Page 1 of 13

574

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol.7, No.6

Publication Date: June 25, 2020

DOI:10.14738/assrj.76.8494.

Hoogsteen, T. J. (2020). Collective Teacher Efficacy: A Critical Review of Education’s Top Influence. Advances in Social Sciences Research

Journal, 7(6) 574-586.

Collective Teacher Efficacy: A Critical Review of Education’s Top

Influence

T.J. Hoogsteen

Independent Scholar

ABSTRACT

Statements claiming that efforts of policy makers, system and school

leaders, and staff developments toward education reforms might be

better served by strategically and intentionally considering how to

foster collective efficacy throughout the conceptualization, design,

delivery, and assessment of change initiatives (Donohoo, 2018, p. 340)

require continued attempts to provide critical reviews of the available

literature, as does this review. Furthermore, Donohoo (2018) discussed

the need for reviews of research to examine what is known about the

causal directions amongst the outcomes of collective efficacy, and the

current article does this as well. This is especially important and timely

considering that collective teacher efficacy (CTE) is regarded by many

as the top influence on student achievement. This review undertakes an

examination of articles related to CTE and achievement, leadership,

teacher outcomes, and professional learning communities. It draws

attention to important future directions for collective efficacy research

as well as valuable insights for school and district leaders responsible

for determining school and system priorities.

Key Words: Collective Teacher Efficacy, Consequences of Collective Teacher

Efficacy, Sources of Collective Teacher Efficacy, Directionality of Collective

Teacher Efficacy.

INTRODUCTION

A great challenge for researchers studying schools is to identify how school organizations

contribute to students’ academic success. Schools differ in the impact they have on students and

their achievement. Thus, identifying school characteristics associated with differences in student

achievement is important to the development of effective schools (Goddard et al., 2000).

Synonymous statements such as those above can be found appearing prominently in educational

administration and leadership books and articles. However, this particular excerpt is paraphrased

from a seminal article related to the social cognitive theory concept of collective teacher efficacy

(CTE). CTE was originally conceptualized by Albert Bandura in 1993 and derived from his theory

of self-efficacy, which was first formed in 1977. Bandura contended that collective efficacy is a

powerful construct that is associated with student achievement (Bandura, 1993).

Often referred to as collective efficacy, perceived collective efficacy, teacher collective efficacy

(TCE), collective teacher efficacy, or just CTE, the terms have been treated as synonymous in the

concept’s literature base. The same can be said for the several related definitions. An early definition

Page 2 of 13

575

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 6, June-2020

of the concept states that collective efficacy is the perceptions of teachers in a school that the efforts

of the faculty as a whole will have a positive effect on students (Goddard et al., 2000, p. 480).

Another well-known definition refers to CTE as the collective perception that teachers in a given

school make an educational difference to their students over and above the educational impact of

their homes and communities (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004, p. 190).

The early years following its inception saw scholars lamenting the lack of research related to

collective efficacy. For example, Bandura (1997) noted that even though collective efficacy is

recognized to be highly important to a full understanding of organization functioning, it has been

the subject of minimal research. Furthermore, Goddard (2001) cites the relationship between CTE

and student achievement while referring to collective efficacy as a “neglected construct” in the study

of schools and achievement. Since this time, CTE has become a highly studied area with many peer- reviewed articles and theses related to the link between student achievement and CTE, the

connection between professional learning communities and collective efficacy, and the association

between school leadership and CTE. Even with a developing literature base and understanding of

the concept’s relationship to organizational functioning, it was Hattie (2016) that had arguably the

greatest impact on attention paid to collective efficacy. It was then that collective teacher efficacy

was positioned as the number one influence on student achievement with an effect factor of 1.57.

As Loughland and Ryan (2020) note, with this declaration comes an uncritical adoption of the

collective efficacy bandwagon when effect sizes are used in support of professional learning

consultancies that are motivated by profit. In fact, very few studies challenge the canonical claims

made in collective efficacy articles and books. A pattern in the literature base of CTE is that if results

do not support or align with previous findings, authors have often attempted to explain away the

discrepancy instead of delving further into the inconsistency, while others have missed

opportunities to synthesize and integrate findings into subsequent studies and writing.

