds female, represented all grade levels in all types

of schools with enrollments ranging from 21 to 2,425, and

taught all elementary grades, 12 secondary subjects, and

special education. The TOY and IT samples were comparable

by gender, grade levels, types and sizes of schools, and

states. These data were generalizable to 1989 national

public school faculty statistics.

A general linear model was constructed to test

differences between TOY and IT samples on all eight

variables, using a logistic multiple regression procedure

(LOGIST). Results of the analysis for a reduced model

(interactions removed) were that Teachers of the Year were

significantly more humanistic in their pupil control beliefs

and held significantly more master's level or higher degrees

than inservice teachers. After removing pupil control as a

variable, significance was found for teacher locus of

control. Removal of pupil control and locus of control

variables resulted in significance for teacher efficacy.

Earlier research on teacher belief systems typically

found teacher efficacy and teacher locus of control to be

strongly related to student achievement. In this study

humanistic pupil control ideology was more strongly related

to selection as Teacher of the Year than the other two

belief systems.

Conceivably those chosen as Teacher of the Year

endorsed more caring attitudes towards students than regular

classroom teachers.













CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


Statement of the Problem

The nature of teacher effectiveness is an issue which

has generated a considerable amount of research in the

educational community for nearly a century. In spite of

investigations addressing many possible approaches,

researchers have concluded that very little is known about

effective teaching (Ornstein & Miller, 1980; Rosenshine &

Furst, 1971). Hamachek (1969) observed that, "probably no

issue in education has been so voluminously researched as

has teacher effectiveness and conditions which enhance or

restrict this effectiveness. Nonetheless, we still read

that we cannot tell the good guys from the bad guys" (p.

341).

Public interest in teacher effectiveness became

widespread in the '70s with social concern about declining

student achievement. The most common response to a public

poll on how the schools could earn an "A" grade was to

improve the quality of the teacher (Gallup, 1979).

Increased attention to teacher accountability, merit pay

systems and related issues magnified the significance of

student outcomes as criteria for judging teaching

effectiveness. However, as researchers continued to reveal

the complexity of the teaching/learning process, recognition

1






2

of the need for a more well-defined teacher evaluation

system has become a primary concern (Darling-Hammond, Wise,

& Pease, 1983).

Researchers have made many attempts to investigate

teaching effectiveness, probing both internal constructs and

external behaviors of the teacher. Much early effectiveness

research was devoted to the study of teacher personality

traits (Cattell, 1964; Coopersmith, 1967; Eysenck & Eysenck,

1964; Isaacson, McKeachie, & Milholland, 1963) and

characteristics (Jensen, 1951; Ryans, 1960; Symonds, 1955).

One study of teacher characteristics spanned 10 years

(Ryans, 1960). Another approach to the study of teacher

effectiveness has been the systematic observation or

"process-product" approach, which focused on the teacher's

observable, classroom behavior (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974; Good

& Grouws, 1977; Rosenshine & Furst, 1973; Soar & Soar, 1976;

Stallings, 1976).

A promising current model for conceptualizing teacher

effectiveness is the A-B-C-D link model (Ashton & Webb,

1986; Brophy & Good, 1970; Garner & Bing, 1973; Luce & Hoge,

1978). This model describes a causal chain of four

interconnecting links: (A) teacher beliefs, (B) teacher

behavior, (C) student behavior, and (D) student achievement

(Rose & Medway, 1981b). The B-D link is assumed by

process-product research (Brophy, 1979).

Early reference to the importance of antecedents to

teacher behavior, the "A" link of this model, was made by

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), who emphasized the effects of






3

teacher expectation upon student achievement. Empirical

research provided support for expectancy theory (Brophy &

Good, 1974; Garner & Bing, 1973), as well as other teacher

belief systems, such as locus of control (Murray & Staebler,

1974; Vasquez, 1973) and efficacy (Armor et al., 1976;

Ashton & Webb, 1986; Berman et al., 1977).

If teacher beliefs do contribute to teacher and student

behavior and finally to student achievement, an examination

of teacher beliefs held by a group of teachers generally

defined as being effective might make a significant

contribution to an understanding of teacher effectiveness.

The present study concentrates on the "A" link, teacher

beliefs. Four types of teacher beliefs have been found to

be highly correlated with various elements of the A-B-C-D

link model. These include teacher efficacy, teacher locus

of control, pupil control ideology, and teacher stress.

Each of these belief systems will be described briefly.


Teacher Efficacy

A cognitive motivator of behavior, self-efficacy, is

defined as one's belief in her/his own capability to perform

a given behavior in a specific situation (Bandura, 1977).

Furthermore, self-efficacy beliefs "affect people's choice

of activities, how much effort they expend, and how long

they will persist in the face of difficulties" (Bandura &

Schunk, 1981, p. 587).

In the context of the classroom, this situation-

specific construct becomes "teacher efficacy" and is defined






4

as the teacher's belief in her/his ability to affect student

learning (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984).

Teacher efficacy is not only specific to the classroom, but

is defined multidimensionally. The teacher efficacy

construct includes two factors, personal and teacher

efficacy. Teacher efficacy is defined as the "belief that

any teacher's ability to bring about change is significantly

limited by factors external to the teacher, such as home

environment, family background, etc.," whereas the personal

efficacy dimension is defined as the "belief that a teacher

has the skills and abilities to bring about student

learning" (Gibson & Dembo, 1984, p. 570). A considerable

amount of research has been conducted on teacher efficacy

(Armor et al.,1976; Ashton, Webb, & Doda, 1983; Berman et

al., 1977; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Berman et al. (1977)

referred to the teacher's sense of efficacy as the "single

most powerful explanatory variable" related to student

performance and teacher change (p. 73).

Ashton and Webb (1986) found that "teachers with a high

sense of efficacy were more likely than their low-efficacy

counterparts to define low-achieving students as reachable,

teachable and worthy of teacher attention and effort" (p.

72). Further, they stated that their findings "strongly

support the hypothesis that teachers' sense of efficacy is

related to student achievement" (p. 138). This conclusion

has been supported by other studies (Lent, Brown, & Larkin,

1984; Norwich, 1985; Relich, Debus, & Walker, 1986; Tracz &

Gibson, 1986).









Teacher Locus of Control

A related set of teacher beliefs, also described as a

cognitive motivator of behavior, locus of control may be

defined as the degree to which one believes her/his own

behavior is the determiner of events affecting her/his life,

as opposed to fate, luck or powerful others. People who

believe that their own actions are responsible for the

outcome of events occurring in their lives are said to have

an internal locus of control (of reinforcement) and are

referred to as internalss," whereas those who believe that

these outcomes are in the hands of powerful others or are

attributable to task difficulty, "luck," or "chance" are

said to have external locus of control and are called

"externals" (Phares, 1976; Lefcourt, 1971). Consequently,

if someone believes that how s(he) chooses to behave

directly affects the events in her/his life, this belief can

be expected to have considerable bearing upon the future

actions of that person (Lefcourt, 1981; Rotter, 1966).

In distinguishing between self-efficacy and locus of

control, Bandura (1981) contended that "in any given

instance behavior would be best predicted by considering

both self-efficacy and outcome beliefs" (p. 23), and that

"peoples' efficacy and outcome expectations influence how

they behave" (1978, p. 346). He differentiated between

outcome and efficacy beliefs, explaining that a person can

believe that specific behaviors will produce certain

outcomes (locus of control), while simultaneously holding






6

the belief that s(he) is not personally capable of executing

the specific behavior necessary to produce such an outcome

(efficacy) (Bandura, 1977a). This view provides support for

the necessity and usefulness of investigating both teacher

efficacy and locus of control.

Distinguished from general locus of control, teacher

locus of control may be defined as

the teacher's tendency to attribute the
outcomes of student behavior (such as high
or low achievement) to internal or external
factors. Teachers with a generalized
expectancy of internal control perceive
classroom events, such as student performance,
as being a consequence of their own actions
and under their personal control. Teachers
with an expectancy of external control
perceive little contingency between their
actions in the classroom and student behavior.
(Rose & Medway, 1981, p. 375)

The Teacher Locus of Control Scale (TLC) has been found

to be a better predictor of effective teacher behavior than

general locus of control scales, such as the I-E Scale

(Rotter, 1966). This may be because it was designed to

measure expectancies specific to the classroom setting and

thus may yield higher correlations between teacher beliefs,

interactions of students and teachers, and student outcomes.

The TLC scale was the instrument used in measuring teacher

locus of control in the present study.

The relationship between locus of control and

achievement was first recognized in 1962 by Crandall,

Katkovsky, and Preston, but received little attention until

it was cited in the Coleman Report (Coleman, Campbell,

Holeson, McPartland, Mood, Weinfeld, & York, 1966) as a

major factor in achievement behavior.






7

Although researchers in the studies described above

referred to the learner's locus of control, social scientists

have also found the teacher's locus of control to

significantly affect student achievement (Murray & Staebler,

1974; Porter & Cohen, 1977; Rose, 1978; Rose & Medway,

1981a; Vasquez, 1973) and overall teaching competence rating

(Scheck & Rhodes, 1980).


Pupil Control Ideology

"The most important characteristic schools share in

common is a preoccupation with order and control"

(Silberman, 1970, p. 122). For the teacher, pupil control

is frequently "so pronounced that the goal of classroom

order often displaces student learning as the definition of

teaching effectiveness" (Rosenholtz, 1989, p. 429).

"School teachers live in a world where classroom control is

deemed vital to their occupational survival" (Denscombe,

1985, p. 143). This may explain why the study of human

behavior and interaction within the institutional setting

of the school system represents a major area of educational

research (Anderson, 1982).

Classroom control perspectives are often based on the

sociology of work and organizations (Denscombe, 1985). This

comparison would be useful, but for two major exceptions.

In the classroom, the "clients" are not voluntary, and the

raw materials are humans (Helsel & Willower, 1974, p. 114).

The school system fits into the special category of

"people-changing organizations" (Carlson, 1964). Other

organizations which fit into this category are mental






8

hospitals, prisons, and military organizations, with

teachers playing the role of "drill-sergeant" (Webb, 1962;

Carlson, 1964).

In these organizational settings, as in classrooms, the

emphasis on control is pervasive. Willard Waller (1932)

portrayed the classroom setting in the following way:

Teacher and pupil confront each other with
attitudes from which the underlying hostility
can never be altogether removed. Pupils are
the material in which teachers are supposed to
produce results. Pupils are human beings
striving to realize their own results in their
own way. Each of these hostile parties stands
in the way of the other; in so far as aims of
either is realized, it is at the sacrifice of
the aims of the other. (p. 196)

Denscombe (1985) likened the situation to guerrilla

warfare, in which the attacks on the ruling government are

sporadic and localized; rarely is there all-out war. Novice

teachers learn very quickly that expertise in subject matter

and in pedagogical skills is not enough, if one is not first

well-skilled in classroom control. "The teacher who cannot

control never gets to the point of being able to teach"

(Haigh, 1979, p. 7).

Researchers probing into this matter have found that

"after two years of teaching experience, 87% of the

elementary teachers and 82% of the secondary teachers

described their schools as ones in which 'good teaching and

good classroom control tend to be equated'" (Hoy, 1969, p.

262).

Much of the research on educational climate control has

been focused on administration and on school buildings,






9

rather than on classrooms and the teacher's perspective

(Anderson, 1982). This approach is not without criticism,

however. Clearly, "classroom control without the class is

nonsense" (Denscombe, 1985, p. 193).

It was not until the late '60s that researchers began

to investigate the classroom and, specifically, the

teacher's orientation towards the student (Anderson, 1982).

Anderson (1982) has listed the Pupil Control Ideology Form

(Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1967, 1973) among the major

instruments in use which directs the focus of classroom

control onto the teacher.

Willower and Jones (1963) recognized the parallel

between the control patterns found to be operating in junior

high school classrooms and those at work in a mental

hospital, based on a typology being utilized by Gilbert and

Levinson (1957) to study the feelings of mental hospital

aides towards their patients. The custodial/humanistic

continuum used to control behavior in this people-changing

organization was not unlike that observed in school

classrooms.

The bipolar continuum of control behavior beliefs in

the typology has been adapted to conform to the classroom.

Although most educators will fall between the poles of the

continuum, the extremes are described in the following way:

The educator with a custodial orientation
desires a highly controlled setting and is
concerned primarily with the maintenance of
order. Students are stereotyped in terms
of their appearance, behavior, and parents'
social status. The students are perceived
as irresponsible and undisciplined persons








who must be controlled through punitive
sanctions. The custodial teacher does not
attempt to understand student behavior, but
instead views it in moralistic terms.
Misbehavior is taken as a personal affront.
Relationships with students are maintained
on as impersonal a basis as possible.
Pessimism and watchful mistrust imbue the
custodial viewpoint. Teachers holding a
custodial orientation conceive of the school
as an autocratic organization with rigidly
maintained distinctions between the status
of teachers and that of pupils. Both power
and communication flow downward, and
students are expected to accept the
decisions of teachers without question.
Teachers feel responsible for their actions
only to the extent that orders are carried
out to the letter.

The educator with a humanistic orientation
views the school as an educational community
in which members learn through interaction
and experience. A student's learning and
behavior is viewed in psychological and
sociological terms rather than the passive
absorption of facts. The withdrawn student
is seen as a problem equal to that of the
overactive, troublesome one. The humanistic
teacher is optimistic that, through close
personal relationships with pupils and the
positive aspects of friendship and respect,
students will be self-disciplining rather
than disciplined. A humanistic orientation
leads teachers to desire a democratic
classroom climate with its attendant
flexibility in status and rules, open
channels of two-way communication, and
increased student self-determination.
Teachers are willing to act upon their own
volition and to accept responsibility for
their actions.
(Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1973, pp. 5-6)

Hundreds of studies have been conducted using the Pupil

Control Ideology Form, largely in the areas of personality,

behavior, school type, and organizational differences, and

differences in teaching experience. Several reviews of

these studies have been published (Packard, 1988; Willower,


1975, 1977).






