The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform

Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform Karl F. Wheatley* College of Education, Cleveland State University, 1329 Rhodes Tower, 1860 East 22nd Street, Cleveland, OH 44114-4435, USA Received 22 November 2000; received in revised form 8 May 2001; accepted 5 July 2001

Abstract This paper analyzes the benefits that specific teacher efficacy doubts can have for educational reforms, especially for progressive, meaning-centered reforms. Teachers’ efficacy doubts may support reform in several ways, perhaps most significantly by supporting teacher learning. Similar benefits can be expected for specific teacher doubts regarding collective teacher efficacy. The important role of efficacy doubts in progressive, meaning-centered teaching is highlighted. These conclusions challenge the common assumption that teachers’ doubts about their efficacy are inherently problematic for reforms. Connections are made to research on learning, teacher efficacy, and teacher education. Implications for research, teacher education and educational policy are described. r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teacher beliefs; Self-efficacy; Professional development; Teacher education; Educational change; Nontraditional education

‘‘Doubt is the necessary tool of knowledge.’’ Paul Tillich

1. Introduction Since the late 1970s, researchers have considered teacher efficacyFteachers’ beliefs in their ability to affect student outcomesFto be a crucial factor for improving teacher education and promoting educational reform (Ashton, 1984; Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000;

*Tel.: +1-216-687-4592; fax: +1-216-687-5387. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.F. Wheatley).

Ramey-Gassert & Shroyer, 1992; Ross, 1998; Scharmann & Hampton, 1995). Some scholars have even concluded that reforms that do not address teacher efficacy may be doomed (e.g., DeMesquita & Drake, 1994; Sarason, 1990). In all such discussions of the role of teacher efficacy in educational improvement, positive teacher efficacy (i.e., confidence in one’s teaching efficacy) has been viewed as the appropriate goal (e.g., Ross, 1995; Soodak & Podell, 1996). In contrast, the claim made here is that teachers’ doubts about their teaching efficacy often have important benefits for teacher learning and educational reform. Moreover, these teacher efficacy doubts are essential for the widespread success of educational reformF particularly for reforms that promote progressive, meaning-centered education.

0742-051X/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 7 4 2 - 0 5 1 X ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 4 7 - 6

6

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

The paper begins with background information about teacher efficacy, followed by an analysis of the potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for teachers, teaching, and reform. These benefits are related to research on learning, reformed teaching, and teacher efficacy. The paper concludes with the implications of the conclusions presented hereF for teacher efficacy research, teacher education, and educational policy.

2. Background on teacher efficacy In the broadest sense, ‘‘teacher efficacy,’’ which is sometimes called ‘‘teaching efficacy’’, refers to teachers’ beliefs about their ability to influence student outcomes. Influenced by locus of control theory (Rotter, 1966), teacher efficacy is sometimes divided into general teacher efficacy and personal teacher efficacy. General teacher efficacy means teachers’ beliefs in the ability of teachers in general to influence student outcomes; personal teacher efficacy means teachers’ beliefs about their own ability to affect student outcomes. More consistent with Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1997), teacher efficacy is also often divided into outcome expectancies and efficacy expectancies (e.g., Enochs, Riggs, & Ellis, 1993). Outcome expectancies are teachers’ beliefs about the effects that specific teaching actions have on students, and efficacy expectancies are teachers’ beliefs about their own ability to execute specific teaching actions. Regardless of the constructs used, teacher efficacy is typically assessed through teacher selfreport on Likert-scale items. In this research, interviews to identify the meanings that teachers have in mind when answering teacher efficacy questions are extremely rare, as are observations of teachers’ actual teaching. The resulting analyses typically identify teachers as having high or low levels of confidence in the areas of outcome expectancies and efficacy expectancies, or with respect to general teacher efficacy and personal teacher efficacy. Teacher efficacy discussions usually center on two categories of teachers. That is, teachers with substantial confidence in their efficacy are described with terms such as confidence, a positive sense of teacher efficacy, or high

teacher efficacy. Those with moderate or low levels of confidence in their efficacy are often labeled as having less confidence, doubting their efficacy, having low teacher efficacy, or having a less positive sense of teacher efficacy. Teachers with a positive sense of teacher efficacy believe they can influence student outcomes; teachers with a less positive sense of teacher efficacy believe there is little that can be done to affect student outcomes, or that they personally lack the skill to do so. Most research has used global measures of ‘‘teacher efficacy’’ created by aggregating teachers’ efficacy self-ratings across various teaching situations (e.g., Ross, Cousins, & Gadalla, 1996), despite repeated reminders in the literature that efficacy beliefs are taskspecific and context-specific constructs. That is, teachers do not feel equally efficacious in all teaching situations. Reinforcing criticisms of global teacher efficacy measures is research indicating that a substantial portion of the total variance in teachers’ efficacy beliefs is intrateacher variation in teacher efficacy (Ross, et al., 1996; Raudenbush, Rowan, & Cheong, 1992). In Raudenbush, et al. (1992), almost half (i.e., 44%) of the total variance in teachers’ efficacy beliefs was intra-teacher variation related to factors such as the different subjects and academic tracks that the individual teachers taught. Despite the theoretical and empirical reasons for using highly specific teacher efficacy assessments, global constructs still dominate teacher efficacy research. The enduring confidence that many scholars, reformers, and teacher educators have had in teacher efficacy is due to the fact that teacher efficacy has been consistently and positively associated with factors of interest to teacher educators and reformers. For example, teacher efficacy has been found to predict student achievement (e.g., Ashton & Webb, 1986), teacher retention (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982), and commitment to teaching (Coladarci, 1992). It has also been positively associated with factors related to reform-oriented education, including greater use of hands-on teaching methods (Riggs & Enochs, 1990), less use of teacher-directed wholeclass instruction (Ashton & Webb, 1986), and a

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

more humanistic classroom control orientation (Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990). Moreover, teacher efficacy has been found to be positively associated with teachers’ willingness to experiment with and adopt teaching innovations (Allinder, 1994; Berman et al., 1977; Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Guskey, 1984; Smylie, 1988). Despite the correlational nature of most research, researchers frequently assume that positive teacher efficacy causes the outcomes with which it correlates. For example, Ross (1994) stated that teacher efficacy ‘‘is increasingly recognized as a pivotal variable influencing teacher practice and student outcomes’’ (p. 381). The assumed benefits of positive teacher efficacy are believed to derive from the critical role that teacher efficacy is thought to play in teacher cognition and motivationF’’Certainly one’s personal teaching efficacy governs one’s motivation, thought processes, and willingness to expend energy (Weasmer & Woods, 1998, p. 245).’’ Because few teacher characteristics are related to so many factors of interest to reformers, it is understandable that researchers and reformers alike have looked for ways of ‘‘harnessing what has been learned about TE (teacher efficacy)’’ (Ross, 1995, p. 244). Furthermore, it is not surprising that scholars have so strongly favored positive teacher efficacy, assuming, as Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy (1998) do, that ‘‘greater efficacy leads to greater effort and persistence, which leads to better performance, which in turn leads to greater efficacy’’ (p. 234). Beyond the research reported earlier, it is clear that a positive sense of teacher efficacy will often support educational reform efforts. For example, a teacher’s successful incorporation of more cooperative learning activities into her mathematics instruction can clearly be supported by the teacher’s confidence in her effectiveness in managing group activities. More generally, having teachers believe they can affect student outcomes obviously seems preferable to having teachers believe that they can’t. However, while such conclusions may be reasonable generalizations for global teacher efficacy, Wheatley (2000) identified eight specific types of positive teacher efficacy

