Teachers' and principals' sense of efficacy in elementary schools

Teaching & Teacher Education, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 179 195, 1996

Pergamon

Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0742~)51X/96 $15.00 + 0.00

0742-051X(95)OOO53M

TEACHERS'

AND PRINCIPALS'

SENSE OF EFFICACY SCHOOLS

IN ELEMENTARY

J E R O E N G.M. I M A N T S and C O R N E L I S J. D E B R A B A N D E R Leiden University, The Netherlands

Abstract--In recent research on school improvement and effectiveness attention is paid to teachers' sense of efficacy. This research is focused on (a) teachers and (b) instructional tasks. Another restriction is that teachers' sense of efficacy is studied apart from the context in which it affects teacher behavior. This study introduces the Teachers' and Principals' Sense of Efficacy scale in pupil and school oriented tasks. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the context dependency of teachers' and principals' sense of efficacy. The central question is to what extent type of task and a staff member's position in the school organization are related to perceived self-efficacy. Besides, teachers' and principals' perceived school efficay is introduced as a context specific construct. In addition mediating effects of gender, work experience, and grade are analyzed. From the results it is concluded that the expansion of the sense of efficacy construct to principals as well as to school oriented tasks enhances its explanatory potential.

Sense o f efficacy is a central factor in motivational and learning processes that govern p e r f o r m a n c e on complex tasks. Sense o f efficacy refers to peoples' belief in their capability to organize and execute the activities required to achieve a certain level o f performance (Bandura, 1986; Wood, Bandura, & Bailey, 1990). Teachers' sense o f efficacy is defined usually as the extent to which teachers believe they can affect student learning ( A s h t o n & Webb, 1986; D e m b o & Gibson, 1985). In the past 15 years a n u m b e r o f varied empirical studies in. educational settings have p r o d u c e d results that underscore the importance o f sense o f efficacy to variables related to the quality o f education such as student achievement gains (Gibson & D e m b o , 1984; A s h t o n & Webb, 1986; Rosenholtz, 1989), implementation o f innovations (Berman & McLaughlin, 1977; Stein & Wang, 1988), attitude to innovations (Guskey, 1988), classroom m a n a g e m e n t behavior (Woolfolk, Rosoff, & H o y , 1990), and the tendency for teachers to

refer pupils to special education (Meijer & Foster, 1988). These studies have in c o m m o n that teachers' sense o f efficacy is studied apart from the context in which it develops and affects teacher behavior. As a consequence "teacher efficacy is conceived o f generally as relating to all the tasks o f teaching. Typically, it is not t h o u g h t to vary across different tyl~es o f tasks (i.e., domains o f performance) nor across variously difficult tasks o f the same type" (Smylie, 1990, p. 57). Following B a n d u r a (1986), it m a y be incorrect to extrapolate the positive level o f self-efficacy for one taskdimension to other dimensions o f work. Moreover it m a y be incorrect to exclude the class or school context as conditions that affect the difficulty o f task performance. F o r example, Raudenbush, R o w a n and C h e o n g (1991) demonstrated that differences in the characteristics o f classes taught by the same teacher affect high school teachers' sense o f efficacy. The aim o f our study is to demonstrate the context-specific character o f teachers' and principals' sense o f efficacy. 179

180

JEROEN G. M. IMANTS and CORNELIS J. DE BRABANDER

Generally, studies on teachers' sense of efficacy focus on sense of efficacy of teachers with respect to instructional tasks and situations. The sense of efficacy of the principal is left out of consideration, and school-oriented tasks are neglected. However, movements in education with some tradition, like the school effectiveness movement and the school improvement movement, focus on the important role that the principal can play in effectiveness of instruction and in the implementation of innovations (Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982; Purkey & Smith, 1983), notwithstanding that this role should not be understood as directly shaping learning outcomes (Firestone & Wilson, 1985; Miles & Ekholm, 1985; Murphy, 1988). Besides, recent trends like "restructuring" and "teacher empowerment" emphasize the importance of school oriented tasks to be executed by principals as well as by teachers, for example tasks regarding planning and evaluation of education at the school level (Murphy, 1992; Rosenholtz, 1989; Fullan, 1991). Collegiality in schools is emphasized as a positive condition for school effectiveness and improvement (Rosenholtz, 1989; Hargreaves & Dawe, 1990). Restructuring schools in a more effective direction requires that school-oriented tasks are performed by teachers (e.g. peer coaching) as well as by principals (e.g. instructional leadership tasks). For this reason both the principal's and the teacher's self-efficacy in school-oriented tasks is important. Furthermore, because the principal plays a central role in creating a positive and stimulating school climate (Rosenholtz, 1985), not only the teacher's but also the principal's self-efficacy in pupil-oriented tasks is important. Instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, etc., all require that principals and teachers are going to perform relatively new roles and tasks. Principals' as well as teachers' sense of efficacy can be assumed to be important factors in the effective learning and performance of these new roles and tasks (Van Greevenbroek, 1986; Imants & Vriens, 1989). We explore teachers' and principals' perceived school efficacy as a concept beside teachers' and principals' perceived self-efficacy. Perceived school efficacy involves school staff members' beliefs in their schools' capacity as a