11

The Pupil Control Ideology Form (PCI), designed by

Willower, Eidell, and Hoy (1967, 1973) to assess these

beliefs, has been named one of the major instruments used by

researchers for the investigation of classroom climate

(Anderson, 1982). Classroom climate has been found to

affect many student outcomes, including achievement

(Brookover, et al., 1978).


Teacher Stress

Schools are said to be among the most stressful

ecologies in our society (Samples, 1976), and teaching, to

have a seriously high occupational stress level in

comparison to other professions (Cox & Brockley, 1984;

Nerell & Wahlund, 1981; Hunter, 1977). One of the

projections made by the Carnegie Forum on Education and

Economy (1986) was that half of all teachers employed at

that time would leave the profession by 1992. Another

report listed the national price tag for teacher stress and

burnout at $3.5 billion per year, due to absenteeism,

turnover, poor performance, and waste (Truch, 1980).

Teacher stress has been defined many different ways in

the literature. One definition of teacher stress is

a response by a teacher of negative effect
(such as anger, anxiety or depression)
accompanied by potentially pathogenic
physiological changes (such as increased
heart rate, or release of adrenocortico-
trophic hormone into the bloodstream) as
a result of the demands made upon the
teacher in his role as a teacher.
(Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1977, p. 299)

Hans Selye, the well-known pioneer in stress research,

defines stress as "the nonspecific response of the body to






12

any demand made upon it" (1974, p. 4). He not only

distinguished between eustress and distress, eustress being

a healthy, positive stress, which might increase the

motivation and quality of performance, and distress, the

harmful, negative sort of stress, which interferes with both

physical and mental health, and which is detrimental to

performance, but he also defined stress as simply the rate

of wear and tear on the body.

"Burnout," often referred to in the same context with

teacher stress, is not synonymous with teacher stress;

whereas stress is to be expected with teaching, burnout is

not (Selye, 1976). "Burnout" is defined as "the syndrome

resulting from prolonged teacher stress, primarily

characterized by physical, emotional, and attitudinal

exhaustion" (Kyriacou, 1987, p. 146). Furthermore, Farber

(1984) cautioned that burnout actually occurs not from

stress, but rather as a result of unrelieved or untreated

stress.

Researchers and teachers' organizations began to

express considerable concern about the possible consequences

of teacher stress for the entire public education system

(Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1977; NEA, 1979). Within the last

decade survey researchers comparing teachers with other

professions have typically found that teachers reported the

highest levels of occupational stress (Cox & Brockley, 1984;

Nerell & Wahlund, 1981).

Eskridge and Coker (1985) indicated that reduced

efficiency, tardiness and absenteeism, increased






13

irritability, lack of control, and, ultimately, loss of

caring for people are among the typical symptoms of teacher

stress. Considering these conditions, decreased

effectiveness and lowered achievement could result

proportionate to the amount of stress perceived by the

teacher.

Although anxiety and stress are not synonymous

constructs, it may be recalled that anxiety is viewed as a

component of teacher stress (Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1977,

p. 299). This may indicate relevance for the relationship

between teacher anxiety and student achievement. Indeed,

evidence indicates that achievement is lower for students of

high anxious teachers than for low anxious teachers (Heil &

Washburne, 1962). There is also evidence of adversely

affected achievement scores for high-achievers assigned to

burned-out teachers (Dworkin, 1985).

Measures developed to assess teacher stress are

numerous, because researchers often choose to develop their

own instruments, rather than utilizing existing measures

(e.g., Blase, 1986; Fimian, 1984b; Moracco, Danford, &

D'Arienzo, 1982; Pettigrew & Wolf, 1982). The problem that

arises from this situation is that teacher stress measures

often lack good psychometric properties (Luh, 1989). One

instrument which measures nine areas known as most stressful

for teachers, and which has been evaluated as having good

psychometric properties (Luh, 1989) is the Wilson Stress

Profile for Teachers (Wilson, 1979), the instrument for use

in measuring teacher stress in the present study.









Factors Related to Belief Systems

Four demographic variables have been found to influence

the teacher belief systems analyzed by the present study.

These variables include teacher gender, years of teaching

experience, grade level taught, and highest degree earned.

Gender differences have been found to be related to

teacher locus of control (Garrett, 1977), teachers' sense of

efficacy (Greenwood, Olejnik, & Parkay, 1990), and pupil

control ideology (Bean, 1972; Budzik, 1971).

Teaching experience differences have been reported to

be significantly related to teachers' sense of efficacy

(Gibson & Brown, 1982; Hutchins, 1987), locus of control

(Leming, 1981), pupil control ideology (Hoy, 1968; Hoy &

Rees, 1977), and stress (Holt, Fine, & Tollefson, 1987).

Anxiety has also been observed to be widespread among

beginning teachers (Coates & Thoresen, 1976).

Highest degrees earned by teachers is related to

teachers' sense of efficacy, according to Gibson and Brown

(1982). This relationship was also reported in related

research of teachers' attitudes toward parent involvement

(Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1987).

Grade level differences have been reported to be

related to the teachers' sense of efficacy (Greenwood,

Olejnik, & Parkay, 1990), and stress (Farber, 1984).


Belief systems and teacher effectiveness

It has been argued that "teachers typically make

decisions based on their personal belief systems" (Greenwood






15

& Parkay, 1989, p. 4), and that effective decision-making is

critical to effective teacher behavior (Clark & Peterson,

1986; Shavelson, 1973).

If it is true that selected beliefs held by teachers

shape the thoughts and decisions and, therefore, the

behaviors that lead to more or less effective outcomes in

the classroom, then it would be important to determine which

specific teacher beliefs are likely to bear on teaching

effectiveness. Previous researchers have indicated that the

four belief patterns discussed above may be expected to be

good predictors of effective teaching. Again, the four

belief patterns are teachers' beliefs related to

self-efficacy, locus of control, pupil control, and

perceived level of stress as a result of job demands. The

present study addresses the relationship between these four

teacher belief systems and teacher effectiveness.


Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the

differences between a sample of the Teachers of the Year

(TOYs) population and that of regular inservice teachers

(ITs) in terms of their beliefs regarding efficacy, locus of

control, pupil control, and teaching stress.

A population of teachers which has been identified as

being more effective than the general population of

professional teachers, both in educational achievement and

in professional attitudes and behaviors, is the Teachers of

the Year (Wiedmer, 1983). Following a study of the Teachers






16

of the Year (TOYs) from 1978-1982, Wiedmer and Brod (1985)

stated that "Significant differences in the educational

achievement and in professional attitudes and behaviors of

TOYs distinguish them from their counterparts in the

nation's schools" (p. 212). This finding indicates possible

differences between TOYs and comparison teachers with regard

to the four belief patterns discussed above.

Wiedmer (1983) developed a profile instrument designed

to survey and compare the award-winning teachers with their

counterparts on age, sex, grade level taught, regions,

ethnicity, attitudes toward teaching, decision to become

teachers, and career choice. Chi-square and t-test

significance (E < .05) for all eight comparisons showed the

typical TOY to be female, caucasian, and 42 years of age.

Most have master's degrees and graduate GPAs of about 3.80.

TOYs have generally taught for 15 years and intend to

continue teaching until retirement. Nearly all TOYs spend

three or more hours per day beyond required contractual time

on school-related activities compared to the one extra hour

per day reported by 55% of other teachers. Ninety percent

of TOYs named enjoyment of students as their main reason for

teaching.

The above attitudes and traits found to be typical of

TOYs are related to the four teacher belief constructs

examined in this study. Teachers who are accomplished,

hard-working scholars, and who teach primarily because they

enjoy their students, might be expected to believe

themselves to be the capable determiners of the outcomes in






17

their classroom environments and to own humanistic attitudes

towards student control. Three of the instruments used in

this study, the Teacher Locus of Control Scale, the Teacher

Efficacy Scale, and the Pupil Control Ideology Form, include

items designed to measure these attitudes.

Finally, researchers have found that burnout, a

by-product of stress, is most common among teachers who are

under 30 years of age, inexperienced (taught less than five

years), and who hold external locus of control beliefs

(Dworkin, 1985). Because TOYs are generally older,

experienced, and internal in their locus of control beliefs,

the fourth instrument used in this study, the Wilson Stress

Profile for Teachers, designed to measure five specific

areas of stress in teaching, was chosen to reflect

differences possibly related to the above factors.

The Teacher of the Year, a program begun in 1952, has

as its purpose the selection of the nation's most

outstanding teachers. The National Teachers of the Year

Program "has become recognized as the most prestigious such

program in American education" (Harris & Harris, 1989,

p. 177). Guidelines for selection of the Teachers of the

Year are issued by the Council of Chief State School

Officers in Washington, D.C., and require nominees to be

selected by administrators, teachers, and students from

candidates teaching in accredited schools, preschool through

twelfth grade. Each nominee is then required to submit a

personal portfolio which must include information regarding

teaching accomplishments, educational preparation,






18

professional biography, professional association membership,

community involvement, philosophy of teaching, knowledge of

educational issues and trends, personal teaching style,

philosophy of the responsibility of a Teacher of the Year,

and letters of support for their nomination from

superintendents, administrators, colleagues, students,

parents, and civic leaders (D. S. Pierce, personal

communication, November, 1989; J. Quam, personal

communication, September 14, 1990).

Although not all states and territories always submit a

winner, a total of approximately 53 TOYs, one from each

state or territory, are generally chosen each year. From

this group, three finalists are selected, and a national

winner is chosen each year. National finalists are then

selected by a 12-member committee appointed by the Council

of Chief State School Officers from professional education

associations, lay groups, and universities. Final selection

is made on the basis of interviews, as well as observations

and videotapes of classroom skills (Miller, 1989).

Researchers have found TOYs to be significantly

different than other teachers on both philosophy and

attitudes towards teaching (link A), as well as teaching

style and professional behavior (link B). Ninety percent of

Teachers of the Year stated that they chose teaching as a

profession because they enjoy working with young people, and

that they have remained in the profession because of their

enjoyment of and commitment to teaching. A significant

number of the TOYs spend many hours on school-related






19

activities beyond their contractual required time, and used

more innovative ideas for teaching (Wiedmer, 1983; Wiedmer &

Brod, 1985). It may be important to note, however, that to

assume high efficacy beliefs for all those awarded for

performance may be erroneous. Bandura (1977) cautioned that

performance attainments do not necessarily
enhance perceived efficacy. It depends on
how the determinants of the performances
are cognitively appraised and how they
measure up against internal standards. .
A theory of effectance, therefore, must
consider the important role played by
personal standards and cognitive appraisal
in the affective and self-evaluative
reactions to one's performance. (p. 411)

Examination of the belief systems of this population,

the Teachers of the Year, offers one method of assessing the

belief systems of teachers judged to be effective. To date,

the four patterns of belief systems proposed in this study

have not been examined in relation to this population of

teachers.


Limitations

A limitation of the present study regards the use of

self-report instruments. General controversy over the

validity and reliability of self-report inventories has

persisted for many years (Combs & Soper, 1963; Heilbrun,

1965; Purinton, 1965; Purkey, 1968; Shulman, 1968; Wylie,

1961). In spite of the possible biases, many researchers

find the use of self-report instruments to be appropriate.

They have taken the position that self-reports are useful

respondent information (Rogers, 1951), that any individual

has the right to be believed (Allport, 1954), and that if






20

one's history cannot be known, there is no recourse but to

assess directly through self-report (Mischel, 1968). Wylie

(1974) added that "self-referent constructs are potentially

very important to theoretical understanding and practical

application" (p. 701). Currently, self-report procedures

represent the most widely used means with which to assess

the belief systems under examination.

A second limitation of this study may involve the

selection process for Teacher of the Year nominees.

Although there is a national selection procedure for TOYs

(guidelines for the selection of Teacher of the Year are

issued by the Council of Chief State Officers in Washington,

D.C.), there may be variance in the application of these

procedures. The national office has no system for

monitoring guideline interpretation at the state level. In

addition, selection is largely a judging process which

implies subjective interpretation of teacher effectiveness

from TOY nominee portfolios.

A further limitation may be the expost facto nature of

the design of this study. These data allow investigation of

relationships but not prediction or causal explanation.

Finally, in this study teacher effectiveness is defined

in terms of selection as Teacher of the Year. Previous

researchers have typically operationalized teacher

effectiveness as student achievement (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974;

Good & Grouws, 1977; Soar & Soar, 1976). Although

researchers have cited limitations for research in which

teacher effectiveness is defined as student achievement






21

(Rosenshine & Furst, 1973; Shavelson, Webb, & Burstein,

1986; Shulman, 1986) and teacher effectiveness has also been

defined in terms of teacher belief systems (Clark &

Peterson, 1986; Shavelson, 1973), some researchers may

perceive the approach used in this study, defining teacher

effectiveness as selection as Teacher of the Year, as a

limitation.


Significance of the Study

Concern for the nation's economic well-being has moved

the issue of effective teaching to the top of the national

agenda. The need for better understanding of teaching

effectiveness continues to be an urgent concern. Years of

rigorous and varied investigation has failed to define

objective criteria with which to measure effective teaching.

However researchers now acknowledge that "teaching is

complex, demanding, and uniquely human" (Clark & Peterson,

1986, p. 293), that "What makes a good teacher is a highly

personal matter having to do with the teacher's personal

system of beliefs" (Combs, 1982, p. 3), and that "if our

purpose and intent are to change the practices of those who

teach, it is necessary to come to grips with the objectively

reasonable beliefs of teachers" (Fenstermacher, 1979, p.

174). Teacher education institutions may need to examine

whether and in what ways they impact on the teacher belief

systems. Determining that a system of beliefs

differentiates the most effective teachers from the general

population of professional teachers could, in part, affect






22
the future direction of educational reform and ultimately

the quality of the educational system.

Researchers have called for greater focus on studies of

teacher efficacy (Dembo & Gibson; 1985), teacher locus of

control (Rose, 1978), pupil control orientation (Rose &

Willower, 1981), teacher stress (Luh, 1989), and the

training of teacher belief systems (Guskey, 1984; Adams &

Bailey, 1989) for greater understanding and improvement of

teaching effectiveness. No attempt has been made to

investigate simultaneously all four of the belief systems

assessed in the present study. No attempt has been made to

investigate these belief systems with the Teacher of the

Year population.