7

beliefs that can actually obstruct educational reforms. Along with the traditional faith in teacher efficacy confidence has come a negative view of teachers’ uncertainty or doubts about their efficacy. For example, this is reflected in the way in which Ross (1998) classified teacher uncertainty together with anxiety and guilt, as examples of negative teacher feelings. Also, most past teacher efficacy research has implicitly suggested or directly concluded that lesser confidence in one’s own teacher efficacy is problematic. Representative of this perspective is Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998), who concluded that ‘‘Lower efficacy leads to less effort and giving up easily, which leads to poor teaching outcomes, which then produce decreased efficacy’’ (p. 234). It may be true that greater teacher doubt about teaching efficacy is generally less desirable than strong confidence in one’s efficacy, if the focus is on the average effects of global teacher efficacy. Indeed, teachers with strong global doubts about their efficacy seem to be more likely to leave teaching than those lacking such doubts are (e.g., Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982). Similarly, mild uncertainty or strong doubts about one’s efficacy regarding the teaching of specific subjects, or use of specific teaching methods, can foster negative teacher attitudes, interfere with teachers’ learning, and reduce use of new teaching approaches. That is, we often teach to our strengths, and in the areas of our teaching practice where we doubt our efficacy, we may avoid teaching that content or using those teaching methods. Given that the purpose of teaching is to affect others, getting immersed in content or methods where we seem less able to affect others can engender an uncomfortable state of cognitive dissonance (e.g., Festinger, 1957). This uncomfortable dissonance can be decreased by largely or entirely avoiding the teaching methods or curriculum content that causes this dissonance. We can also reduce this dissonance by mentally devaluing the importance of the content or the effectiveness of the methods in question. If elementary teachers conclude that understanding mathematics is simply beyond the students they teach (e.g., Wheatley, 1997), then this interpretation may allow them to stop

8

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

attempting to teach mathematics for understandingFwithout any subsequent sense of guilt or cognitive dissonance. The fact that teachers’ doubts about their efficacy are associated with such unproductive teacher responses seems deeply problematic, given that doubt is an inherent part of teaching (e.g., Lampert, 1999). Lortie noted the ‘‘endemic uncertainties of teaching’’ (Lortie, 1975, p. 134), and McDonald echoed that ‘‘Teaching is a messy, uncertain business’’ (1991, p. 54). Indeed, uncertainties can be found throughout curriculum (e.g., Beane, 1997) and methods (e.g., National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991). Floden and Clark (1988) thoroughly detailed the types and sources of uncertainty in teaching, many of which will ultimately result in doubts regarding one’s teaching efficacy. Fortunately, teachers’ doubts regarding their efficacy, though sometimes problematic, can also be beneficial, as is described in the following section. The benefits of efficacy doubts become more apparent when we step away from global teacher efficacy and examine more specific teacher efficacy beliefs, examples of which appear below. Before proceeding, there are two important caveats. First, ‘‘reform’’ is often treated as a generic entity in this paper. While this does not address real differences between different types of reforms, some of the processes supported by teacher efficacy doubts (e.g., teacher reflection) are potentially beneficial for any reform in which changes in teaching are a goal of the reform. Second, I use ‘‘teacher efficacy doubts’’ in this article as an umbrella term for various types of efficacy doubt, except in those places in which I report others’ findings and observations, and use those authors’ terminology (e.g., uncertainty). Thus, ‘‘teacher efficacy doubts’’ is used here to encompass everything from mild uncertainty to profound doubts about one’s efficacy, including doubts about specific or general aspects of one’s teaching, and doubts regarding outcome expectancies, efficacy expectancies, and personal teaching efficacy. One example of doubt regarding specific outcome expectancies is ‘‘I doubt that these manipulatives will help my students under-

stand fractions, even if I use them skillfully’’, while an example of doubt regarding specific efficacy expectancies is ‘‘I doubt that I can skillfully use these manipulatives in my teaching.’’ An example of uncertainty regarding an entire subject matter area, but with respect to one’s typical approach to teaching is ‘‘I don’t know if I can help these third-graders understand mathematics, if I keep teaching the way that I have taught in the past.’’ As with the generic treatment of ‘‘reforms’’, treating all such efficacy uncertainty and doubts within a broad ‘‘doubts’’ category is clearly an oversimplification. However, the purpose here is simply to present the case that doubts about one’s efficacy, in various forms, are sometimes beneficial rather than problematic. That alone represents an important shift in thinking about teacher efficacy. Future research can make more fine-grained distinctionsFby studying the role of different types of teacher efficacy uncertainty and doubts in relationship to different reforms. 2.1. Potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts I detail below some of the various benefits that teacher efficacy doubts may have for educational reform. Other benefits have surely escaped this analysis of the relevant literature, especially given my particular interest in the relationship between teacher efficacy and progressive, meaning-centered reforms. Because teacher learning is consistently cited as a prerequisite for successful reform (e.g., Fullan & Miles, 1992; Peterson, McCarthey, & Elmore, 1996; Smylie, 1996), the benefits that teacher efficacy doubts may have for teacher learning and teacher change are described first. I then relate those points to the broader literature on learning, and finally, outline further benefits that teacher efficacy doubts may have for educational reforms. 2.2. Benefits for teacher learning and change 2.2.1. Fostering disequilibrium and change It has become abundantly clear that successful reform requires profound teacher learning

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

and change. For example, as Edwards (1996) noted: If this reform effort in school mathematics education is to succeed, many, perhaps most practicing teachers will need to make fundamental changes in their instructional practices. Often, this may entail dislodging well-established routines and practices that do not align with the current reform effort. (p. 27) Such profound change requires substantial disequilibrium in teachers’ thinking. As Jones and Nimmo (1999) noted, ‘‘Transformative change, genuine learning, happens only through disequilibrium, through the discovery that ‘what I thought I knew isn’t enough to deal with this new situation’ (p. 8).’’ Disequilibrium inherently causes and involves uncertainty. For example, describing her fourth grade mathematics teaching, Lawson (1997) described the disequilibrium and loss of prior certainties that were a necessary part of her change from being a ‘‘behaviorist dispenser of knowledge to a constructivist facilitator of meaning’’ (p. 141). What causes such disequilibrium and uncertainty among practicing and future teachers? By definition, it requires a perturbation (i.e., a challenge) to teachers’ beliefs about their existing practices (Edwards, 1996; Etchberger & Shaw, 1992; Shaw & Jakubowski, 1991; Soodak & Podell, 1997). Because the desire to impact students is central to most teachers’ motivation to teach (McLaughlin, 1991; Sederberg & Clark, 1990), doubts about one’s teaching efficacy will often be the most potent type of doubt for fostering truly transformative disequilibrium. The psychological need to resolve such disequilibrium often pulls teachers into learning and change. An example of this appears in Lange and Burroughs-Lange (1994), who studied teachers’ accounts of their own professional development. In describing their findings, they noted that ‘‘It became clear that changes in their knowledge and practice were motivated affectively and cognitively by the desire to move from a state of professional uncertainty towards feeling more comfortable with what they knew and did’’ (p. 627). The conclusion that doubt, especially regarding the efficacy of

9

existing practices, ‘‘triggers’’ teacher learning is a common theme in the teaching literature. For example, doubts about the effectiveness of one’s teaching have led to improvements in classroom management (Boulden, Hiester, & Walti, 1998), and to the use of a more constructivist approach to teaching students with disabilities (e.g., Callas, Mellinger, & Taylor, 1998). Also, Wood, Cobb, and Yackel (1991) reported that a teacher changed her mathematics teaching only after new evidence led her to conclude that she wasn’t improving students’ understanding of mathematics in the ways in which she had hoped. Finally, Stephens (1987) described how collaborative work focused on teachers’ doubts about their efficacy led to teacher learning and change. These findings fit with the energizing role of uncertainty typically reported in the motivation literatureFthat the need to resolve uncertainty is a major factor driving human activity (e.g., Kagan, 1972).