A recent literature review and conceptual analysis, Hoogsteen (2020), however, attempted to

challenge the accepted theory of action of collective efficacy, that is, expectations influence effort

and effort influences achievement (Donohoo & Katz, 2017). Hoogsteen (2020) also aimed to explore

bi-directionality of collective efficacy, but did not adequately address the issue. Regardless, the

aforementioned article illuminated the issue of the uncritical adoption of the CTE literature canon,

as did Loughland and Ryan (2020), and endeavored to create a more holistic view of the role

collective efficacy plays in student achievement and school improvement.

Donohoo (2018) espoused the need for future reviews to examine what is known about the causal

directions amongst the outcomes of collective efficacy, the purpose of this review and synthesis

article is to do just that. Moreover, statements claiming that efforts of policy makers, system and

school leaders, and staff developments toward education reforms might be better served by

strategically and intentionally considering how to foster collective efficacy throughout the

conceptualization, design, delivery, and assessment of change initiatives (Donohoo, 2018, p. 340)

requires a continued attempt to provide critical reviews of the literature as did Hoogsteen (2020).

This evaluation of the state of the research related to CTE will also strive to bring clarity to the

claims that collective efficacy is the top influence on student achievement and school leaders should

aim to foster collective efficacy in order to improve their schools. To achieve this, an examination

of the concept of bi-directionality as it relates to collective teacher efficacy, an investigation of some

Page 3 of 13

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.76.8494 576

Hoogsteen, T. J. (2020). Collective Teacher Efficacy: A Critical Review of Education’s Top Influence. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(6) 574-

586.

unchallenged claims made in relation to the sources of collective efficacy, and finally, an exploration

and synthesis of claims about the relationship between CTE and student achievement as determined

through meta-analysis will be undertaken.

BI-DIRECTIONALITY OF COLLECTIVE TEACHER EFFICACY

The concept of bi-directionality as it relates to collective teacher efficacy is illustrated in Tschannen- Moran & Barr (2004) when they state that there is a reciprocal relationship between collective

teacher efficacy and student achievement. The relationship is such that the school environment can

affect teachers’ belief in their collective efficacy to improve student achievement and increased

student achievement can increase teachers’ sense of collective efficacy (p. 196). Eells (2011)

proffers a similar explanation when she notes that CTE influences cultural norms when belief leads

to action, and cultural norms influence CTE when action transforms belief (p. 65). In fact, inquiry

into the directionality of collective efficacy can be found in oft-studied areas linked to CTE, student

achievement, teacher outcomes, leadership, and professional learning communities. It should be

noted, definitive evidence regarding directionality has not been found.

Bi-directionality and Student Achievement

In her recent study, Donohoo (2018), notes that caution should be taken regarding the

directionality of included variables because causal direction was determined in advance. This is the

case in many studies, and in many instances conclusions are drawn that can be misleading. For

example, both Bandura (1993) and Goddard (2001) investigated and confirmed the link between

collective teacher efficacy and student achievement, however, in both cases achievement was

measured prior to CTE. This in turn, has contributed to conclusions such as those by Goddard et al.

(2000) that one way for school administrators to improve student achievement is by working to

increase the collective efficacy beliefs of their faculties. Comparable conclusions have been drawn

in Goddard et al. (2004) where they assert that it is important to understand how schools can be

organized to foster collective efficacy beliefs, and Tschannen-Moran and Barr (2004) that student

achievement depends upon the collective belief that the teachers in that building can improve

student achievement. Considering when each variable was measured, if anything, Bandura (1993)

and Goddard (2001) show the relationship between prior achievement, or mastery, and collective

efficacy, not that collective efficacy leads to achievement.

Eells (2011), a landmark meta-analysis studying the link between collective efficacy and student

achievement, sought to resolve the issue of timing associated with the measurement of CTE and

achievement. The meta-analysis included 26 studies, and out of those, nine measured achievement

at some point after CTE, while ten used achievement scores from prior to the time when CTE was

measured, and the final seven did not specifically report the timing of the measures. The results

indicated that the effect size for the studies which measured CTE before achievement was 0.626,

while the studies that reported achievement before CTE or did not describe the timing of the

variables were lower with effect sizes of 0.565, and 0.599, respectively. While this may seem to

serve as evidence that collective efficacy is more predictive of achievement than the reverse, Eells

(2011) also notes correlation is not sufficient to determine causation and longitudinal studies

examining year to year changes in CTE, achievement, and school contextual variables may reveal

patterns that are not evident in short-term research. For example, if the studies which measured

CTE prior to achievement had also been able to show an increase in achievement from the year