Questions
This study asked the following questions about the TOYs

contrasted with a comparison group of inservice teachers:

1. Do the Teachers of the Year have a higher sense of

efficacy than inservice teachers as measured by the Teacher

Efficacy Scale?

2. Are the Teachers of the Year more internal in their

locus of control of reinforcement than inservice teachers as

measured by the Teacher Locus of Control Scale?

3. Are Teachers of the Year more humanistic in their

attitude, relationship, and interaction with their students

than inservice teachers as measured by the Pupil Control

Ideology Form?

4. Do Teachers of the Year believe they experience

lower levels of stress on the job than do inservice teachers






23

as reflected by scores on the Wilson Stress Profile for

Teachers?

5. Do Teachers of the Year and inservice teachers

differ on their sense of efficacy, locus of control, pupil

control ideology, or perceived stress levels as a result of

gender, years of teaching experience, grade level taught or

highest degree earned?


Hypotheses

The purpose of this study was to determine whether

differences exist between Teachers of the Year and inservice

teachers in terms of four types of teacher beliefs.

The specific null hypotheses are:

1. Whether a teacher is selected as Teacher of the Year
will not be significantly related to scores on the Teacher
Efficacy Scale (TES), the Teacher Locus of Control Scale
(TLC), the Pupil Control Ideology Form (PCI), or the Wilson
Stress Profile for Teachers (WSPT).

2. Whether a teacher is selected as Teacher of the Year
will not be significantly related to the teacher's gender,
years of teaching experience, grade level taught, or highest
degree earned.

3. Whether a teacher is selected as Teacher of the Year
will not be significantly related to scores on the Teacher
Efficacy Scale by gender, years of teaching experience,
grade level taught, or highest degree earned.

4. Whether a teacher is selected as Teacher of the Year
will not be significantly related to scores on the Teacher
Locus of Control Scale by gender, years of teaching
experience, grade level taught, or highest degree earned.

5. Whether a teacher is selected as Teacher of the Year
will not be significantly related to scores on the Pupil
Control Ideology Form by gender, years of teaching
experience, grade level taught, or highest degree earned.

6. Whether a teacher is selected as Teacher of the Year
will not be significantly related to scores on the Wilson
Stress Profile for Teachers by gender, years of teaching
experience, grade level taught, or highest degree earned.














CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

It is the purpose of this chapter to present the

research literature which underlies the four teachers'

belief systems examined in this study and their link to

teacher effectiveness. First, a review of the literature of

the A-B-C-D link model of teacher effectiveness will be

presented. Next, studies bearing on the four belief systems

of teachers' sense of efficacy, teacher locus of control,

pupil control ideology, and teacher stress are presented,

followed by studies regarding the four related demographic

variables of teacher gender, years of experience, grade

level taught, and highest degree earned. Concluding this

review is research examining the interrelatedness of the

four belief constructs.


Research Related to the A-B-C-D Link Model

A model postulating a causal chain of four

interconnecting classroom events has emerged from a series

of teacher effectiveness studies of the last two decades.

The model has become known as the A-B-C-D link model and

identifies (A) teacher beliefs, (B) teacher behavior,

(C) student behavior, and (D) student achievement as causal

links of teacher effectiveness.






25

The model originated with a small group of

investigators whose plan was to identify teaching behaviors

(link B) which relate to student achievement (link D)

(Jayne, 1945; Medley & Mitzel, 1959; Morsh, Burgess, &

Smith, 1956). This B-D link pattern of studies became known

as the Process-Product research, because its purpose was to

link teacher behavior (link B) and/or student behavior (link

C) variables and their observed classroom interactions to

student achievement outcome variables (link D).

An example of this type of research is a study by Good

and Grouws (1977), in which systematic observation data were

collected from 41 fourth-grade mathematics classes. Data

information included instructional time, low and high

inference descriptions of teacher-student interaction

patterns, and descriptions of materials and assignments.

These "process" data were subsequently compared to "product"

measures in the form of residual scores from mathematics

portions of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) tests.

Teaching effectiveness, operationally defined as student

achievement scores, was found to relate to certain

student-teacher behaviors/interactions, the B-D link.

The research which called attention to the A link of

the model, teacher beliefs, was the controversial teacher

expectancy research, presented in Pygmalion in the Classroom

by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968). Over 100 subsequent

investigations lent support to the teacher expectancy, or

self-fulfilling prophesy, theory derived from the research

(Brophy & Good, 1970; Elashoff & Snow, 1971).






26

Brophy and Good (1970) alluded to the A-B-C-D link

model in their study of 4 first-grade classes, in which they

examined the effects of teacher expectancy with the specific

purpose of determining the ways in which teachers

communicate their expectations that cause their students to

respond reciprocally. Teachers' rankings of their students'

achievement were used to measure the teacher's expectations

for pupil performance. Choosing 3 boys and 3 girls from

each extreme (highest and lowest achievers) per classroom,

researchers focused on the specific teacher-student

interactions between these few dyads, while allowing

teachers to believe that the focus was centered on the whole

class and only on student behavior. All teacher behavior

related to whole-class instruction was ignored. A coding

system was used to determine data such as the source of

initiation of interactions, the nature of interaction and

reaction cycles, the number of response opportunities, the

type of questioning used by teachers, and the type and

quality of student response and teacher feedback.

Using analysis of variance to assess the effects of

teacher expectancy by gender and class level, the

researchers found that the students for whom the teachers

held highest expectations performed more behaviors related

to achievement gains (e.g., raising their hands, staying on

task), and confirmed the hypothesis that teacher

expectations do function as self-fulfilling prophecies. The

data revealed that achievement levels (link D) are related

to teachers' expectations (link A).






27

In a different vein of research, Garner and Bing (1973)

sought to determine whether teacher behavior towards

students is related to teacher perception of student

attributes. They collected data on tape recorded verbal

exchanges between 7 second-grade teachers and 244 students,

as well as teachers' ratings of these students on 11 scales.

These scales included temperament, intellectual ability,

level of dependence, attractiveness, extent of imagination,

school performance, conduct, humor, motivation, social

skills, and the degree of affection the teacher holds for

the student. Kendall's coefficient of concordance measured

teacher-student contact patterns, and varimax factor

analysis was used to intercorrelate student ratings.

Intercorrelation matrices revealed a similar pattern for all

teachers' ratings with respect to student intelligence,

performance, and attitude towards their work. Garner and

Bing concluded the A link to be "essential," adding that

knowledge of this first link would "increase the sensitivity

of research design," as well as increase the "capacity to

influence teacher behavior" (p. 42).

Another study was conducted by Luce and Hoge (1978),

whose aim was to assess data on all four A-B-C-D links

simultaneously. Data on teacher-pupil interaction,

attentiveness, student verbal and mathematics levels, and

teachers' rankings were collected on 104 third- and

fourth-grade students and 5 teachers. Teacher expectations

were measured by teacher ratings of student general

intellectual ability, and the Brophy-Good Dyadic Interaction






28
Schedule was used to assess teacher-student interaction. A

measure of student attentiveness was determined by the

Revised Jackson-Hudgins Observation Schedule, and student

verbal and math ability by the Canadian Lorge-Thorndike

Intelligence Test and Canadian Tests of Basic Skills,

respectively. Regression analyses of achievement on the

expectancy factor alone, as well as achievement on

expectancy, teacher behavior, and student behavior factors,

were significant. The authors concluded that although the

results of correlational analyses seem to provide general

support for the A-B-C-D model, teacher expectancy alone was

not the major determiner of student achievement. Student

and teacher behavior factors were significant additional

predictors of achievement rankings.

Finally, Rose and Medway (1981b) also proposed to

gather data on the A-B-C-D link model and to establish the

A-B link. This study differed from previous work, in that

the A link was defined as teacher locus of control rather

than expectancy. The researchers predicted that teacher

locus of control would be significantly related to student

achievement because internal teachers would use more direct

instruction, and further, that students of internal teachers

would spend more time on task as a result of direct

instruction.

The I-E scale (Rotter, 1966) was used to measure the

locus of control tendencies of 44 fourth-grade teachers.

Student achievement was determined by gain scores on student

Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) tests. In






29

addition, observations of 17 teachers and their students

were conducted using the Observation Schedule and Record

Instrument (OScAR) and the Florida Climate and Control

System (FLACCS) to determine which student and teacher

behaviors were related to teacher locus of control and

student achievement. Teacher accountability behaviors were

determined using the Kounin Group Management Concepts

(1970). Two lesson presentation styles were defined,

circulating/supervising or traditional. Second-order

partial correlation coefficients revealed significance for

teacher internality and student math achievement scores in

the sample of 17 teachers; however, regression analyses

determined teacher locus of control to account for only six

percent of total posttest achievement, whereas teacher

behaviors accounted for twice that amount of variance. Rose

and Medway concluded that their results, like those of Luce

and Hoge (1978), had not been able to establish a strong A-B

link.

Since the I-E scale was designed to measure general

locus of control and researchers have noted the importance

of assessing this construct for specific situations

(Lefcourt, 1976; Phares, 1976), Rose and Medway surmised

that the use of the I-E for measuring teacher locus of

control may result in reduced correlations. In a later

study, using their own newly constructed Teacher Locus of

Control Scale (TLC), Rose and Medway (1981a) were able to

demonstrate a significant relationship between locus of

control scores and teacher behavior. In one validity study






30

researchers examined the relationship between the locus of

control and classroom behavior of 30 female fourth-grade

teachers who responded to the final version of the Teacher

Locus of Control scale. Findings were significant for two

tests in which teacher locus of control was directly related

to teacher behavior. Specifically, internal teachers gave

fewer disciplinary commands and engaged in less student

accountability behavior than did teachers who were assessed

to have external locus of control orientations.

When a locus of control instrument specifically

designed for the classroom situation is utilized, it appears

that teacher locus of control beliefs relate directly to

teacher behaviors, affirming the A-B link.


Research Related to Teacher Efficacy

Teacher efficacy has been identified as a variable

that correlates significantly with student achievement.

Earliest reports of the link between teacher efficacy and

student achievement emerged from two Rand Corporation

studies. Both studies used two questions to measure teacher

efficacy. The two items used in the Rand studies to measure

teacher efficacy were: Rand 1 "When it comes right down

to it, a teacher really can't do much because most of a

student's motivation and performance depends on his or her

home environment" (low sense of teacher efficacy) and Rand 2

- "If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most

difficult or unmotivated students" (high sense of personal

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






31

In the first of the Rand studies, Armor et al. (1976)

analyzed the School Preferred Reading program in Los

Angeles. Using the reading test (Q2) of the California Test

of Basic Skills (CTBS) as the measure of achievement, the

researchers compared gain scores of sixth-graders from 20

schools to assess which schools were most successful in

increasing inner-city students' reading scores. In

addition, 81 teachers responded to a questionnaire of

information regarding school leadership, reading program

content and implementation, classroom atmosphere, and

teacher attitudes and background (race, college attended,

undergraduate major, and extent of reading instruction).

They determined that neither prepackaged reading techniques

nor specific teachers background characteristics were among

the factors contributing to improved reading achievement,

rather the teacher's sense of efficacy was found to be

significantly related to both student achievement measures

used. Policies enhancing implementation of reading programs

were also found to raise scores. It was concluded that the

belief by principals and teachers, that children can be

taught to read regardless of motivation or background, was

highly related to reading achievement gain.

Linking teacher efficacy to both student achievement

and teacher behavior, Berman et al. (1977), in a later Rand

study, assessed 100 Title III ESEA Change-Agent projects.

Four dependent variables were included in the study: the

percentage of project goals achieved, the amount of teacher

change, the amount of improvement in student performance,






32

and the length of continuation of use of both project

methods and project materials. Researchers measured teacher

efficacy behavior by judging the extent to which teachers

made changes during the time limit within which the federal

projects were being funded, and also the extent to which

teachers continued to make changes and to use project

methods and materials beyond the time that the federal

funding was terminated. Researchers determined teacher

efficacy to be the best predictor of teachers' completion of

project goals, teachers' continued use of materials and

methods, teacher change, and student achievement. Although

results indicated that teacher sense of efficacy was related

to all four dependent variables in the study, regression

coefficients revealed the strongest relationship to be

between the teacher's sense of efficacy and student learning

gains.

In addition, a number of others have reported

significant correlations between teacher efficacy, teacher

behavior, and student achievement. Possibly the most

comprehensive work to date on efficacy and student

achievement was done by Ashton and Webb (1986). In an

executive summary of several volumes of research on the

teacher's sense of efficacy, Ashton, Webb, and Doda (1983),

using ethnographic techniques and process-product methods,

as well as a number of questionnaires (including the Webb

Efficacy Scale, Rand Efficacy items, Rotter I-E scale,

school climate measures, and teacher questionnaires)

observed and compared two middle schools and 48 high school






33

teachers. Teacher efficacy and teacher behavior were found

to be related at significance levels greater than .05, but

equal to or less than .10. They reported significant

correlations among teacher efficacy, student-teacher

interaction, and student achievement.

Tracz and Gibson (1986) used the Teacher Efficacy Scale

(TES) to investigate the relationship of teacher efficacy to

the teacher's use of time, student time on task, and student

achievement. Observations of two schools, including 14

teachers of fourth, fifth, and sixth grades were conducted.

Each teacher and classroom was observed for nine hours.

Researchers coded each teacher's time allocation to

small-group instruction, whole-group instruction, and

seatwork checking, as well as to student time-on-task.

Using stepwise multiple regression analysis, researchers

determined the personal efficacy factor to be significantly

correlated with reading achievement (R < .04), whereas the

teacher efficacy factor correlated significantly with math

achievement scores (R < .02). Teacher efficacy was also

found to correlate positively with use of whole-class

instruction, and negatively with small-group instruction,

and student time-on-task was found to be significant for

language achievement (R < .03).

The Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES), the instrument

proposed for use in measuring teacher efficacy in the

present study, was developed by Gibson and Dembo (1984). In

a three-phase study, they tested this instrument on 208

elementary teachers from 13 different (K-6) schools, as well






34

as 55 teachers enrolled in graduate education courses, to

determine that two factors, teacher and personal efficacy,

may be measured reliably by the TES, and that teacher

efficacy is a significant variable related to teacher

behavior, student behavior, and student achievement.