2.2.2. Fostering reflection Due to the crucial role of reflection in teaching and teacher learning (e.g., Collier, 1999), it is important to also examine the relationship between teacher efficacy doubts and teacher reflection. While strong teacher confidence may actually leave teachers with little reason to reflect (e.g., Brodkey, 1993), uncertainty or doubt appears throughout the literature as crucial for teacher reflection. For example, Schon (1983) reminded readers that it is the ‘‘surprise, puzzlement, or confusion’’ which truly reflective practitioners experience in a situation that leads to reflection, experimentation and change (p. 68). Also, Gabella (1995) pointed out that doubt is viewed as ‘‘essential to inquiry’’ in Deweyan philosophy (p. 237), noting that ‘‘... not only do ambiguity and uncertainty serve as the starting point of any inquiry, they are the necessary conditions for anyone to take inquiry seriously’’ (p. 238). Although teacher doubt (or uncertainty) does not always relate to teachers’ beliefs regarding their efficacy, it often does. Teachers’ doubts regarding their choice of goals, methods, or curricula often arise from teachers’ concerns about the expected effects of each choice. Thus, these

10

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

doubts will usually result directly in teacher efficacy doubt. As direct evidence of the uncertainty-reflection relationship, Clarke (1995) found that one key factor supporting student teacher reflection was ‘‘the ability to entertain uncertainty’’ (p. 259). Also, regarding their project to infuse up-to-date knowledge into K-12 curriculum, Seixas and Brandes (1997), concluded ‘‘The project demonstrated that uncertainty can stimulate the questioning of previously held assumptions and, in the right circumstances, lead to new insights’’ (p. 68). Furthermore, Villaume (2000) found that uncertainty provided a needed springboard for teachers’ reflection about their language arts teaching. In my own teaching, I recently encountered a situation in which a student expressed supreme confidence in the effectiveness of an activity that her group had conducted for our curriculum class, although I had serious doubts about the effectiveness of the activity. Her confidence left her seeing little reason to reflect or discussFeven when I expressed my own view that some aspects of the workshop definitely merited reflection and discussion. In fact, she seemed puzzled and even a bit resentful about my efforts to engage her and her group in reflection on possible improvements that could be made in the activity. It was only when she began to conceive of my doubts as legitimate (aided by student feedback that echoed my concerns), that she became willing to engage in further reflective dialogue about the efficacy of the activity. My assumption is that many readers have had similar teaching experiences.

2.2.3. Supporting motivation to learn Teachers who experience doubts regarding their teaching efficacy may feel guilty over this perceived ineffectiveness. Though unpleasant, this guilt may foster the motivation to learn and improve. As Hargreaves (1994) noted, ‘‘The repair work that comes from the need or wish to expiate guilt can be a powerful stimulus to personal change and social reform. Guilt experienced in modest proportions can be a great spur to motivation, innovation, and improvement’’ (p. 142).

2.2.4. Supporting responsiveness to diversity A belief that one simply doesn’t yet know how to reach certain types of students (e.g., students of a specific age or cultural background) can promote reflection, assessment, and the learning of new methods for teaching those students. For example, Powell (1997) described a teacher whose culturally relevant teaching practice was constructed in part through a process of questioning and doubting the relevance and efficacy of the mandated curriculum, and her own past teaching. 2.2.5. Fostering productive collaboration While too much uncertainty can be immobilizing, uncertainty can also foster productive collaboration. For example, in describing the teacher learning and change fostered by developing teaching teams, Friedman (1997) found that growth within the team followed a time when ‘‘they expressed a deep sense of uncertainty about whether they were doing the right thing’’ (p. 346). More generally, in describing principles to guide school restructuring and development of collaborative communities, Hargreaves (1994) noted, ‘‘the two worst states of knowledge are ignorance and certainty’’ (p. 246). Thus, doubt about the limits of one’s efficacy when working alone provides a much-needed motive for engaging in the challenges of collaboration. 2.2.6. Other evidence There is other direct evidence that uncertainty or doubt can foster teacher learning and change. For example, regarding an intern third-grade teacher, Pape noted, ‘‘In some domains, Nicole’s uncertainties were a source of learning for her’’ (Pape, 1992, p. 78). Also, Tobin and LaMaster (1992) described the struggles of a science teacher, and her resulting doubts about her efficacy, as reflected in her comment that ‘‘I really have no idea how to get them [students] to work constructively’’ (p. 120). However, in a supportive context, these doubts helped set the stage for meaningful improvements in her teaching. Furthermore, Saye (1997) found that comfort with uncertainty, for both students and teachers, was strongly related to their ability to use technology in innovative ways. Villaume (2000) found that uncertainties about

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

their effectiveness sparked numerous changes in teachers’ language arts practice, and noted that it is ‘‘uncertainties that breathe life into’’ her own professional development (p. 24). Finally, reflecting on his third grade teaching, Dudley-Marling (1995) concluded, ‘‘Teachers who are learners always have a degree of uncertainty about what they are doing. Uncertainty is what keeps the inquiry process going’’ (p. 252). In stark contrast with its negative connotations in the teacher efficacy literature, Dudley-Marling made the benefits of uncertainty clearF‘‘I have also come to value uncertainty as an occasion for growth and renewal’’ (p. 257). More broadly, there is evidence from personality research that comfort with uncertainty is necessary for the kind of activity and thinking required by progressive reforms. For example, Sorrentino and Short (1986) identified the uncertainty-oriented person as one who is more openminded, and who changes their beliefs as needed Fwhich is just what is required of teachers who are attempting progressive, meaning-centered teaching. 2.3. Relationship to learning research The role of uncertainty or doubt in learning is not particular to teachers; research on learning and cognition has emphasized ‘‘the critical significance of ambiguity and uncertainty’’ (Gabella, 1995, p. 238). As Leyden (1985) noted, ‘‘Thinking occurs when you’re in doubt’’ (p. 116). Also, in Posner’s model of conceptual change (in Hill, 1997) losing faith that one’s current conceptions can solve one’s current challenges is a necessary precondition to changes in thinking. Moreover, doubt is generally viewed as a great spur to thinking (Leyden, 1985; Peirce, 1958; Stephens, 1987), and to learning (Gabella, 1995; Jones & Nimmo, 1999). As Gabella concluded, ‘‘Doubt is a basic feature of the learning process’’ (1995, p. 237). Some may struggle to fully grasp the benefits of teacher efficacy doubts, perhaps because they have focused on the experience of being ‘‘plagued by self-doubt’’ (e.g., Bandura, 2000, p. 77; Oettingen, 1995, p. 171), but have not often enough ‘‘played