Research Related to Teacher Locus of Control

The relationship between locus of control beliefs and

achievement was first brought to general attention by the

largest educational research project ever conducted in the

United States. In this study, called Equality of

Educational Opportunity, Coleman et al. (1966), surveyed

625,000 students in 4,000 schools and measured 45 variables,

most of which appeared to demonstrate that there was little

correlation between schools and learning. One conclusion of

the massive study, however, was that students' beliefs,

regarding control of their environment, did predict their

achievement in school.

Confirmation of the Coleman Report results has since

come from many studies. Among the most recent of these is a

study by Stipek (1980). Stipek observed 89 first graders

from 15 classrooms. She obtained achievement scores using

the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT), and mental age from

the Peabody Picture Vocabulary test. Locus of control

measures were assessed by the Locus of Control Scale for

Children (LOC), a scale which is patterned after the

Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire (IAR)

(Crandall, et al., 1965). Pre and post measures, as well as






35

cross-lagged panel correlations and path analyses, revealed

student achievement to be related to internal locus of

control.

Although the importance of student locus of control for

academic achievement is well established (Bartel, 1971;

Coleman, et al., 1966; Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall,

1965; Messer, 1972), the concern of the present study is

with the teacher's locus of control. A number of studies

have shown teacher locus of control to be a significant

contributor to student achievement. Murray and Staebler

(1974) studied 10 fifth-grade teachers and 80 fifth-grade

students from seven elementary schools. Using Rotter's I-E

Scale (1966), they derived locus of control scores from the

teachers, and the locus of control scores of students were

measured by the IAR Questionnaire (Crandall, Katkovsky, &

Preston, 1962). Comparing these scores to student

achievement and intelligence scores, which were based on the

California Aptitude Test (CAT) and the Comprehensive Test of

Basic Skills (CTBS), they found students with internal

teachers to have higher achievement levels than those with

external teachers, over and above the student's locus of

control measures.

Another study found teachers' ratings to be

significantly correlated with locus of control measures.

Scheck and Rhodes (1980) gathered data on 30 middle-school

teachers, using the Adult Nowicki-Strickland I-E scale

(ANSIE) (Nowicki & Duke, 1974) and a derived version of the

(CNSIE) (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973), together with teacher






36

ratings, based on a teacher rating scale by Miller and

Miller (1973), from the principal, vice-principal, and two

counselors. Utilizing a Spearman's Rho for rank order and a

Chi-square test with a Yate's Correction and Yule's Q, they

found internal teachers to be significantly more likely to

be ranked high in overall teaching competence.

Finally, linking teacher locus of control to teacher

behavior and student behavior, Rose and Medway (1981a)

sampled 183 elementary teachers on the Teacher Locus of

Control Scale (TLC), and found a significant relationship

between the teachers' TLC scores and their classroom

behavior. Internal teachers were found to give

significantly fewer disciplinary commands to students, to

have significantly less misbehavior among their.students,

and to experience significantly more independent student

on-task behaviors in their classrooms. Varimax factor

analysis yielded I- and I+ factors for the TLC scale. When

these dimensions were compared with the I-E, Pearson product

moment correlations revealed a significant relationship

between the I-E and I+ scores for two samples of elementary

teachers, but nonsignificant correlations for the same

groups of teacher respondents on the I-E and the I- scores.

Further, as compared to the I-E Scale (Rotter, 1966), the

TLC was found to be a better predictor of teachers'

behaviors, because it was designed to measure expectancies

specific to the classroom setting and thus may yield higher

correlations between teacher beliefs, interactions of

students and teachers, as well as student outcomes. The






37

Teacher Locus of Control Scale (TLC) is the instrument

proposed for use in measuring teacher locus of control in

the present study.


Research Related to Pupil Control Ideology

Researchers have linked teachers' pupil control

ideologies to differences in teacher behavior. Jones and

Blankenship (1972) compared the PCI scores of 68 biology

teachers with variables on a Biology Classroom Activity

Checklist. The checklist included variables such as student

participation, use of curriculum materials, prelaboratory

practices, laboratory practices, and postlaboratory

practices. Results indicated significant differences

between the behaviors of humanistic and custodial teachers.

Humanistically-oriented teachers offered more explanation,

better use of materials, better utilization of test items,

and better analysis and discussion of laboratory results

than did custodially-oriented teachers.

Teachers with humanistic PCI scores have been found to

be more committed to progressive values, whereas teachers

with custodial scores have values which are more

traditional. Helsel (1971b) surveyed a random sample of

1,000 educators from 43 counties in Illinois. Traditional

versus progressive values were measured using the

Differential Values Inventory (DVI). When partial

correlation coefficients were calculated relating educators

values to their pupil control ideology on the PCI,

traditional values were found to be positively related to

custodial pupil control orientations.






38

In related research, Borko (1978) found that teachers

with stronger traditional beliefs gave students less

responsibility for planning their instruction and were more

likely to refer students for testing and special classes

than teachers with progressive values. She found that

teachers with progressive values, on the other hand, were

more likely to use peer tutoring and to judge student social

competence and emotional growth as more important than did

traditional teachers.

Girardi (1980) found teachers' ratings to be

significantly related to their pupil control ideologies. He

sampled 20 public and 20 parochial schools, gathering

ratings on the most and least effective teachers from

principals and peers. When ratings were compared with PCI

scores, significant difference was found between PCI Scores

of public school teachers, as rated by peers, and also for

parochial teachers, as rated by principals. Teachers rated

most effective were more humanistic in their pupil control

ideologies.

Teachers' pupil control beliefs have also been linked

with student behavior. Dobson, Goldenberg, and.Elsom (1972)

collected PCI data on 260 elementary teachers, dividing them

into groups by high custodial and high humanistic

orientations. The Flanders Interaction Analysis Scale

(Flanders, 1968) was used to determine differences in the

verbal interaction of students. Findings indicated

significantly greater pupil-initiated verbal interaction in

classrooms of humanistic teachers. In all cases, humanistic






39

teachers were found to use significantly more verbal

behaviors classified by Flanders as indirect than did

custodial teachers.

Lunenberg and Stouten (1983) studied 131 teachers and

their students, comparing student reactions about their

teachers with the teachers' pupil control ideologies.

Results of a multiple regression analysis revealed that the

teachers' PCI scores were directly related to the students'

projections of rejection or hostility toward their teachers.

The custodial teachers' students projected more rejection

and hostility.

Finally, classroom climate, which may be related to the

effects of the teacher's pupil control beliefs, has been

linked to student achievement. Brookover et al. (1978)

investigated school climate variables (e.g., student,

teacher, and principal beliefs) and achievement in 68

schools, using achievement data obtained from the Michigan

Assessment Program (Michigan Department of Education,

1975-1976), and questionnaires completed by 8,078 students,

327 teachers, and 68 principals. Using regression analysis,

they concluded that favorable climate, that is, classrooms

in which teachers show greater concern for students, greater

commitment to their achievement, more positive

reinforcement, and higher expectations, contributes to high

achievement.

Aspy and Roebuck (1975, 1977, 1979), in a series of

studies, ranging from large groups of 6,000 students and

300 teachers to smaller groups of three schools, compared






40

high and low levels of humane teaching conditions (e.g.,

climate of trust and respect) and teacher interpersonal

skills with the subsequent achievement of the students.

Their findings, across all studies, supported the

conclusions that humane teacher interactions were directly

related to student achievement, as well as to attendance,

self-concept, attitudes toward school, and appropriate

behavior.

The relationship between pupil control beliefs and

student self-concepts, attitudes, and motivation have also

been replicated by studies using the PCI Form. Lunenberg

(1983) administered the PCI Form and the Self-Concept As A

Learner Scale (SCAL) to 2,663 fifth-grade students in 35

schools. Coefficients of correlation between mean scores

indicated a significant relationship between the school's

pupil control ideology and the overall self-concept and task

motivation of the students.

Lunenberg and Stouten (1983) examined the relationship

between teachers' pupil control ideology and pupils'

projected feelings towards their teachers. Sampling 131

classes of fourth- through sixth-grade students (N = 3900),

they administered the PCI Form and the Draw-A-Teacher

technique to determine results. They found pupil control

ideology to be the single best predictor of student

rejection and hostility. Teacher gender and grade level

were also significantly related.

The PCI Form (Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1967, 1973) is

used to measure pupil control ideology in the present study.








Research Related to Teacher Stress

The teachers' perception of job-related stress has been

found to relate significantly with teacher performance in

the classroom. Blase (1986) developed the Teacher Stress

Inventory (TSI) and administered it to 392 elementary,

middle, junior, and high school teachers from four regions

of the United States. The results of the data indicated

that teachers' stress levels correlated with diminished

levels of tolerance, patience, caring, and involvement with

their students. Work stress was linked with strong negative

feelings in teachers, and the result of its overall impact

was reduced goal achievement behavior with students.

A number of earlier researchers also reported

relationships between teacher anxiety and teacher behavior

in the classroom. Koon (1971) measured teacher anxiety with

the Test Anxiety Questionnaire (Mandler & Sarason, 1952)

and, utilizing direct behavioral observation, structured by

the Joyce-Harootunian system for categorizing teacher

communication, compared these results to teacher-student

interactions. Analysis of variance revealed a significant

difference in the task-oriented behaviors of 12 high and 12

low-anxiety student teachers, individually instructing

fourth-grade students. High-anxiety teachers tended to be

less tolerant, less patient, and less involved with the

fourth graders. Additionally, they used fewer positive

reinforcement behaviors with students they believed to be

competent.






42

In an attempt to discover whether relationships exist

between teacher personality traits and success in classroom

teaching, Mattson (1974) studied 73 student teachers

teaching in 35 northern secondary schools. Teacher

effectiveness data were collected using student rating

measures based on the Hoyt-Grim Pupil Reaction Inventory

(PRI), in which students respond (agree, disagree, no

opinion) to 200 statements regarding their teachers and

classroom experiences (e.g., "This student teacher often

doesn't seem to know I'm here." "We work in class, but we

have fun too."). Henjum (1967) reported the PRI to be a

satisfactory assessment of teacher effectiveness. The

Cattell Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire was used to

measure teacher personality traits. Product moment

correlation coefficients were computed between the two

instruments. After controlling for teaching level, subject

matter area, and size of community, the data revealed

low-anxiety teachers to be rated significantly higher in

teaching effectiveness.

Investigations have been conducted linking teacher

anxiety, which has been defined as a component of teacher

stress (Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1977, p. 299), with student

behavior. One study found that teachers with high anxiety

tend to have students with high anxiety. Using.a sample of

10 teachers and their 234 third-grade students, Doyal and

Forsyth (1973) reported a positive correlation between

teachers' anxiety levels and their students' anxiety levels.

They utilized the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (Taylor,






43

1953) to measure teacher anxiety levels and the Test Anxiety

Scale for Children (Sarason et al., 1960) to measure student

anxiety levels. Mean scores were computed for students and

were correlated (Pearson) with teachers' scores. The

results indicated that teachers' manifest anxiety influenced

their students' test-anxiety levels.

Finally, a relationship between teacher stress and

student achievement has also been reported. Heil and

Washburne (1962) and Osborne (1968) both found achievement

to be lower for the students of high-anxious teachers than

for those of low-anxious teachers.

Choosing as their research goal to discover whether

different types of children would show measured growth under

different types of teachers, Heil and Washburne (1962)

identified 33 classrooms of children from grades four, five,

and six, who were equally divided between low, middle, and

high socioeconomic status. Children were categorized by

four instruments, the Otis Quick Score Intelligence Test,

the Stanford Achievement Test, the Ohio Social Acceptance

Scale, and the Brooklyn College Test of Children's Feelings.

Fifty-one teachers, two from each of the three grades in

nine public schools, were classified, using four

instruments, the Teacher Education Examination Program, the

Manifold Interest Schedule, the Brooklyn College Teacher

Observation Forms, and the Brooklyn College Interaction with

Children Test. Teachers were classified as A types

(turbulent, impulsive), B types (self-controlled,

work-oriented), and C types (stressful, anxious, fearful).






44

Out of seven final results, Heil and Washburne found "the

most striking and significant result" to be the difference

in children's growth factor (p. 349). Children with

teachers in the type B category made significantly greater

academic growth gain than did those with teachers who were

classified as stressful, type C. This was found to be true

for all four categories of children.

Osborne (1973) conducted a study in which she compared

elementary school student's performances on spelling tests.

She found achievement to be lower for students of

high-anxious teachers than for students of low-anxious

teachers. Results revealed that teacher ineffectiveness in

promoting student achievement was not equally pervasive in

classrooms of high-anxious teachers. Rather, teachers are

differentially effective with high-anxious and low-anxious

students. That is, although high-anxious and low-anxious

students of low-anxious teachers performed equally well on

spelling tests, high-anxious students of high-anxious

teachers performed less well than their low-anxious

counterparts.

Burnout, defined as the syndrome resulting from

prolonged teacher stress (Kyriacou, 1987, p. 146), has also

been found to relate significantly with student achievement.

Dworkin (1985) sampled over 500 teachers and 2,300

elementary students (grades 4-6) in order to assess the

impact of teacher burnout on student achievement and

attendance. Using the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS),

Dworkin found that bright children (students who scored at






45

least one standard deviation above their age peers during

the previous academic year on the ITBS) were adversely

affected by teacher burnout. Bright students assigned to

burned-out teachers attained nearly two months less in

academic achievement per year on the standardized test than

did equally talented students assigned to teachers who were

not burned-out.


Research on Related Demographics Variables

Researchers have found at least four demographic

variables to be related to one or more of the four teacher

belief constructs examined by the present study. These

variables include the teacher's gender, years of experience,

grade level taught, and highest degree earned. The

following studies reveal instances of these relationships.

Research Related to Gender

Gender differences have been found to relate to the

teacher's sense of efficacy. Greenwood, Olejnik, and Parkay

(1990) investigated the four teacher efficacy belief

patterns of 250 teachers which emerged from responses based

on the two efficacy items developed by the Rand Corporation.