11

with doubt’’ as a method for inquiry and learning. As Jones and Nimmo (1999) noted: ‘‘Doubting is a game with rules. It is methodological doubt, in which we engage in order to learn. Piaget says that this is how knowledge is constructed’’ (p. 9). Also, teacher efficacy researchers may not have recognized the value of teacher efficacy doubts because they have focused on teachers’ efficacy beliefs regarding their performance, rather than their efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to learn. Significantly, in the learning research, lower selfefficacy is sometimes part of a beneficial pattern. As Schunk (1994) noted ‘‘a lower sense of selfefficacy can enhance effort, self-regulation, and achievement’’ as long as students ‘‘feel that they are capable of learning’’ (p. 87). In other words, students’ positive efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to learn combined with doubts regarding their present efficacy often foster greater effort, self-regulation, and achievement. A similar pattern should hold true for teachers as well. 2.4. Further benefits of efficacy doubts for reform Aside from the benefits for teachers, teacher efficacy doubts may have other benefits for reform. For example, doubts regarding the efficacy of traditional teaching may help counteract the understandable tendency of teachers to retreat from the complexities of reformed teaching, especially progressive, meaning-centered teaching. Also, doubts that one can reach students using a particular aspect of a reform may help teachers avoid those aspects of the reform that appear less promising, or that they lack the skills to execute (Wheatley, 1997). Thus, teacher efficacy doubts may protect a reform by increasing the chances that teachers will avoid those aspects of the reform that are more likely to lead to failure and disillusionment. Doubts may also help prevent reforms from becoming rigid systems, for as Floden and Buchmann (1993) noted, uncertainty ‘‘provides some protection against dogmatism’’ (p. 376). Teacher efficacy doubts can also provide helpful information to reformers. More generally, specific teacher doubts in the form of negative outcome expectancies or negative efficacy expectancies may

12

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

identify the areas in which specific reforms are in trouble with teachers, or with others (Cochran & Masterson, 1995). For example, if many teachers believe that using manipulatives to teach mathematics typically causes classroom chaos, then reformers need to address teachers’ outcome expectancies, and skills, regarding manipulative use. Finally, teacher efficacy doubts may aid reform by helping prevent teacher burnout. McDonald (1991) concluded that with growing experience and skill, teachers sometimes develop a false sense of certainty that sets them up for disillusionment and burnout. The teacher may blame the students or whomever for their struggles, when the real problem was overconfidence, that is, too-positive efficacy. This perspective contrasts with the usual assumption that it is teachers’ efficacy doubts that are a key culprit in teacher burnout and attrition (e.g., Coladarci, 1992; Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982). However, Freedman, Jackson, and Boles (1982) also concluded that ‘‘Burnout is the natural result of an ideology of professionalism which encourages teachers to see themselves as more powerful than they actually are and, therefore, more responsible alone to correct complex societal and institutional dilemmas’’ (p. 122). The tragic attrition rate in the first five years of teaching may be partly the result of the strongly felt but often na.ıve optimism of beginning teachers. This optimism has not been sufficiently challenged and strengthened by the kind of doubts that are an integral part of full-time teaching. Perhaps leavening teachers’ confidence with some uncertainty or doubtsFand giving them experience coping with such doubtsFwould help inoculate teachers against burnout. Similarly, Floden and Clark (1988) suggested that ‘‘In measured doses, it (uncertainty) may provide the tension that keeps the adrenaline flowing and energizes the enthusiastic teacher’’ (p. 514). Unaware of the benefits of uncertainty, some try to eliminate it. However, attempts to eliminate such uncertainties may pull educators away from progressive education: Seeking more certainty, however, can create attachment to teaching goals, topics and

methods where certainty is easiest to obtain. Since the future is uncertain, striving for certainty pulls attention away from long-term plans and inspiring ideas to what is immediate, specific, and appears obvious. A teacher in quest for certainty may favour content that can be tested by traditional objective examinations, rather than making decisions in light of worthwhileness. Rigidity and narrowness in classroom life, rather than flexibility and breadth, may be the outcomes of a quest for certainty. (Floden & Buchmann, 1993, p. 377) Others have also found that the desire for certain outcomes (i.e., certain efficacy) can push teachers towards narrow quantifiable curriculum (Dudley-Marling, 1995; Grundy, 1992), and away from important learning processes, such as problem-solving (Dudley-Marling, 1995; Martens, 1992). More broadly, in a review of the history of educational reform, Beyer (1992) cited ‘‘a commitment to certainty and fundamental knowledge’’ as one of the major forces that has obstructed inquiry-oriented education (p. 248). In contrast, Floden and Buchmann concluded, ‘‘as an essential, driving force in teaching, uncertainty is a tension that can not and should not be removed’’ (1993, p. 377). 2.5. Teacher doubts in progressive reforms These potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts are of particular importance for progressive, meaning-centered reforms, given that uncertainty is especially likely with the teaching approaches those reforms advocate. First, the goals of progressive education are difficult to choose with certainty. Even when articulated, the goals of progressive or meaning-centered education (e.g., understanding) are typically harder to assess than those of traditional teaching. Furthermore, the achievement of reform-related goals is often only apparent after a long time, making it difficult for teachers to find unambiguous evidence of their efficacy (Cohen & Ball, 1990). Second, progressive teaching methods naturally increase teacher uncertainty regarding their efficacy because teaching practices such as innovative assess-

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

ment ‘‘increase the unpredictability of the classroom’’ (Ross et al., 1996, p. 390). Furthermore, others have found that uncertainty is a necessary component of the form of discourse that is used in teaching for understanding (Wood et al., 1991) and in constructing new ideas (Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989). That uncertainty is a key aspect of progressive or democratic education is unsurprisingFHoyle (1994) reminded us that uncertainty is ‘‘one of the four cornerstones of democracy, whether in schools, government, or industry’’ (p. 37). Similarly, Meier cited ‘‘the capacity to sustain uncertainty’’ as one of the mental habits that a modern democracy requires (Meier, 1995, p. 373). Fortunately, teachers moving towards more democratic or progressive pedagogy may make peace with uncertainty, and even use it as a resource (Dudley-Marling, 1995), underscoring the connection between doubt and learning that was noted earlier. Making peace with uncertainty is also crucial because uncertainty is increasingly recognized as an inescapable feature of our ability to know (Hargreaves, 1994; Roth, 1993). Moreover, uncertainty is inherent in human decisionmaking (e.g., Lindley, 1994), and as Hammond (1996) concluded, ‘‘planning in the face of irreducible uncertainty is inescapable’’ (p. 14). Thus, Wasserman (1999) noted that distrusting certainty and becoming more comfortable with ambiguity is a crucial step for new teachers. Finally, becoming comfortable with uncertainty and doubt helps teachers model the kind of thinking that is characteristic of experts in the subject matter disciplines. As Dewey noted, ‘‘The scientific attitude may almost be defined as that which is capable of enjoying the doubtful’’ (Dewey, 1929, p. 228). Finally, uncertainty is part of the broader context of any educational reform. First, the teacher change that reforms require is generally filled with uncertainty (e.g., Wildy & Wallace, 1994). Furthermore, the broader process of reform requires substantial disequilibrium in educational systems (e.g., Pourdavood & Fleener, 1997), and thus it is generally non-linear and filled with uncertainty (Riley, 2000).

13

To summarize, teacher efficacy doubts can aid educational improvement and progressive, meaning-centered reforms in various ways. Moreover, teacher doubts regarding their efficacy are ultimately necessary for successful reform. As Brodkey (1993, p. 70) noted, ‘‘If teachers have confidence in their teaching, why should they change?’’ Indeed, the central premise of virtually any educational reform is doubt regarding the efficacy of existing practices.

3. Discussion In the following discussion, I first analyze the conclusions reached here in relationship to existing teacher efficacy research. I then describe the issues that these conclusions raise for teacher education and evaluation. 3.1. Relationship to teacher efficacy research 3.1.1. A contrast with past research In brief, the conclusion that teacher efficacy doubts often benefit teaching and reform seems to conflict with past teacher efficacy research, which almost always treats teachers’ efficacy doubts as problematic. Note for example Bandura’s claim that ‘‘Those who doubt their efficacy visualize failure scenarios and dwell on the many things that can go wrong. It is difficult to achieve much while fighting self-doubt’’ (Bandura, 1995, p. 6). Teachers’ doubts do sometimes affect teachers in the ways in which Bandura suggested. However, a very different statement captures the beneficial side of teacher efficacy doubtsFit is difficult for teachers to learn and improve much without experiencing efficacy doubts. Of course, this apparent conflict over the effects of teacher efficacy doubts might reasonably be viewed as a mere artifact of studying specific rather than global teacher efficacy. That is, while teacher efficacy doubts may sometimes be beneficial with respect to specific teacher efficacy beliefs, whenever global teacher efficacy is the issue, the general assumption would be that teacher efficacy confidence is more desirable than harboring global doubts regarding one’s efficacy. However, the

14

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

points raised here underscore the limitations of a global level of analysis for teacher efficacy. That is, it is worth noting that two decades of research using global, numerical teacher efficacy measures has overlooked the benefits of teacher efficacy doubts described here. Similarly, the finding that there are problematic types of positive teacher efficacy (Wheatley, 2000) eluded earlier research employing global and numerical teacher efficacy measures. Arguably, such blind spots are an inherent limitation of these traditional measures of teacher efficacy, and of global and numerical measures of teacher efficacy for a single subject matter area. Fortunately, some scholars have recently suggested the need for greater specificity in teacher efficacy research, including closer analysis of the characteristics of the teaching tasks that teachers face, and the resources they have available to handle them (e.g., Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). However, even the more nuanced teacher efficacy model that Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) proposed never suggests the possibility that, at times, doubting one’s efficacy might be what helps teachers and teaching the most. 3.1.2. Questions of consequential validity Because unproductive forms of confidence and beneficial forms of doubt have eluded traditional teacher efficacy research, there is reason to question the ‘‘consequential validity’’ (e.g., Popham, 1995), or likely effects, that traditional teacher efficacy constructs have for reform efforts. That is, research using such constructs has yielded the largely unexamined assumption that a higher level of teacher efficacy (i.e., greater confidence) is always or generally better (e.g., Weasmer & Woods, 1998). This in turn has led policymakers and teacher educators to enact programs and policies to try to raise teachers’ and prospective teachers’ levels of ‘‘teacher efficacy’’. However, keeping both this analysis and Wheatley (2000) in mind, it is apparent that if teacher educators could raise a group of teachers’ level of efficacy, they might accomplish this in part by eradicating productive doubts and fostering unproductive forms of confidence. Such teachers could feel much more efficacious, yet be moving farther and

farther away from progressive teaching. The potential for teacher efficacy confidence to be problematic and for teacher efficacy doubts to be beneficial exists for even the most recent efficacy scales, such as the Ohio State teacher efficacy scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). 3.1.3. Identifying correlates versus fostering change It is important to understand that despite the foregoing argument, researchers will continue to find positive relationships between global teacher efficacy and other factors of interest to researchers and educators. The global belief that teaching is futile will continue to be statistically associated with many negative outcomes for teachers and students, and strong faith that one can impact students will be associated with relatively better outcomes by comparison. None of this is surprising; global control constructs such as teacher efficacy generally yield just such results quite reliably (Skinner, 1996). Moreover, as research into human decision-making reveals, simple numerical measures of human confidence versus uncertainty, even for complex situations, often do, on average, predict actions reasonably well (Lindley, 1994). However, the point here is that such information is adequate neither for teacher educators nor for other reformers. The task of reform is not primarily one of predicting patterns of behavior for the masses of teachers; it is one of helping change occur, with individual teachers and groups of teachers. Because traditional teacher efficacy definitions and measures obscure the benefits that teacher efficacy doubts can have for progressive, meaning-centered reforms, they obscure useful information about one of the key ingredients in teacher learning and change. 3.1.4. Faith and doubts, together and alone Broader issues of teacher efficacy research aside, what might be hypothesized about the roles of teacher efficacy confidence and teacher efficacy doubts in supporting educational reform? At present, the best hypothesis may be that teacher efficacy faith and teacher efficacy doubt are both necessary, in unknown combinations, to move along the complex and uncertain path towards reformed teaching. As Lillian Smith commented

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

‘‘Faith and doubt are neededFnot as antagonists but working side by sideFto take us around the unknown curve’’.1 A teacher quoted in Powell (1997) expressed one such mixture of faith and doubt. Sometimes I feel so tentative about what I’m doing. I go into the classroom with confidence, so don’t get me wrong here. But when I examine what I’m doing closely I have to ask, ‘‘Is this really what I’m supposed to be doing? Are they getting what they are supposed to have? (p. 475) In this case, specific doubts and self-questioning helped facilitate reflection and growth in a teacher lauded for her culturally relevant teaching. However, it is crucial to note that these doubts were experienced simultaneously with a broader confidence in the possibility of affecting student outcomes. Obviously, such a mixture of beliefs, or even more complex mixtures, cannot be captured by the traditional way of treating ‘‘teacher efficacy’’ as if it were a singular numerical entity. 3.1.5. Unanswered questions, and moderating influences While there are many ways in which teacher efficacy doubts may constructively combine with teacher confidenceFsuch as doubts regarding present capacity coupled with confidence regarding one’s ability to learnFthere is also a great deal that is not known about these doubts. For example, while this paper primarily identifies potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for progressive, meaning-centered education, efficacy doubts can also support traditional education and undermine progressive reform efforts. Thus, we’re left wonderingFwhich efficacy doubts are

1

Lillian Smith (1897–1966) was a critically acclaimed American author and outspoken critic of social and racial injustice, whose controversial 1944 novel, Strange Fruit, was translated into fifteen languages and produced as a Broadway play in the United States. The quote here comes from her 1954 book, The Journey, which emphasizes the importance of the individual’s creative response to ordealFan important issue for teachers who are attempting to implement ambitious teaching reforms while also living up to the usual demands of teaching.

15

beneficial for supporting which kinds of teaching, in which contexts, and in combination with which other efficacy beliefs? Also, at which points in teachers’ learning of new teaching approaches are these doubts likely to be helpful? Finally, what factors moderate the influence that teacher efficacy doubts have on teachers? Most obviously, teachers are more likely to reflect on and learn from their doubts regarding their own personal teaching efficacy if they believe that (1) student outcomes can be changed by teaching, and (2) that it is possible for them to learn to become more skilled teachers. This first issue reflects an ‘‘incremental view of ability’’ (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) or ‘‘positive outcome expectancies,’’ depending upon which conceptual frame we employ. The second issue is the critical issue of teachers’ efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to learn. Furthermore, in contrast with those teachers who are somewhat more concerned about maintaining an image of teaching competence, to themselves and to others, efficacy doubts may be more easily embraced and learned from by those teachers who are more focused on the teaching task and learning to teach better. This pattern would be consistent with a growing body of motivation research into goal orientations (see Pintrich & Schunk, 1996), with the former pattern reflecting a performance orientation, and the latter pattern reflecting a learning orientation (also called a task orientation). Similarly, among teachers who perceive the teachers’ proper role as being the calm, confident, in-control expert, efficacy doubts may create some quite troubling dissonanceFgiven the conflict between their view of the teachers’ role and their own efficacy doubts. In contrast, teachers who view themselves as learning along with their students and who view errors and uncertainty as natural parts of the learning process may feel challenged by efficacy doubts, but not view them as threatening, or be emotionally upset by them (e.g., Dudley-Marling, 1995). Also, the professional climate of the school may be more or less supportive of teachers’ expressing and discussing efficacy doubts. One final issue is that teachers may attach little importance to their efficacy doubts if they have negative attitudes towards particular subject