The four patterns included teachers whose efficacy beliefs

were: (a) low teacher and low personal, (b) high teacher

and low personal, (c) high teacher and high personal, and

(d) low teacher and high personal. They found significantly

more (E < .002) female teachers responding to the pattern

three (high teacher and high personal) teacher efficacy

beliefs.






46
Garrett (1977), in a study of 373 teachers,

investigated gender as it relates to teachers' perceptions

of 20 teacher performance factors related to teacher locus

of control. Half of the factors described

teacher-controlled and half non-teacher-controlled

performance. Significantly more female teachers (R < .05)

were found to relate teacher-controlled factors to effective

teaching. For example, female teachers rated as extremely

high such teacher-controlled factors as the need for

knowledge of subject areas taught, and understanding of self

and personal motives, whereas male teachers' ratings of the

importance of these factors to effective teaching were

moderate. On the other hand, female teachers rated as

extremely low the importance of assignment of more

academically talented students to one's class, although

males rated this non-teacher-controlled factor as moderately

important.

Pupil control ideology beliefs have also been found to

relate to teacher gender. Packard (1988), in a review of

the pupil control studies, stated that one of the most

frequently reported findings of the PCI studies (27

different investigations) is that females are more

humanistic than males. Some instances of these results are

found in the studies of Bean (1972) and Budzik (1971). Bean

focused on student perceptions of the relationship between

teachers' pupil control ideology beliefs and their classroom

behaviors. Bean collected data from 72 teachers and 1,426

students, and found male teachers to be significantly






47

correlated with students' perceptions of authoritarian

classroom behavior and custodial pupil control ideology

beliefs. Budzik (1971), reporting on data from 595 teachers

from 11 secondary schools, found female teachers to be more

humanistic in their pupil control ideology beliefs than

their male counterparts.

Research Related to Teaching Experience

Teacher beliefs regarding efficacy, locus of control,

and stress have been found by researchers to relate to the

number of years of teaching experienced by teachers. From

the results of a pilot study, Gibson and Brown (1982)

reported a negative correlation (r = -.23) between teaching

efficacy scores and years of experience which occurred

across groups of preservice and experienced teachers. Using

the TES, they studied preservice teachers at various levels

of training, as well as inservice teachers with varied

amount of teaching experience. They stated that teaching

efficacy appears to generally decrease with experience.

In related research, Hutchins (1987) conducted an

exploratory study of teachers' thoughts and decision-making

behaviors. Hutchins videotaped English lessons of six

teachers paired by experience and inexperience. Teachers

responded at 20 different places in the lesson concerning

their thoughts and decisions. Applying the data to the

McNair system for content analysis, Hutchins determined

that experienced and inexperienced teachers' beliefs

regarding a good lesson differ. The inexperienced teachers'

perceptions were related to discipline, whereas the






48
experienced teachers' beliefs were related to the learning

process.

Leming (1981) found a relationship between years of

teaching experience and the teachers' locus of control

beliefs. Leming collected data from 199 teachers in 60

northeastern school districts, including 95 different

schools. Using Rotter's I-E scale, Leming found a

significant correlation (E < .001) between teaching

experience and internal locus of control beliefs.

Researchers have also found teaching experience to be

related to pupil control ideology beliefs. Hoy (1968)

studied 82 elementary and 93 secondary student teachers. He

administered the PCI to the teachers before their practice

teaching began, again after practice teaching, and again

after one year of teaching. Hoy reported that beginning

teachers were significantly (R < .01) more custodial after

teaching for one year. In a later study with 112 secondary

college seniors, Hoy and Rees (1977) reached the same

conclusion utilizing the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, the Work

Environment Preference Schedule (WEPS), and the PCI. These

students responded to the battery prior to beginning their

student teaching and again immediately after student

teaching. The student teachers were reported to be

significantly more custodial (R < .01) in the pupil control

ideology beliefs after student teaching.

Holt, Fine, and Tollefson (1987) found a relationship

between teacher stress and years of experience. They

administered the Teaching Events Stress Inventory and the






49

Maslach Burnout Inventory to 211 elementary teachers. They

reported significantly higher frequencies (R < .01) of high

stress and high burnout for teachers with five to ten years

of experience than for teachers with one to five years of

teaching experience.

Teacher anxiety, a concept used to define teacher

stress, has been observed to be widespread among beginning

teachers. In a review of teacher anxiety, Coates and

Thoresen (1976) named 15 studies which were concerned with

anxiety in the beginning teacher. Most studies named

student discipline and control as the major source of

concern for beginning teachers.

Research Related to Highest Degrees Earned

Research has revealed the teachers' sense of efficacy

to be related to differences in training of preservice

teachers. Gibson and Brown (1982) administered the TES to

preservice teachers at varying stages of study. Comparing

mean scores they found that personal efficacy scores

increased as training increased, however the same scores

were found to decrease again after student teaching.

In related research, Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, and

Brissie (1987) studied 1,003 teachers and 66 principals in

66 mid-southern elementary schools to find the best

predictors of parent involvement in schools. Data based on

background and opinion questionnaires revealed teachers'

degree levels to be significantly correlated with three

variables, SES, teacher efficacy, and parent-teacher

conferences, the highest being parent-teacher conferences






50

( = .46). Teachers with advanced degrees and higher

efficacy beliefs were more likely to encourage and to be

aware of the need for more parental involvement in schools

to ensure increased learning effectiveness.

Research Related to Grade Level Taught

Researchers have reported teachers' beliefs regarding

efficacy, pupil control, and stress to be related to the

grade levels they teach. Greenwood, Olejnik, and Parkay

(1990) classified 250 teachers into four efficacy belief

pattern groups (See teacher gender above). They found a

significant relationship (R < .0002) between grade levels

taught and teacher efficacy patterns. Their data revealed

that nearly twice as many elementary teachers (67%) fell

into the high personal and high teacher (pattern 3) efficacy

category than did middle school teachers (34%), and the

percentage of high school teachers falling into the high PE,

high TE category totaled 49%.

Finally, beliefs regarding feelings of teacher burnout,

the common symptom of prolonged teacher stress,'were also

found to differ depending on grade levels taught by

teachers. In his 1984 study of 365 teachers, Farber found

grade level to be a significant variable (R < .05) related

to teachers' perceived beliefs concerning burnout, with the

highest feelings of burnout found among teachers of junior

high or middle school grades.


Research on the Relatedness of the Four Belief Systems

A number of studies have found significant

interrelationships between the belief systems examined by






51

this study. In the studies that follow researchers have

assessed the relationships among two or more of the four

belief systems.

Teacher efficacy and teacher locus of control. Using

the TLC Scale (Rose & Medway, 1981a), Ashton, Webb, and Doda

(1983) studied 48 high school basic skills teachers. They

reported a significant correlation between the teacher's

personal efficacy and perceived belief in her/his own

responsibility for the student's success or failure.

Ashton and Webb (1986), after administering a lengthy

questionnaire to 35 volunteer middle and junior high school

teachers, found that 35% of the teachers receiving the

lowest sense of efficacy scores also attributed academic

failure to their students, rather than to their own control.

Teacher efficacy and pupil control ideology. A

relationship between teacher efficacy and pupil control

ideology was found by Barfield and Burlingame (1974), using

the PCI Form (Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1967, 1973) and the

Teacher Efficacy Scale, an instrument developed by the

Political Behavior Research team of the University of

Michigan. They measured a sample of 275 teachers,

elementary through high school, in both high and low

socioeconomic status schools. Their findings indicated that

low sense of efficacy teachers were characterized by

custodial pupil control orientations significantly more

often than were high sense of efficacy teachers.

Teacher efficacy and teacher stress. In a 1988 study,

Brissie, Hoover-Dempsey, and Bassler investigated the sense






52

of efficacy and stress levels of 1,213 teachers from eight

school districts. They utilized the Teacher Information

Questionnaire, the Teacher Opinion Questionnaire, and the

School Information Questionnaire (Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, &

Brissie, 1987). Results of beta weights indicated that

teachers with high sense of efficacy beliefs also reported

lower stress levels.

Teacher locus of control and pupil control ideology.

Teacher locus of control and pupil control orientations were

correlated, using the Locus of Control Scale for Teachers

(Sadowski et al., 1982) and the Origin-Climate Questionnaire

(deCharms, 1976). Sadowski and Woodward (1983), testing 13

middle school teachers and their 78 students, found that

teachers' locus of control scores were related to students'

perceptions of classroom climates. Internal teachers'

classroom climates were perceived to be more origin- than

pawn-oriented.

Teacher locus of control and teacher stress. Halpin,

Harris, and Halpin (1985) studied 130 elementary through

high school teachers, from three different states, Alabama,

Kansas, and Michigan. They administered the Teacher Locus

of Control Scale (Hall, Smitley, Villeme, & Schwartz, 1980)

and the Teacher Occupational Stress Factor Questionnaire

(Clark, 1980) and found a significant multiple correlation

between stress factors and locus of control. Those teachers

who reported the least stress were found to have internal

locus of control scores.






53
In 1986, Sadowski, Blackwell, and Willard reported the

findings of their investigation of the locus of control and

stress factors of 27 preservice teachers. Scores from their

Locus of Control scale for Teachers (1982) and the Perceived

Stress Inventory (Cichon & Koff, 1980) returned a

significant negative correlation (r = -.38, R < .05) between

locus of control and perceived stress.

Pupil control ideology and teacher stress. Albertson

and Kagan (1987) studied 231 teachers of elementary through

post-secondary grade levels. They measured teacher stress

with the Teacher Occupational Stress Factor Questionnaire

(Clark, 1980), and pupil control beliefs with the Pupil

Control Ideology Form (Willow, Eidell, & Hoy, 1967, 1973).

Their results indicated that pupil control scores were

significantly correlated with all of the occupational stress

scales. The more custodial and authoritarian teachers

tended to be, the greater were their occupational stress

perceptions.

Albertson and Kagan's study was a replication of

earlier research conducted by Harris, Halpin, and Halpin

(1985), who discovered, also utilizing the PCI and the

TOSFQ, that high stress levels were associated with the

custodial/authoritarian pupil control beliefs among a sample

of 130 teachers, representing all grade levels including

special education assignments.

Teacher stress, locus of control, and efficacy.

Finally, Parkay, Greenwood, Olejnik, and Proller (1988)

found significant correlations between teacher stress,






54

teacher locus of control, and teacher efficacy. They

identified 18 high and low stress schools, from among 246

elementary through high school buildings. Three hundred

twenty-one teachers from the identified schools responded to

the Teacher Locus of Control Scale (Rose & Medway, 1981a),

the Rand Corporation teacher efficacy items, and the Wilson

Stress Profile for Teachers (Wilson, 1979). Findings

indicated that internal locus of control was negatively

correlated with stress, as were total efficacy scores; that

is, internal teachers with high sense of efficacy scores

experienced less job-related stress. Additionally, high

sense of efficacy scores showed significant positive

correlations with internal locus of control scores.

Summary

Seven bodies of literature were reviewed in support of

the view that teacher belief systems are related to teacher

effectiveness. The following conclusions are drawn from

this literature:

1. A considerable body of literature supports the

A-B-C-D Link Model of teacher effectiveness. These links

are (A) teacher beliefs, (B) teacher behavior, (C) student

behavior, and (D) student achievement.

2. Teacher efficacy (Link A) is a teacher belief system

that is strongly related to both teacher behavior (Link B)

and student achievement (Link D).

3. Teacher locus of control beliefs (Link A) are

strongly related to teacher behavior (Link B), student

behavior (Link C), and student achievement (Link D).






55

4. Teacher beliefs regarding pupil control ideology

(Link A) are strongly related to teacher behavior (Link B),

student behavior (Link C), and student achievement (Link D).

5. Teacher beliefs about job-related stress (Link A)

relate strongly to teacher behavior (Link B), and to student

achievement (Link D), especially among the gifted and high

achieving students.

6. Four demographic variables have been found to be

related to the four teacher belief systems. These include

gender, years of teaching experience, grade level taught,

and highest degree earned. Gender has been found to be

related to teacher locus of control, teacher efficacy, and

pupil control ideology. Teaching experience has been found

to be related to teacher efficacy, teacher locus of control,

pupil control ideology, and teacher stress. Highest degree

earned by teachers has been found to be related to teacher

efficacy. Grade level differences have been found to be

related to teacher efficacy and teacher stress.

7. Each of the four teacher belief systems used in this

study has been correlated with one or more of the other

belief systems, such that all, without exception, are

interrelated. That is, teacher efficacy has been found to

be related to teacher locus of control, to pupil control

ideology, as well as to teacher stress. Teacher locus of

control has been found to be related to pupil control

ideology and also to teacher stress and burnout. Pupil

control ideology has been found to correlate with teacher

stress. Finally, teacher stress has been correlated with

both teacher locus and teacher efficacy.














CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY


The purpose of this study was to determine whether a

sample of the Teachers of the Year population may be

differentiated from a matched sample of inservice teachers

on the basis of their scores on four instruments designed to

measure teachers' beliefs regarding efficacy, locus of

control, pupil control, and stress. The hypotheses were

stated in terms of the dependent measure, status as a

Teacher of the Year or regular classroom teacher.

The following hypotheses were tested:

1. Whether a teacher is selected as Teacher of the Year
will not be significantly related to scores on the Teacher
Efficacy Scale (TES), the Teacher Locus of Control Scale
(TLC), the Pupil Control Ideology Form (PCI), or the Wilson
Stress Profile for Teachers (WSPT).

2. Whether a teacher is selected as Teacher of the Year
will not be significantly related to the teacher's gender,
years of teaching experience, grade level taught, or highest
degree earned.

3. Whether a teacher is selected as Teacher of the Year
will not be significantly related to scores on the Teacher
Efficacy Scale by gender, years of teaching experience,
grade level taught, or highest degree earned.

4. Whether a teacher is selected as Teacher of the Year
will not be significantly related to scores on the Teacher
Locus of Control Scale by gender, years of teaching
experience, grade level taught, or highest degree earned.

5. Whether a teacher is selected as Teacher of the Year
will not be significantly related to scores on the Pupil
Control Ideology Form by gender, years of teaching
experience, grade level taught, or highest degree earned.

56






57

6. Whether a teacher is selected as Teacher of the Year
will not be significantly related to scores on the Wilson
Stress Profile for Teachers by gender, years of teaching
experience, grade level taught, or highest degree earned.


Subject Selection

Because the purpose of this study was to determine

whether belief systems of teachers selected for their

effectiveness are significantly different from those of

other comparison teachers, a population of teachers defined

as being effective was sampled. This population is the

Teachers of the Year. Recipients of this award.are judged

by superintendents, principals, colleagues, students,

parents, and civic leaders to be among the nation's most

effective teachers.

The control group for this study was drawn from a

sample of inservice teachers serving in public school

districts around the country, who were matched with the

1987-1990 Teachers of the Year by state, school enrollment,

school type, and subject or grade level taught.

Specifically, schools in which TOYs taught were located in

state school directories (QED, 1988, 1989, 1990), which list

school enrollment and type (e.g., P-3; K-6; 7-9; 10-12, Sp.

ed.). Subjects or grade levels taught by TOYs were included

in the award announcements found in the Teacher's Almanac

(Harris & Harris, 1988, 1989) and with lists of 1989 and

1990 TOYs sent to me by the director of the Teacher of the

Year program in Washington, D.C. Schools of the same type

and with the same, or as near the same as possible,

enrollment as those of each TOY were located in each TOY's






58

state. Inservice teachers were contacted by sending packets

to these schools, addressed to a teacher of the same subject

or grade level taught by the TOY being matched (e.g., Third

Grade Teacher; Grade Seven Math Teacher; Music Teacher).

The subjects or grade levels actually taught by the

responding inservice teachers were monitored by demographic

information sheets returned with their answer sheets.


Sampling and Data Collection

Matching and sample size. It was expected that

matching, as well as the use of large samples (N = 100)

would provide the type of representation of teachers

necessary to accomplish two objectives for this study:

First, large samples would ensure the inclusion.of the four

demographic variables being examined by this study: gender,

years of teaching experience, grade level taught, and

highest degree earned.

The second concern involved significant differences in

pupil control ideology (Appleberry, 1969; Larkin, 1973;

Leacock, 1969), teacher efficacy and locus of control

(Anderson, 1968; McPherson, 1972; Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, &

Brissie, 1987), and teacher stress (Farber, 1984) reported

for teachers, with respect to size and demographic

characteristics of community or school district. Matching

on school enrollment and type was used to control for the

effects of these differences. It was expected that these

sampling procedures would enhance the generalizability of

the results of this study.






59

Response rates for questionnaires reported for the

general public may be expected to be approximately 40%

(Moser, 1961). Therefore, twice as many subjects were

contacted in order to obtain the desired data return.

Although not all states and territories always submit a

winner, a total of approximately 53 TOYs, one from each

state or territory, are generally chosen each year. From

this group, three finalists are selected, and a national

winner is chosen each year, making a total of 42 national

TOYs to date. It was, therefore, necessary to go back four

years in order to contact enough TOYs to make up the desired

sample size (N = 100).

A packet containing a cover letter (Appendix A), a

letter of endorsement from the Dean of the College of

Education (Appendix B), a copy of the combined four teacher

belief self-report instruments called the Teacher Belief

Questionnaire (The instruments were used and printed with

permission of the authors.) (Appendix C) a demographic

information questionnaire (Appendix D), and a customized

answer sheet, together with a stamped, addressed return

envelope was mailed to state winners from 1987-1990, as well

as to national finalists from 1960 to the present, making a

total of 213 mailings to TOYs.

In order to maintain consistency with the effective

teachers (TOYs) sample, which includes teachers from all

states in the nation, the control group of inservice

teachers were also matched by state. Further consistency

was achieved by matching for grade level or subject taught.






60

Two hundred thirteen packets were mailed to ITs, making a

total mailing of 426 packets.

Additional response rate procedures. Parten (1966)

states that endorsements signed by prominent individuals add

prestige and credibility to a questionnaire and may increase

the return rate. Therefore, a cover letter endorsing the

study, signed by the Dean of the School of Education,

University of Florida, was included in the mailing packet.

Yellow paper was used for the questionnaire, as well as

different colored answer sheets for each sample to ensure

correct identification of groups. Commemorative stamps were

used on the return envelopes. These further innovations

were suggested to promote higher return rate (Parten, 1966).

Confidentiality was ensured by assigning a number to

the information and answer sheets designated for return in

each packet. Names were excluded from all questionnaires

and appeared only on the packet envelopes. Names were

coded with numbers for the purpose of assessing returns.

This procedure was explained to the subjects in the cover

letter.

Follow-up procedures. Two weeks after the first

packets were mailed, a return of approximately 25% was

reached, and a follow-up post card urging participation was

mailed to all nonparticipants (Appendix E). One month after

the first mailing, with the return at approximately 30%, a

letter was mailed to nonparticipants which included a

stamped, addressed post card for requesting an additional

packet (Appendices F and G). A total of 16 additional






61
packets were subsequently requested and mailed. The final

return of 43% included 93 TOY and 90 IT questionnaires

returned, with a final usable sample of 88 and 92,

respectively. Of the total data, 40 matched pairs were

returned. Because use of the matched pairs alone would

significantly reduce the total sample size, it was decided

to use all of the returned data.


Instruments

Four instruments were employed in this study: the

Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES), the Teacher Locus of Control

Scale (TLC), the Pupil Control Ideology Form (PCI), and the

Wilson Stress Profile for Teachers (WSPT). In addition to

the four teacher belief instruments, a demographic

information form called Information Sheet was used to obtain

data regarding each teacher's gender, grade level taught,

years of teaching experience, and highest degree earned.


Teacher Efficacy Scale

The Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) (Gibson, 1983) was

developed to measure the teacher's level of belief in:

(a) personal efficacy, that s(he) has the skills and

abilities to bring about student learning, as well as

(b) teacher efficacy, that the teacher is limited by

external factors, such as home environment. The two factors

measured by this scale, teacher and personal efficacy, were

identified through factor analysis (Gibson & Dembo, 1984).

Efficacy on the TES is measured by indication of

respondent agreement levels on questions of teacher






62

efficacy, (e.g., "Even a teacher with good teaching

abilities may not reach many students.") or on questions of

personal efficacy, (e.g., "When a student gets a better

grade than he usually gets, it is usually because I found

better ways of teaching that student."). The 30 items on

the TES require a Likert-type response which may range from

one, strongly disagree (SD), to six, strongly agree (SA). A

total score is derived from responses to items.

Reliability. Gibson and Dembo (1984) report internal

consistency reliability coefficients of .78 for the personal

efficacy factor, and .75 for the teaching efficacy factor,

whereas .79 was the internal consistency reliability

coefficient reported for the total scale.

Validity. The results of a multitrait-multimethod

analysis (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) revealed convergent, as well

as discriminant validity for the TES. A significant

correlation of .42 (R < .05) was reported for convergent

validity, and teacher efficacy was significantly

discriminated from teacher verbal ability and flexibility.

Although efficacy research in the past has yielded

significant relationship to teacher effectiveness and

student achievement, much of this research used only two

items to measure these results (Armor, et al., 1976; Berman,

et al., 1977). The use of the two-item Rand measure alone

has received criticism (Trentham, Silvern, & Brogdon, 1985).

Therefore, the use of the TES, a 30-item, multidimensional

instrument was used, because it may be a more sensitive and

reliable measure of teacher efficacy.








Teacher Locus of Control Scale

Developed by Rose and Medway (1981a), the Teacher Locus

of Control Scale (TLC) was designed to measure teachers'

beliefs concerning student successes (I+) and student

failures (I-) in the classroom. The test consists of 28

forced-choice items, 14 of which describe successful

situations and 14 failure, yielding two independent scores

of zero to fourteen points each. A total score is generated

by adding the I+ and I- scores. High scores indicate

internal locus of control, or teacher-owned responsibility

for the result of the learning event.

Reliability. The Kuder-Richardson-20 reliabilities

were .81 for the (I-) and .71 for the (I+) subscales for

internal consistency of the TLC scale (Rose & Medway, 1981).

Reliability for the TLC was also found by Soh (1986),

using Cronbach's alpha. Soh also reported TLC to have

substantially high reliability when used in a different

cultural context.

Validity. Rose and Medway (1981a) confirmed validity

of the TLC, referring to the results of the federally funded

education project of Berman et al. (1977), in which the

continuation of trained project implementation behaviors by

internal teachers was predictable.

Validity of the TLC when used in a different culture

(Singapore) was also confirmed by Soh (1986), who reported

positive relationships with several attitudinal measures.

Additionally, Soh (1988), using discriminant analysis, found






64
the TLC to have good predictive validity in its ability to

discriminate internals from externals.

When compared to Rotter's I-E scale, the TLC yielded

higher correlations with classroom teaching behaviors (Rose

& Medway, 1981). Behaviors characteristic of teachers

measured internal in locus of control have been observed to

maximize teaching effectiveness.


Pupil Control Ideology Form

The Pupil Control Ideology Form (PCI) was developed by

Willower, Eidell, and Hoy (1967, 1973). It was designed to

measure the teacher's belief concerning pupil control on a

bipolar continuum from humanistic to custodial. A

humanistic orientation toward pupil control stresses

acceptance and trust of students, combined with optimism for

the students' ability to be self-disciplining. A custodial

orientation emphasizes the maintenance of order and teacher

control, distrust of students, and a moralistic attitude

towards misbehavior and deviance from teacher-made rules. A

sample custodially-oriented question is "Pupils often

misbehave in order to make the teacher look bad." A

question oriented towards more humanistic control beliefs is

"Pupils can be trusted to work together without

supervision."

Beginning as a 57-item construct, the PCI was adapted

from an instrument designed by Gilbert and Levinson (1957)

to measure control ideologies used with patients in mental

hospitals. Following item analysis using biserial






65

correlation, 20 items were retained in the current PCI form.

The minimum biserial coefficient was .325, with an average

of .43.

Using a Likert-type answer design, the PCI offers

response categories scored from five to one, strongly agree

(SA) to strongly disagree (SD), with scoring reversed on

items five and thirteen, which are positive to reflect the

humanistic control ideology. A total cumulative score is

calculated from a theoretical range of 20 to 100, with the

higher score indicating a more custodial point of view.

Reliability. Split-half reliability coefficient

calculations correlating even-item subscores with odd-item

subscores resulted in a Pearson product-moment coefficient

of .91 and a corrected Spearman-Brown coefficient of .95

(Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1967). In a second study

(Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1973), repetition of the same

technique produced coefficients of .83 and .91 respectively.

Halpin, Goldenberg, and Halpin (1974) reported a

stability coefficient of .86 over a seven day period, when

administering the PCI form to college students. The PCI has

also been found to correlate well with itself, having

internal consistency correlations ranging from .61 to .95

(Eidell, 1965; Murad, 1974; Zak & Horowitz, 1978; Zelei,

1971).

Validity. Validity studies of the PCI are based on

correlations of seven principals' judgments of the pupil

control orientations of 50 faculty members. Using a

one-tailed t test (t = 2.639) Willower, Eidell, & Hoy (1967)






66

determined that the difference in the means of two

independent samples was significant (2 < .01). A

cross-validation of 40 teachers' scores from 7 schools,

using principals' judgments was again significant (t =

3.418) at (R < .001) (Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1973).

Construct validity of the PCI was confirmed by Graham,

Halpin, Harris, and Benson (1985), who conducted an

exploratory factor analysis to determine factor structure,

followed by a confirmatory factor analysis procedure to test

the models developed from the first procedure. The obtained

alpha coefficients yielded evidence consistent with that of

Willower, Eidell, and Hoy (1967, 1973) which presents the

PCI as a unidimensional scale with one total score, although

the Graham, Halpin, Harris, and Benson model would reduce

the PCI to 10 items. A replication of this study by Graham,

Benson, and Henry (1985) was congruent with the results

originally obtained by Graham, Halpin, Harris, and Benson

(1985). It was concluded that the PCI is a unidimensional

measure, but that it could be reduced further to include

simply 10 items.


Wilson Stress Profile for Teachers

The WSPT, developed by Wilson (1979), was designed to

measure stress levels perceived by teachers in seven

different categories, including Student Behavior (SB),

Employee/Administrator relations (EAR), Teacher/Teacher

relations (TTR), Teacher/Parent relations (TPR), Time

Management (TM), Intrapersonal Conflicts (IC), Physical






67

Symptoms of stress (PSS), Psychological/Emotional Symptoms

of stress (PESS), and Stress Management Techniques (SMT).

Nine subscale scores are obtained, a score for each

category and an overall stress score. Individual scores

may range from low stress (1-8) to high stress (16-20), with

total scores ranging from a low score of 36 to a high score

of 180. Teachers respond to 36 questions with five

Likert-type answers classified from "never" to "very often".

Reliability. Wilson (1979) reported a test-retest

reliability coefficient, calculated by a Spearman's Rho, of

.68 (R < .01). Internal consistency was also reported by

Luh (1989). Luh found a coefficient of .92 for'the total

inventory, using Cronbach's alpha. The nine subscale

results reported by Luh were .69, .84, .61, .61, .83, .76,

.84, .87, and .72, respectively. A factor analysis, also

conducted by Luh (1989), supported the former hypothesis

that a single construct is being measured by the WSPT,

confirming that it is a unidimensional scale.

Validity. Construct validity was measured by Wilson

(1979) by correlating the pre-scores on the WSPT profile

with cumulative scores on the State-Trait Anxiety Index

(STAI). The Rho value resulted in .50 (R < .01).

The results of a discriminant analysis (Luh, 1989) also

indicated good concurrent validity for the WSPT.


Statistical Analysis

A multivariate procedure commonly used to classify

individuals into two different populations is logistic






68

regression (Afifi & Clark, 1984; Efron, 1975; Press &

Wilson, 1978). An alternative to the discriminant analysis

method of classification, this procedure is referred to as

the multiple logistic regression equation (Afifi & Clark,

1984) and it assumes the model:


In (Odds) = a + + 1 2x+ P3x3+ p x + E


Logistic regression analysis makes the assumption that

In (odds) is related linearly to the independent variables,

but it makes no assumption regarding the distribution of the

X variables; these may be either discrete or continuous.