16

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

matter or methods in question. In such cases, efficacy doubts may not lead to reflection and learning. In sum, all of the above issues will influence the degree to which teachers learn and benefit from their efficacy doubts. However, it is important to note that the learning and the teaching performance of even teachers with great confidence in their efficacy will often be influenced by the factors noted above. Teachers’ efficacy beliefs, whether they reflect confidence, neutrality, or doubt, are important in the story of teacher learning and change, but it is obvious that they are still only one part of that story. 3.1.6. Collective teacher efficacy Because collective teacher efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Goddard & Goddard, 2001) has received increasing attention lately (e.g., Goddard et al., 2000), it is worth noting how the points raised here relate to collective teacher efficacy. In brief, collective teacher efficacy is an aggregate teacher efficacy measure for all of the teachers in a school, assessed in one of two ways (see Goddard et al., 2000 for details). As with individual teacher efficacy, any specific efficacy doubts reflected in either type of collective teacher efficacy could support teacher learning and reform in any or all of the ways that individual teacher efficacy couldFby inducing disequilibrium and change, fostering teacher reflection and collaboration, helping prevent teacher burnout, etc. Of course, a global and persistent sense of collective inefficacy in a school is likely to have various problematic side-effects, for both teachers and teaching. However, as with individual teacher efficacy, it is likely that a perception of collective inefficacy regarding specific aspects of teaching is often beneficial, as long as teachers feel that they can improve their efficacy. Identifying specific efficacy doubts that are shared across many teachers may provide an obvious focus for staff discussion and learning. Imagine a group of teachers in a supportive school saying ‘‘You know, it sounds like none of us believe that we are as effective as we want to be in managing our classes. I’m sure that we could get better at classroom management if we worked together on it’’. While further research is clearly

needed, the conclusion that specific collective efficacy doubts can lead to professional development among teachers has some empirical support. For example, recall Friedman’s finding cited earlier, that growth within the teaching team followed times when ‘‘they expressed a deep sense of uncertainty about whether they were doing the right thing’’ (1997, p. 346). Of course, the same moderating factors that apply to individual teacher’s efficacy doubts will also influence whether or not teachers benefit from shared efficacy doubts. As with individual teacher efficacy, a teaching staff’s collective efficacy doubts regarding specific aspects of teaching (e.g., assessing mathematical understanding) will often be undetectable using global measures of collective teacher efficacy. However, school administrators can discern specific efficacy doubts shared by many or most teachers at a school through formal questionnaires or informal conversations. 3.2. Summary and conclusions Having noted that past research has favored teacher efficacy confidence and treated teacher efficacy doubts as problematic, this article identified potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. While global doubt regarding one’s teacher efficacy is often less desirable than global teacher confidence, and specific efficacy doubts may often be problematic for teachers and teaching, specific teacher efficacy doubts can have various benefits for educational reform. In brief, teacher efficacy doubts may aid reform by fostering teacher learning in many ways: inducing disequilibrium and change, fostering teacher reflection, supporting motivation to learn and responsiveness to diversity, and promoting productive collaboration. Moreover, teacher efficacy doubts may reduce the tendency to revert to traditional teaching, guard against dogmatism within reform movements, steer teachers away from less-promising aspects of reforms, provide useful information to teacher educators and reformers, and help prevent teacher burnout. Similar school-wide benefits may result from the collective efficacy doubts of teachers in a school or

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

program, as long as these doubts are specific. For efficacy doubts to be beneficial, it is crucial that teachers have some confidence that they can learn how to be more effective at some time in the future (i.e., they have confidence in their learning efficacy). Several other factors moderate the influence of teachers’ efficacy doubts on teacher learning and teaching, including teachers’ confidence in students’ ability to learn, teachers’ goal orientation (i.e., learning-oriented vs. performance-oriented), and their view of the teacher role (e.g., all-knowing expert vs. learner). Other moderating factors include teachers’ attitudes towards the subject matter or teaching methods for which they doubt their efficacy, and the receptiveness of the school culture to teachers’ efficacy doubts. However, there is much that is not known about the conditions under which teacher efficacy doubts will be beneficial for teachers and their teaching. These conclusions complement past research (Wheatley, 2000) in further undermining the typical assumption in the teacher efficacy literature that efficacy doubts are inherently problematic and that strong teacher efficacy confidence is the ideal. The conclusions presented here contrast with the typical view of teacher efficacy in part because this analysis focused primarily on specific teacher efficacy beliefs, while global teacher efficacy is the usual focus. Some of the limitations that global and numerical teacher efficacy measures have for aiding reform were highlighted. In the final analysis, both teacher efficacy confidence and teacher efficacy doubts are needed for successful reform and for progressive, meaning-centered teaching. 3.3. Issues for teacher education and evaluation The foregoing points challenge existing and planned practices in teacher education. For example, they raise questions about the suggestion of many scholars that teacher education programs should focus on developing teacher efficacy (Ashton, 1984; Fritz, Miller-Heyl, Kreutzer, & MacPhee, 1995; Housego, 1992; Ramey-Gassert, Shroyer, & Staver, 1996; Ross, 1998; Scharmann & Hampton, 1995). If positive teacher efficacy can be

17

problematic (Wheatley, 2000), and teachers’ efficacy doubts can be beneficial, it is not clear what kinds of teacher efficacy beliefs teacher educators should aim to develop. Thus, the conclusions presented here also challenge the practice of viewing teacher gains on traditional teacher efficacy measures as positive and unambiguous evidence regarding the effectiveness of teacher education courses or programs (e.g., Guyton, Fox, & Sisk, 1991; Newman, 1999; Price & Cook, 1999; Roberts, Henson, Tharp, & Moreno, 2000; Xiaoping & Zhang, 2000). Given the need to make prospective teachers more aware of the uncertainties of teaching, (Floden & Clark, 1988), the task of teacher educators is often to decrease the efficacy beliefs of prospective and practicing teachers, at least initially, or periodically. Thus, numerical declines in teacher efficacy during a teacher education program are not always a cause for concern, as they have often been viewed (e.g., Housego, 1992). Without knowing the meaning of declines in efficacy beliefs, for the individual teachers involved, such results are impossible to interpret. The points raised here also challenge suggestions that administrators use teacher efficacy questions for interviewing teachers and making hiring decisions (e.g., Weasmer & Woods, 1998). A similar issue exists in teacher licensure. That is, the Praxis III teacher assessment system, in which teacher efficacy is one criterion for teacher licensure decisions (Dwyer, 1994), has either been adopted or considered for adoption in several states within the United States. Given that these concerns about teacher efficacy are just now being raised, there is reason to doubt the ability of administrators and teacher evaluators to reliably distinguish between beneficial and problematic types of teacher efficacy confidence or doubt. 3.4. Significance The analysis of teacher efficacy doubts presented here is significant for three reasons. First, it challenges the existing assumption that teachers’ doubts about their efficacy are inherently problematic for educational improvement and reform. This is a critical contribution given that the teacher

18

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

educators and policymakers who are planning or attempting to apply teacher efficacy research have focused on enhancing teacher efficacy confidence and decreasing teacher efficacy doubts. Second, this analysis relates teacher efficacy beliefs to the processes of teacher learning that are absolutely essential for successful reform. Finally, this analysis highlights some of the ways in which specific teacher efficacy doubts are actually an integral part of progressive, meaning-centered teaching. In each of these three ways, this analysis moves us one step closer to understanding how teachers’ efficacy beliefs might be used as a tool to support progressive, meaning-centered teacher education and educational reform.