Consequently, this procedure is preferred over discriminant

analysis when categorical and continuous variables are used,

because it is considered to be relatively robust in

circumstances where all variables are not multivariate

normal (Halperin, Blackwelder, & Verter, 1971; Press &

Wilson, 1978).

The logistic regression procedure was considered the

best form of analysis for the purposes of the present study,

therefore, because dichotomous and continuous demographic

variables are included, along with forced-choice and

Likert-type scoring methods, in the analysis of the data.

The problem presented by the present study was reduced

to one of analyzing an independent set of variables (X) in

such a way as to test the hypothesis that a particular

profile based on the (X) measures resembled that of the

members of Category A (Teachers of the Year) more closely

than that of Category B (Inservice Teachers).





69

The analysis of this study assumed the following model:


In = a + lx1l + p2x2 + P3x3 + 4x4 + 05x5 + 6g6 + P7x62+

8x7 + P9x8 + P10X5 + 1116 + B121XX62 + Bl3X17 +

P14X1X8 + 15 x2 5 + P16x2x6 + 17x2x62 + P18x27 + 19x2x8 +

O20x3x5 + p21x3x6 + 22x3x62 + 23x3x7 + P24x3x8 + P25x4x5 +
P26x4x6 + 27X4X62 + 28x4x7 + P29x4x8 +

where:

In = TOYs (Teachers of the Year) or

ITs (Inservice Teachers)

x1 = TES (Teacher Efficacy Scale) scores

x2 = TLC (Teacher Locus of Control Scale) scores

x3 = PCI (Pupil Control Ideology Form) scores

x4 = WSPT (Wilson Stress Profile for Teachers) scores

x5 = SEX

x6 = YTE (years of teaching experience)
x62 = Quadratic test of YTE

x7 = GLT (grade level taught)

x8 = HDE (highest degree earned)

and:

The tests for p through P4 addressed H1

The tests for P5 through P9 addressed H2

The tests for P10 through P14 addressed H3

The tests for 15 through 19 addressed H4

The tests for P20 through 24 addressed H5

The tests for P25 through P29 addressed H6
2
*Note The purpose of the quadratic test (x ) of years of
teaching experience (YTE) was to determine whether a
significant curvilinear trend was present in the years of
teaching experience data.






70
Logistic regression programs may be found in both SAS
and BMDP statistics packages. Two logistic regression
programs are included in SAS, LOGIST and PREDICT. This
study used LOGIST, because this procedure assigns
categories, provides stepwise elimination statistics, and
yields D statistics which functions like R that is, it
indicates the predictive strength of each variable.














CHAPTER IV
RESULTS


Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine differences

between the Teachers of the Year, as representatives of

effective classroom teachers, and a comparison sample of

regular classroom teachers in terms of four teacher belief

systems related to teacher effectiveness: (a) teacher

efficacy, (b) teacher locus of control, (c) pupil control

ideology, and (d) teacher stress, and also to examine

whether these differences would be related to the teacher's

gender, years of teaching experience, grade level taught, or

highest degree earned.

A sample of the Teachers of the Year (n = 88) and a

sample of inservice teachers (n = 92) responded to the

Teacher Belief Questionnaire, a composite self-report

instrument which combined four teacher belief instruments:

the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES), the Teacher Locus of

Control Scale (TLC), the Pupil Control Ideology Form (PCI),

and the Wilson Stress Profile for Teachers (WSPT), and to a

demographic information sheet containing the variables

revealed by the literature to be related to the teacher

belief instruments, namely, the teacher's gender, years of

teaching experience, grade level taught, and highest degree

earned.









Descriptive Statistics

Percentages indicated that two thirds of the total

sample of teachers were female. Nearly two-thirds of the

total sample of teachers had acquired between 13 and 24

years of experience, and the other third was evenly divided

between less than 12 or more than 25 years of experience.

Over two thirds of the teachers had earned master's degrees

or higher. More than half of the teachers taught high

school, and the majority of the remaining half taught

elementary level students. Subject areas taught included

all elementary grades (K-6), 12 secondary subject areas, and

special education. School enrollment size ranged from 21

students (special education center) to 2,425 students (urban

high school).

All 52 states and territories are included in the total

population of teachers, with approximately three to four

teachers responding from each state. A comparison of

descriptive data between the Teachers of the Year and the

inservice teachers shows the two samples to be nearly

matched by gender as well as types of schools reported. The

mean for years of teaching experience indicates that

Teachers of the Years, on average, have taught about three

years longer than inservice teachers. Considerable

difference is indicated between samples for highest degree

earned, with fewer than one sixth of Teachers of the Year

holding Bachelor's degrees, compared to more than a third of

the inservice teachers. Subjects taught and school

enrollment sizes were also very similar for the two samples.






73

These samples were found to be generalizable to the

national teacher population. U.S. Department of Education

statistics on public school faculties were nearly identical

to the samples analyzed in the present study for all

variables, with the single exception of highest degrees

earned; approximately half of the national teacher

population holds Bachelor's degrees, and the other half

holds master's degrees (National Center for Education

Statistics, 1989). Table 1 presents descriptive statistics

of the foregoing variables. Descriptive statistics (means

and standard deviations) showing differences between TOYs

and ITs on teacher belief instruments may be found in

Appendix H.


Logistic Multiple Regression Analysis

A general linear model was constructed to test the six

hypotheses proposed by this study. A logistic multiple

regression procedure (LOGIST) was used to analyze the

difference between scores on the teacher belief instruments,

the demographic variables, and all possible interactions

between the instrument scores and demographic variables for

Teachers of the Year and inservice teachers. The logistic

regression procedure was chosen for analysis, because the

data in this study include both categorical and continuous

independent variables. Logistic regression allows the use

of dummy coding for categorical variables and thus is robust

for both types of data. Dummy coding was used to include

the variables of gender, grade level taught, and highest










TABLE 1
PERCENTAGES FOR TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS AND ASSIGNMENTS
TOYs ITs Total 1989
Variable (n=88) (n=92) (N=180) Natl

GENDER
Male 32.9 33.6 33.5 31.2
Female 67.0 66.3 66.5 68.8

YEARS TEACHING EXPERIENCE
1-12 18.3
13-24 X=20 X=17 62.5 X=15
25-44 18.2

HIGHEST DEGREE EARNED
Bachelor's Degree 14.7 39.1 26.9 48.3
Master's Degree or Higher 85.2 60.8 73.1 51.4

GRADE LEVEL TAUGHT
Elementary 32.9 31.5 31.3 31.0
Junior High School 13.6 19.6 16.5 16.0
Senior High School 53.4 48.9 51.6 51.0

SUBJECTS TAUGHT
Kindergarten-6th grade 22.7 28.3 25.5 31.0
Art 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.5
Business 1.1 --- .5 6.5
English 15.9 23.9 20.0 21.8
Foreign Language 2.3 2.2 2.2 3.7
Gifted 2.3 --- 1.1 --
Home Economics 2.3 --- 1.1 2.6
Social Studies 17.0 15.2 16.1 13.6
Math 6.8 5.4 6.1 19.2
Music 1.1 2.2 1.7 4.8
Reading 6.8 3.3 5.0
Science 13.6 14.1 13.9 11.0
Special Education 6.8 4.3 5.6 3.5

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Under 100 3.3 2.2 2.7 8.8
100-199 6.7 4.3 5.5 11.2
200-299 8.9 5.4 7.1 12.6
300-399 8.9 8.7 8.8 14.7
400-499 3.3 13.0 8.2 13.8
500-599 11.1 10.9 11.0 11.4
600-699 13.3 9.8 11.5 8.0
700-799 5.6 7.6 6.6 5.6
800-999 8.9 14.1 11.5 6.0
1,000-1,499 17.8 13.0 15.4 5.3
1,500-1,999 8.9 7.6 8.2 1.7
2,000-2,999 3.3 3.3 3.3 .9






75

degree earned in the analysis; other variables were kept

interval.

Responding to the expected curvilinear trend in years

of teaching experience, a quadratic was applied to this

variable to test for significance of this trend. The full

model procedure included tests for eight main effects, a

quadratic test of years of teaching experience, and twenty

interactions.

No significance was indicated for main effects,

interactions, or for the quadratic test in the full model

procedure. The effects of the interrelatedness, or

multicollinearity, among the four belief constructs were

apparent in the analysis. This overlapping of main effects,

together with the many interactions tested, combine to

reduce power in the full model. These effects were

responsible for the resulting lack of significance in the

full model procedure. Results of the full interaction model

are presented in Table 2.

A reduced model was constructed and analyzed next.

This first reduced model is a test of the main effects after

all interactions and the quadratic test have been removed.

In this reduced model, significance for two variables was

found. The results indicated significance for both pupil

control ideology and highest degree earned. The Teachers of

the Year are significantly more humanistic (p < .01) in

their beliefs regarding pupil control orientation than are

the inservice teachers, and they have earned a significantly

greater number of degrees which are at the master's or










TABLE 2
FULL MODEL LOGISTIC REGRESSION


SUMMARY


Variable Beta Std Err Chi-Square p


Intercept
Teacher Efficacy
Teacher Locus of Control
Pupil Control Orientation
Teacher Stress
Gender
Years Teaching Experience
(YTE) Squared
Highest Degree Earned
Senior High School
Junior High School
Tchr Eff x Gender
Tchr Eff x Yrs Tchg Exper
Tchr Eff x (YTE)
Tchr Eff x Highest Degree
Tchr Eff x Junior High
Tchr Eff x Senior High
Tchr LOC x Gender
Tchr LOC x Yrs Tchg Exper
Tchr LOC x (YTE)
Tchr LOC x Highest Degree
Tchr LOC x Junior High
Tchr LOC x Senior High
Pupil Control x Gender


Pupil
Pupil
Pupil
Pupil
Pupil
Tchr
Tchr
Tchr
Tchr
Tchr
Tchr


SControl
SControl
SControl
SControl
SControl
Stress x
Stress x
Stress x
Stress x
Stress x
Stress x


x Yrs Tchg Exper
x (YTE)
x Highest Degree
x Junior High
x Senior High
Gender
Yrs Tchg Exper
(YTE)
Highest Degree
Junior High
Senior High


16.25 14.57


.05
-.24
-.23
-.06
-5.16
-1.45
.03
2.48
1.33
-.02
.02
-.01
.0004
.03
-.03
-.02
.01
.04
-.001
.009
-.004
-.04
.05
.02
-.0007
-.07
.02
-.002
.02
.001
.000004
.01
-.003
.003


higher level (R < .008) than have the comparison teachers.

Recall in Table 1 that 85% of the TOYs had master's or

higher degrees, whereas only 61% of the ITs had master's or


.15
.27
.18
.09
5.27


6.13
4.73
7.23
.06


.06
.08
.05
.09


.09
.13
.08
.06


.06
.10
.05
.03


.04
.04
.03


1.24
.13
.81
1.67
.51
.96


.16
.08
.00
.13


.30
.19
.23
.03


.01
.00
.36
.57


1.33
.05
.00
.43


.11
.00
.01


.26
.71
.36
.19
.47
.32


.68
.77
.99
.72


.58
.66
.63
.87


.92
.97
.54
.45


.24
.82
.97
.51


.73
.94
.92






77

higher degrees. The results of the first reduced model are

presented in Table 3.



TABLE 3
LOGISTIC REGRESSION SUMMARY
REDUCED MODEL 1


Variable Beta Std Err Chi-Square p


Intercept -.07 1.89 .00 .96

Teacher Efficacy .01 .02 .55 .45

Teacher Locus of Control .06 .03 3.34 .06

Pupil Control Orientation -.05 .02 5.70 .01**

Teacher Stress -.004 .01 .12 .72

Gender .09 .39 .06 .81

Years Teaching Experience .02 .02 1.05 .30

Highest Degree Earned 1.07 .40 6.83 .008**

Junior High School .25 .55 .22 .64

Senior High School .51 .43 1.41 .23

* R <.05 ** R <.01


Results of Logistic Regression Analyses

Statistical analysis has resulted in the rejection of

two of the six hypotheses proposed by this study.

Hypothesis one states that whether a teacher is

selected as Teacher of the Year will not be significantly

related to scores on the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES), the

Teacher Locus of Control Scale (TLC), the Pupil Control

Ideology Form (PCI), or the Wilson Stress Profile for

Teachers (WSPT). Logistic multiple regression analysis






78

confirmed that selection as Teacher of the Year is

significantly related to scores on the Pupil Control

Ideology Form. Since scores on one of the teacher belief

instruments tested by hypothesis one significantly

differentiates the Teachers of the Year from the inservice

teachers, hypothesis one is rejected. Humanistic beliefs

regarding student control were found to be a significant

predictor of those teachers who are likely to become

Teachers of the Year.

Hypothesis two states that whether a teacher is

selected as Teacher of the Year will not be significantly

related to the teacher's gender, years of teaching

experience, grade level taught, or highest degree earned.

Logistic regression analysis confirmed that whether a

teacher is selected as Teacher of the Year is significantly

related to the highest degree earned by that teacher. Since

one of the variables tested by hypothesis two significantly

differentiates the Teachers of the Year from the inservice

teachers, hypothesis two is rejected. It may be predicted

that teachers who become Teachers of the Year will have

earned a master's level or higher degree.

The effect of grade level taught may also be

underestimated, because the initial sampling design matched

TOYs and ITs on grade level taught. Although only 44.4% of

the final sample were matched pairs, this probably biases

the estimate of the grade level taught effect downward.

Nevertheless, grade level taught was maintained in the model






79

to test its interaction with the teacher belief variables

which would not be biased.

Hypothesis three states that whether a teacher is

selected as Teacher of the Year will not be significantly

related to scores on the Teacher Efficacy Scale by gender,

years of teaching experience, grade level taught, or highest

degree earned. None of these interactions, tested by the

full model procedure, were found to be significant.

Therefore, hypothesis three was accepted. The relationship

of the teacher's sense of efficacy to selection as TOY is

not related to his/her gender, years of teaching experience,

grade level taught, or highest degree earned.