4. Implications 4.1. Research implications There are several implications of this analysis for reform-minded teacher efficacy researchers. Research is needed to explore the effects of teacher efficacy doubts on teacher development and reform in particular teaching contexts. Especially needed is examination of when such doubts are debilitating, and when they are energizing. Much of this research should focus on teachers’ interpretations of efficacy, not merely self-reported numerical confidence levels. Extending teacher efficacy research to the study of teachers’ interpretations also responds to the observation that teacher efficacy may go beyond those things measured by teacher efficacy scales (e.g., Guskey & Passaro, 1994). Furthermore, an emphasis on interpretations is consistent with the position that meanings are the proper emphasis of psychological research (e.g., Bruner, 1990), because meanings are what influences and motivates human action (Erickson, 1986). More concretely, studying interpretations is necessary because different meanings of efficacy doubts will often influence teachers and teaching in quite different ways, as noted in the earlier discussion of positive versus negative effects of teacher efficacy doubts. This research should be grounded in the day-to-day realities of teaching, in order to identify how teacher efficacy confidence

and doubt may work together, over time, to foster teacher development. Such research would benefit from the combined efforts of those who consider themselves teacher efficacy researchers and those who study the same teacher beliefs, but using different terminology and methods. 4.2. Implications for teacher education First, because this analysis concludes that efficacy doubts are crucial for reform-oriented teaching, it suggests that teacher educators need to learn to prepare teachers to cope with efficacy doubts. Such doubts can be unsettling and disruptive, if not handled properly. Helping prospective teachers understand the nature of efficacy uncertainty is the first step in coping (Floden & Buchmann, 1993), and this involves, in part, learning that efficacy doubts are ubiquitous in teaching. Also, prospective teachers may benefit from confronting more, not fewer, challenges to their efficacy beliefs. Further learning can sometimes reduce the resulting teacher efficacy doubts slightly, although some efficacy doubts are inevitable, and further learning will not always reduce these doubts. As Floden and Buchmann noted ‘‘In a sense, the better one’s education, the greater and more varied are one’s uncertainties’’ (1993, p. 376). Teachers can be helped to cope with their doubts by helping them learn skills for talking about those doubts with audiences that may be initially unsympathetic (Floden & Clark, 1988), including other teachers. Also, having experience persisting and succeedingFin the face of and aided by these doubtsFmay help prospective teachers move towards viewing doubts as a manageable opportunity for growth, much as Dudley-Marling (1995) reported. However, there is a great deal yet to be learned about fostering such coping responses to teacher efficacy doubts, and teacher educators will play an important role in that learning process. Second, if efficacy doubts are to foster teacher learning and reform, teacher educators may need to honestly share their own efficacy doubts with their classes. Thus, based on a return to elementary teaching after 10 years as a teacher educator, Winograd (1998) noted teacher educators’ tendency towards too-great certainty. He suggested

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

weaving greater uncertainty into teacher education: ‘‘Much of what we tell and show students should be punctuated with tentativeness, caveats, and clear invitations to challenge the theories and assumptions of teacher educators’’ (p. 304). Such an approach may help teachers and prospective teachers become more comfortable with efficacy doubts. This in turn may allow them to use those doubts as a mental tool to help them improve their actual teaching effectiveness. Finally, since teacher efficacy doubts are often beneficial, teacher educators need to continue to study ways to make schools ‘‘safe for uncertainty’’ (Friedman, 1997). While a school-wide ethic of caring seems to help create this safety (Gabella, 1995), too little is known about how to help students, teachers, administrators, parents, and others accept these doubts regarding teaching and learning. 4.3. Policy implications Policymakers should begin by recognizing that uncertainty and doubt are inherent in education, and that education policy often ignores or subverts beneficial doubts. As McDonald (1986, p. 362) noted, ‘‘What if theorists recognized that intimate knowledge of this uncertainty was exactly what was missing from both their theories and the policies these theories provoke?’’ Next, policymakers need to consider changing any policies based on the assumption that positive global efficacy is the goal at all points in the reform process, as well as those policies designed to use global teacher efficacy as a policy lever. In general, policymakers and other reformers need to be cautious about applications of teacher efficacy research, and need to wait for researchers to identify the types of teacher efficacy confidence and doubt that will aid reform in specific contexts. At that point, policymakers might try creating policies that support, or at least do not subvert, these beneficial teacher efficacy doubts. In conclusion, those favoring progressive, meaning-centered reforms may feel confident that teachers’ efficacy doubts will often aid these reforms. However, there is reason to doubt our existing knowledge of when and how such doubts are beneficial or problematic. This doubt should

19

help motivate research that will help educators, researchers, and reformers develop a deeper and more usable understanding of the complex relationships between teachers’ efficacy beliefs and educational reform.

References Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 86–95. Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 28–32. Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1–45). New York: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press. Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational changeFactors affecting implementation and continuation (Vol. 7). Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation. Beyer, L. E. (1992). The personal and the social in education. In E. W. Ross, J. W. Cornett, & G. McCutcheon (Eds.), Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research (pp. 239–255). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Boulden, K., Hiester, K., & Walti, B. (1998). Guidance. In E. A. Tertell, S. M. Klein, & J. L. Jewett (Eds.), When teachers reflect: Journeys toward effective, inclusive practice (pp. 37–68). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Brodkey, J. J. (1993). Learning while teaching: Possibilities and problems. Teacher Education Quarterly, 20(1), 63–70. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Callas, S., Mellinger, J. B., & Taylor, M. K. (1998). Play. In E. A. Tertell, S. M. Klein, & J. L. Jewett (Eds.), When teachers reflect: Journeys toward effective, inclusive practice (pp. 37–68). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

20

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

Clarke, A. (1995). Professional development in practicum settings: Reflective practice under scrutiny. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(3), 243–261. Cochran, P. S., & Masterson, J. J. (1995). Not using a computer in language assessment/intervention: In defense of the reluctant clinician. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 26(3), 213–222. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331–338. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 323–337. Collier, S. T. (1999). Characteristics of reflective thought during the student teaching experience. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(3), 173–181. DeMesquita, P. B., & Drake, J. C. (1994). Educational reform and the self-efficacy beliefs of teachers implementing nongraded primary school programs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(3), 291–302. Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty. New York: Minton Balch. Dudley-Marling, C. (1995). Uncertainty and the whole language teacher. Language Arts, 72(4), 252–257. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. Dwyer, C. A. (1994). Development of the knowledge base for the praxis III: Classroom performance assessments assessment criteria. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Edwards, T. G. (1996). Implications of a model for conceptualizing change in mathematics teachers’ instructional practices. Action in Teacher Education, 18(2), 19–30. Enochs, L. G., Riggs, I. M., & Ellis, J. D. (1993). The development and partial validation of microcomputer utilization in teaching efficacy beliefs instrument in a science setting. School Science and Mathematics, 93(5), 257–261. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan. Etchberger, M. L., & Shaw, K. L. (1992). Teacher change as a progression of transitional images: A chronology of a developing constructivist teacher. School Science and Mathematics, 92(8), 411–417. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Floden, R. E., & Buchmann, M. (1993). Between routines and anarchy: Preparing teachers for uncertainty. Oxford Review of Education, 19(3), 373–382. Floden, R. E., & Clark, C. M. (1988). Preparing teachers for uncertainty. Teachers College Record, 89(4), 505–534. Freedman, S., Jackson, J., & Boles, K. (1982). The effects of the institutional structure of schools on teachers. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 234 047. Friedman, V. J. (1997). Making schools safe for uncertainty: Teams, teaching, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 99(2), 335–370.

Fritz, J. J., Miller-Heyl, J., Kreutzer, J. C., & MacPhee, D. (1995). Fostering personal teaching efficacy through staff development and classroom activities. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(4), 200–208. Fullan, M. G., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744–752. Gabella, M. S. (1995). Unlearning certainty: Toward a culture of student inquiry. Theory into Practice, 34(4), 236–242. Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes towards the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(4), 451–458. Glickman, C. G., & Tamashiro, R. T. (1982). A comparison of first-year, fifth-year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem solving. Psychology in the Schools, 19(4), 558–562. Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 807–818. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507. Grundy, S. (1992). Beyond guaranteed outcomes: Creating a discourse for educational praxis. Australian Journal of Education, 36(2), 157–169. Guskey, T. R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 245–259. Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 627–643. Guyton, E., Fox, M. C., & Sisk, K. A. (1991). Comparison of teaching attitudes, teacher efficacy, and teacher performance of first year teachers prepared by alternative and traditional teacher education programs. Action in Teacher Education, 13(2), 1–9. Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. New York: Oxford University Press. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press. Hill, L. (1997). Just tell us the rules: Learning to teach elementary mathematics. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(3), 211–221. Housego, B. (1992). Monitoring student teachers’ feelings of preparedness to teach and teacher efficacy in a new elementary teacher education program. Journal of Education for Teaching, 18(3), 259–272. Hoyle, J. R. (1994). Can a principal run the show and be a democratic leader? NASSP Bulletin, 78(558), 33–39. Jones, E., & Nimmo, J. (1999). Collaboration, conflict, and change: Thoughts on education as provocation. Young Children, 54(1), 5–10.

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22 Kagan, J. (1972). Motives and development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 414–419. Lampert, M. (1999). Knowing teaching from the inside out: implications of inquiry in practice for teacher education. In G. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers (pp. 167–184). Chicago, IL: The National Society for the Study of Education. Lange, J. D., & Burroughs-Lange, S. G. (1994). Professional uncertainty and professional growth: A case study of experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(6), 617–631. Lawson, D. (1997). From caterpillar to butterfly: A mathematics teacher’s struggle to grow professionally. Teaching Children Mathematics, 4(3), 140–143. Leyden, M. (Ed.). (1985). Early adolescence: The great string drop. Science and Children, 22(4), 116–118. Lindley, D. (1994). Foundations. In G. Wright, & P. Ayton (Eds.), Subjective probability (pp. 3–15). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Martens, M. L. (1992). Inhibitors to implementing a problemsolving approach to teaching elementary science: Case study of a teacher in change. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 150–156. McDonald, J. (1991). A messy business: Experience allows teachers to cope with uncertainty, not eliminate it. Teacher Magazine, 3(3), 54–55. McDonald, J. P. (1986). Raising the teacher’s voice and the ironic role of theory. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 355–378. McLaughlin, M. W. (1991). Enabling professional development: What have we learned? In A. Lieberman, & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in the ‘90s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (pp. 61–82). New York: Teachers College Press. Meier, D. (1995). How our schools could be. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(5), 369–373. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). The professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Newman, E. J. (1999). In the trenches: Increasing competency of teachers-in-training by having them conduct individualized interventions. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26(1), 36–41. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in schools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on selfefficacy. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 149–176). New York: Cambridge University Press. Pape, S. (1992). Personal theorizing of an intern teacher. In E. W. Ross, J. W. Cornett, & G. McCutcheon (Eds.), Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research (pp. 67–82). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

21

Peirce, C. (1958). Charles Sanders Peirce: Selected writings. P. Weiner (Ed.). New York: Dover. Peterson, P. L., McCarthey, S. J., & Elmore, R. F. (1996). Learning from school restructuring. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 119–153. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall. Popham, W. J. (1995). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Pourdavood, R., & Fleener, J. (1997). Evolution of a dialogic community and teacher change. The School Community Journal, 7(1), 51–61. Powell, R. (1997). Then the beauty emerges: A longitudinal case study of culturally relevant teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(5), 467–484. Price, J. R., & Cook, P. A. (1999). Pre-service teachers’ explanations of student achievement and the development of teacher efficacy: A pilot study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Ramey-Gassert, L., & Shroyer, M. G. (1992). Enhancing science teaching self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 4(1), 26–34. Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M. G., & Staver, J. R. (1996). A qualitative study of the factors influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Science Education, 80(3), 283–315. Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150–167. Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an efficacy beliefs instrument for elementary teachers. Science Education, 74(6), 625–637. Riley, K. (2000). Leadership, learning, and systemic reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(1), 29–55. Roberts, J. K., Henson, R. K., Tharp, B. Z., & Moreno, N. (2000). An examination of the change in teacher beliefs in science education based on duration of inservice activities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Dallas, TX. Ross, J. A. (1994). The impact of an inservice to promote cooperative learning on the stability of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 381–394. Ross, J. (1995). Strategies for enhancing teachers’ beliefs in their effectiveness: Research on a school improvement hypothesis. Teachers College Record, 97(2), 227–250. Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy, Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 7 (pp. 49–73). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 385–400. Roth, W-M. (1993). Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and interpretive research in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 669–680.

22

K.F. Wheatley / Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) 5–22

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28. Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Saye, J. (1997). Technology and educational empowerment: Students’ perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 5–25. Scharmann, L. C., & Hampton, C. M. O. (1995). Cooperative learning and preservice elementary teacher science selfefficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(3), 125–133. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic settings. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational implications (pp. 75–99). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sederberg, C. H., & Clark, S. M. (1990). Motivational and organizational incentives for high-vitality teachers: A qualitative perspective. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 24(1), 6–13. Seixas, P., & Brandes, G. M. (1997). A workshop in uncertainty: ‘‘New scholarship in the humanities and social sciences’’ as a basis for professional and curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 13(1), 56–69. Shaw, K. L., & Jakubowski, E. H. (1991). Teachers changing for changing times. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 13(4), 13–21. Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 549–570. Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 1–30. Smylie, M. A. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 9–11. Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 401–411. Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1997). Efficacy and experience: Perceptions of efficacy among preservice and practicing teachers. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 30(4), 214–221. Sorrentino, R. M., & Short, J. A. (1986). Uncertainty orientation, motivation, and cognition. In R. M. Sorrentino, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and

cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 379–403). New York: The Guilford Press. Stephens, D. (1987). Empowering learning: Research as practical theory. English Education, 19(4), 220–228. Tobin, K., & LaMaster, S. U. (1992). An interpretation of high school science teaching based on metaphors and beliefs for specific roles. In E. W. Ross, J. W. Cornett, & G. McCutcheon (Eds.), Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research (pp. 115–136). Albany NY: State University of New York Press. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–806. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. Villaume, S. K. (2000). The necessity of uncertainty: A case study of language arts reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 18–25. Wasserman, S. (1999). Shazam! You’re a teacher: Facing the illusory quest for certainty in classroom practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(6), 464–468. Weasmer, J., & Woods, A. M. (1998). I think I can: The role of personal teaching efficacy in bringing about change. Clearing House, 71(4), 245–247. Wheatley, K. F. (1997). The relationships between teachers’ efficacy beliefs and reform-oriented mathematics teaching: Three case studies. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1997. Dissertation Abstracts International, University Microfilms No. 9808174. Wheatley, K. F. (2000). Positive teacher efficacy as an obstacle to educational reform. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 34(1), 14–27. Wildy, H., & Wallace, J. (1994). Relearning to teach physics: In the midst of change. Research in Science and Technological Education, 12(1), 63–75. Winograd, K. (1998). Rethinking theory after practice: Education professor as elementary teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(4), 296–305. Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1991). Change in teaching mathematics: A case study. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 587–616. Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2), 137–148. Xiaoping, L., & Zhang, M. (2000, April). Effects of early field experiences on preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefsFA pilot study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.