Hypothesis four states that whether a teacher is

selected as Teacher of the Year will not be significantly

related to scores on the Teacher Locus of Control Scale by

gender, years of teaching experience, grade level taught, or

highest degree earned. None of these interaction tests

reached significance. Hypothesis four was, therefore,

accepted. The relationship of selection as TOY to whether a

teacher is internal or external in locus of control beliefs

is not related to his/her gender, teaching experience, grade

level taught, or highest degree earned.

Hypothesis five states that whether a teacher is

selected as Teacher of the Year will not be significantly

related to scores on the Pupil Control Ideology Form by

gender, years of teaching experience, grade level taught, or

highest degree earned. Tests for these interactions were

not significant. Hypothesis five was accepted. The






80
relationship of selection as TOY to whether a teacher is

humanistic or custodial in pupil control beliefs is not

related to his/her gender, teaching experience, grade level

taught, or highest degree earned.

Hypothesis six states that whether a teacher is

selected as Teacher of the Year will not be significantly

related to scores on the Wilson Stress Profile for Teachers

by gender, years of teaching experience, grade level taught,

or highest degree earned. No significance was found for

tests of these interactions. Hypothesis six was accepted.

The relationship of selection as TOY to a teacher's

perceived level of job-related stress is not related to

his/her gender, teaching experience, grade level taught, or

highest degree earned.


Further Analyses

Because of the known interrelationships of the four

teacher belief constructs, the model was reduced further to

control for the likely canceling effect of the pupil control

ideology instrument. This second reduced model tested the

main effects after controlling for pupil control ideology.

With the pupil control variable removed, significance was

found for teacher locus of control beliefs, in addition to

highest degree earned. Teachers of the Year are

significantly more internal in their locus of control

beliefs (R < .01) than are the inservice teachers, but the

predictive strength of locus of control beliefs is less than

that of humanistic pupil control orientation. Table 4 shows

the second reduced model.










TABLE 4
LOGISTIC REGRESSION SUMMARY
REDUCED MODEL 2


Variable Beta Std Err Chi-Square p


Intercept -2.89 1.47 3.83 .05

Teacher Efficacy .02 .02 1.46 .22

Teacher Locus of Control .08 .03 6.44 .01**

Teacher Stress -.004 .01 .19 .66

Gender .19 .37 .25 .61

Years Teaching Experience .02 .02 .76 .38

Highest Degree Earned 1.15 .40 8.26 .004**

Junior High School .23 .53 .19 .66

Senior High School .52 .42 1.51 .21

* p <.05 ** R <.01


A third reduced model was tested next, in order to

control for the effects of both pupil control and locus of

control beliefs. Significance was now found for teacher

efficacy beliefs and highest degree earned. The Teachers of

the Year have significantly higher efficacy beliefs

(E < .02) than do inservice teachers, after controlling for

the effects of pupil control and locus of control beliefs,

in addition to earning significantly higher level degrees.

Although efficacy beliefs are significant predictors of

teacher effectiveness, this study found them to have less

predictive strength than either humanistic pupil control






82

orientation or locus of control beliefs. Table 5 presents

the data for the third reduced model.



TABLE 5
LOGISTIC REGRESSION SUMMARY
REDUCED MODEL 3


Variable Beta Std Err Chi-Square p


Intercept -1.71 1.37 1.55 .21

Teacher Efficacy .04 .01 5.32 .02*

Teacher Stress -.008 .01 .56 .45

Gender .10 .36 .08 .77

Years Teaching Experience .03 .02 1.94 .16

Highest Degree Earned 1.16 .39 8.52 .003**

Junior High School .05 .51 .01 .91

Senior High School .14 .39 .14 .71

* R <.05 ** D <.01


A final reduced model was constructed to control for

all teacher belief instruments except teacher stress levels.

Now significance remains only for the demographic variable

of highest degree earned. Results indicate that there is no

significant difference in job-related stress between the

Teachers of the Year and inservice teachers, even after the

effects of all other teacher belief instruments have been

removed. Job-related stress is not a good predictor of

teacher effectiveness. The data for the final reduced model

are presented in Table 6.









TABLE 6
LOGISTIC REGRESSION SUMMARY
REDUCED MODEL 4


Variable Beta Std Err Chi-Square p


Intercept -.01 1.13 .00 .98

Teacher Stress -.01 .01 2.77 .09

Gender .19 .35 .29 .59

Years Teaching Experience .03 .02 1.78 .18

Highest Degree Earned 1.17 .39 9.10 .002**

Junior High School -.21 .48 .19 .66

Senior High School -.10 .37 .07 .78

* R <.05 ** p <.01


Correlations of Teacher Belief Instruments

As reported above, logistic multiple regression

analysis revealed the presence of multicollinearity, or

interrelatedness, between the four teacher belief constructs

and, therefore, a lack of significant effects in the full

model test. A correlation matrix of the four belief

instruments (teacher efficacy, teacher locus of control,

pupil control ideology, and teacher stress), including the

separate factors for the teacher efficacy and locus of

control constructs, was constructed to examine the

independence among these variables and to shed further light

on the relationships revealed by the logistic regression

procedure. Table 7 presents a matrix of the Pearson product

moment correlation coefficients for the belief instruments.










TABLE 7
PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATION


FOR TEACHER


BELIEF INSTRUMENTS


COEFFICIENTS


TES


I+ I- PCI WSPT


TES 1.00

TE .77 1.00


PE

TLC


.83

.47


I+ .49


.29

.29

.25

.25


PCI -.42 -.44

WSPT -.33 -.34


1.00


.45


.52

.25

-.25

-.20


1.00


.89 1.00


.86


.52 1.00


-.42 -.36 -.38 1.00

-.22 -.19 -.18 .20


Note: Correlation


matrix symbols are interpreted as follows:


TES = Teacher Efficacy Scale
TE = Teacher efficacy (a TES factor)
PE = Personal Efficacy (a TES factor)
TLC = Teacher Locus of Control Scale
I+ = Student Success (a TLC factor)
I- = Student Failure (a TLC factor)
PCI = Pupil Control Ideology Form
WSPT = Wilson Stress Profile for Teachers

[Minus (-) signs indicate humanistic orientation for
the Pupil Control Ideology Form and lower stress for the
Wilson Stress Profile for Teachers. Higher scores indicate
higher efficacy for the Teacher Efficacy Scale and more
internal locus of control for the Teacher Locus of Control
Scale.]



First, Pearson correlations indicate that although the

four teacher belief systems are independent constructs, they

share considerable variance. For example, there is a

significant positive relationship (I = .47) between teacher


efficacy and teacher locus of control.


TLC


1.00






85

Next, it should be noted that scores on the Teacher

Efficacy Scale are often reported in terms of Teacher

Efficacy and Personal Efficacy factors (Gibson & Dembo,

1984), and on the Teacher Locus of Control Scale in terms of

the student success (I+) and student failure (I-) factors

(Rose & Medway, 1981a). However, in this study the total

scores were used for these two instruments, because when the

factor scores were analyzed separately by logistic

regression, they were not found to function independently of

one another. As a result, the total, or composite, scores

were used in the logistic regression procedure for both the

TES and the TLC analyses reported earlier.

Also included in Table 7, in the presentation of

Pearson product moment correlation coefficients for the

teacher belief instruments, are the separate factors for the

Teacher Efficacy Scale (TE, PE) and the Teacher Locus of

Control Scale (I+, I-).

Cohen (1977) has presented a convention for

interpreting the significance of product moment correlation

coefficients (r), using the following definitions of effect

size: small (r = .10), medium (r = .30), large (r = .50).

Note that the subscales have very strong correlations with

the composite (.77, .83, .89, .86, for TE, PE, I+, and I-,

respectively) and strong or moderate correlations with each

other (.52 for TLC factors, .29 for TES factors). According

to Cohen, a high correlation (r = .52) is indicated between

the Teacher Locus of Control Scale factors (student success

and student failure). And, although the moderate Pearson






86

correlation for the Teacher Efficacy Scale factors (personal

efficacy and teacher efficacy) (r = .29) would appear to

indicate some separation of factors, when a Chi-Square

corresponding to the model including these factors and the

model with these factors dropped out were subtracted, there

was not a significant difference. In addition, a "general"

efficacy construct appears to be "overriding" the factors

(i.e., large correlations of the factors with the

composite); breaking up the construct into these separate

factors did not make a difference in the present analysis.

Authors of the Teacher Efficacy Scale and the Teacher Locus

of Control Scale provide for a total, or composite score, as

well as the independent factor scores used in this study.

Pearson correlation coefficients indicate the strongest

relationship among the teacher belief instruments to be

between the Teacher Efficacy scale and the Teacher Locus of

Control Scale (r = .47), a moderate to high effect, although

the relationship between the Pupil Control Ideology and both

the TES and the TLC is the same (r = -.42), a moderate

effect. The minus (-) indicates that the TES and TLC are

related to the humanistic pole of the pupil control ideology

continuum. Correlations between the Wilson Stress Profile

for Teachers and the other three belief instruments are the

lowest, with the TLC (r = -.22) and PCI (X = .20) both

revealing small effects, and the TES (r = -.33) showing a

moderate effect size. Stress shares the least variance with

the other teacher belief constructs, and consequently does

not shift in significance across the series of reduced






87
models. Although all of the teacher belief constructs are

interrelated, as the literature suggests, the moderate

effect sizes indicate that they are each independent enough

to be assessing different belief constructs, but related

enough to create multicollinearity problems.














CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



Summary

The purpose of this study was to examine whether

effective teachers, represented by Teachers of the Year,

differed from regular classroom teachers in terms of four

teacher belief systems related to teacher effectiveness:

(a) teacher efficacy, (b) teacher locus of control,

(c) pupil control orientation, and (d) teacher stress, and

whether these beliefs interacted with teachers' gender,

years of teaching experience, grade level taught, or highest

degree earned.

The following five questions were asked:

1. Do the Teachers of the Year have a higher sense of

efficacy than inservice teachers as measured by the Teacher

Efficacy Scale?

2. Are the Teachers of the Year more internal in their

locus of control than inservice teachers as measured by the

Teacher Locus of Control Scale?

3. Are Teachers of the Year more humanistic in their

attitudes, relationships, and interactions with their

students than inservice teachers as measured by the Pupil

Control Ideology Form?






89

4. Do Teachers of the Year believe they experience

lower levels of stress on the job than do inservice teachers

as reflected by scores on the Wilson Stress Profile for

Teachers?

5. Do Teachers of the Year and inservice teachers

differ on their sense of efficacy, locus of control, pupil

control ideology, or perceived stress as a result of gender,

years of teaching experience, grade level taught, or highest

degree earned?

A sample of Teachers of the Year (n = 88) from

1987-1990 and a comparison sample of inservice teachers

(n = 92) completed a composite teacher belief questionnaire

consisting of four teacher belief instruments: the Teacher

Efficacy Scale (TES), the Teacher Locus of Control Scale

(TLC), the Pupil Control Ideology Form (PCI), and the Wilson

Stress Profile for Teachers (WSPT). The teachers also

completed a demographic information sheet regarding their

gender, years of teaching experience, grade level and

subject taught, and highest degree earned.

The combined samples (n = 180) responded from all 52

states and territories, were two-thirds female, and

represented all levels (elementary, junior high or middle,

and senior high) and types of schools including urban,

suburban, and inner city, with enrollments ranging from 21

to 2,425. They taught all elementary grades (preschool -

6th), as well as 12 secondary level subject areas, and

special education. The two samples were closely matched by

gender, grade levels taught, types and sizes of schools, and






90
states, and were generalizable to 1989 national public

school faculty statistics.

A general linear model was constructed to test

differences between Teacher of the Year (TOY) and comparison

inservice teacher (IT) samples on eight variables: teacher

efficacy, teacher locus of control, pupil control ideology,

teacher stress, gender, years of teaching experience, grade

level taught, and highest degree earned, using a logistic

multiple regression procedure. The results of the reduced

model, a model with all interactions and a quadratic test

removed due to nonsignificance, revealed that Teachers of

the Year are significantly more humanistic in their pupil

control beliefs, and that Teachers of the Year hold

significantly more master's level or higher degrees, in

comparison to the inservice teachers.

Because of collinearity among the four teacher belief

systems, reduced forms of the regression model were

examined. The second reduced model removed pupil control

beliefs. With this effect removed, TOYs were found to be

significantly more internal in locus of control beliefs than

were inservice teachers. A third reduced model, with both

pupil control and locus of control beliefs removed, found

that Teachers of the Year had significantly higher efficacy

beliefs than did inservice teachers. Finally, a fourth

reduced model, removing all belief systems except teacher

stress beliefs, failed to find any significant difference

between Teachers of the Year and inservice teachers

regarding job-related stress.









Defining Teacher Effectiveness

Teacher effectiveness has traditionally been measured

in terms of "the ability of a classroom teacher to produce

higher-than-predicted gains on standardized achievement

tests" (Good, 1979, p. 53). Though mean residual gains have

also been computed from other pretest-posttest score

differences, such as math or reading gains (Brophy, 1973;

Good & Grouws, 1977), the focus of measures of teacher

effectiveness by process-product researchers has continued

to be on student outcome differences.

Researchers have cited problems with a number of the

properties of teacher effectiveness as operationalized by

process-product research.

1. Effectiveness assumes commonality of curriculum
goals, objectives, and content coverage across
classrooms because one standardized achievement
test is used to judge the effectiveness in all
classrooms.
2. Effectiveness is strictly summative in its
measurement of subject matter knowledge. It is
not what students know or don't know that matters,
but the accumulated quantity of their knowledge in
comparison with students in other classrooms.
3. Performance on the effectiveness measure is
equated with knowledge or skill in subject matter.
There is no notion of "less than best effort,"
guessing, partial knowledge, or test-taking skill.
4. Effectiveness is strictly aggregative across
students within a classroom. Operationally,
regardless of how student performance is
distributed within to classroom, the class average
is chosen to represent class performance.
(Shavelson, Webb, & Burstein, 1986, p. 52)

Researchers have also questioned the reliability of

sample observations typically used by process-product

approaches as representative of total classroom behavior

(Rosenshine & Furst, 1973). This approach fails to consider