context for efficacious task performance. Teachers' and principals' perceived school efficacy is related to Bandura's (1993) concept of collective school efficacy, although it should be stressed that these concepts are not identical. Perceived school efficacy differs from collective school efficacy because the former is conceived of as an individual characteristic and the latter as a school characteristic. In our study perceived self-efficacy and perceived school efficacy are central. The research question of this study is whether and how the type of task (pupil-/ school-oriented), a staff member's position in the school (teacher/principal), perceived selfefficacy and perceived school efficacy concurrently interact. Besides, the mediating effects of three person characteristics will be explored (gender, grade level, years of experience in education). In the next section insights in school improvement and school organization are discussed to demonstrate the relevance of the extension of the perceived self-efficacy construct to principals and to school oriented tasks. Subsequently, perceived school efficacy will be introduced in more detail. The empirical part of this study will focus on an exploration of teachers' and principals' perceived self-efficacy and school efficacy in primary schools by means of an instrument that measures teachers' and principals' sense of efficacy for pupil- and school-oriented tasks. This empirical part is preliminary and explorative in nature because it builds on a secondary analysis of data gathered to validate the Teachers' and Principals' Sense of Efficacy scale. Theoretical Framework

Perceived Self-efficacy and Perceived School Efficacy In the past years several authors have contributed to the clarification of the concept teachers' sense of efficacy (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990; Smylie, 1990; Bandura, 1993). Firstly, a distinction can be made between research that builds on Bandura (1977) concept of self-efficacy (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984), and research in which alternative interpretations of sense of efficacy are central. For example, in research of this latter

Sense of Efficacy category teachers' efficacy is associated with satisfaction (Lee, Dedrick & Smith, 1991), uncertainty caused by the unclear technology of teaching (Rosenholtz, 1989), perceived responsibily for student learning (Guskey, 1988) or with alienation (Newmann, Rutter & Smith, 1989). This "different and sometimes amorphous" (Smylie, 1990, p. 56) conceptualization of sense of efficacy is a complicating factor in the unequivocal interpretation of research results. In our research we start from Bandura's concept of self-efficacy. In research that builds on Bandura's work judgments of personal efficacy and judgments of outcome expectancy or result expectancy have been distinguished as two components in teachers' sense of efficacy. Personal efficacy is a judgment of one's capability to perform at a certain level, whereas outcome expectancy is a judgment of the likely consequences of such behavior (Bandura, 1977, 1986). In his recent work, Bandura (1993) exclusively focuses on perceived self-efficacy as a mediating factor in cognitive development and functioning. Outcome expectancy, on the other hand, is discussed as a cognitive motivator that, according to the expectancy-value theory, plays a role in motivational processes by which perceived self-efficacy exerts its influence. In the mainstream of teachers' efficacy research sense of efficacy is conceptualized as a two-dimensional construct, consisting of judgements of personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). Personal teaching efficay is strongly related to Bandura's concept of perceived selfefficacy (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Although most authors make a conceptual link between Bandura's concept of outcome expectancy and general teaching efficacy, this latter concept should be considered as an efficacy expectation and not as an outcome expectation (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). It involves the teacher's belief about the potential of teachers in general to perform effectively and to override the effects of adverse pupil background influences. General teaching efficacy is not clearly linked to Bandura's self-efficacy theory by these authors. Starting from Bandura's theory the conclusion is that teachers' perceived-self efficacy is the central concept. Concepts like

181

teachers' outcome expectancy o r general teaching efficacy, are related to teachers' perceived self-efficacy. Nevertheless, these concepts are not in the core of Bandura's selfefficacy theory, and they are not .included in our study. In our study we explore teachers' and principals perceived school efficacy as a concept beside teachers' and principals percewed selfefficacy. Perceived school efficacy is the belief of individual school staff members in their school's capacity as a context for efficacious task performance. Refering to the work of Weick (1976) on schools as loosely coupled systems, Fuller, Wood, Rapoport, and Dornbusch (1984) state that individual teachers can choose to remain isolated in the classroom where pursuit of perceived self-efficacy and valued outcomes is viewed as consistently rewarding. Although we strongly agree with this point of view (Imants & Bakkenes, 1993), we also want to stress that isolation will seldom or never be so complete that teachers' perception of the quality of their individual performances and their self-efficacy will stay unaffected by the school context. For example, the studies by Ashton and Webb (1986) and Newmann et al. (1989) suggest that school organization, particularty aspects that help teachers accomplish their tasks, may be related to teachers' sense of efficacy. More recently, research by Hoy and Wooifolk (1993) produced evidence that teachers' perceived self-efficacy was supported by school climate factors that help teachers manage and teach their students. In our view individual teachers and principals carry expectations about their schools as more or less favourable contexts for efficacious task performance. In this study teachers' and principals' perceived school efficacy is a concept beside perceived self-efficacy. Diverse Positions, Diverse Tasks

Research outside the educational field stresses the relationship between the cognitive characteristics of the leader and the effectiveness of the organization (Fiedler & Garcia, 1987). More specifically, Wood et a l. (1990) presented empirical evidence of the contribution of managers' self-efficacy to effective decision making in industrial settings. These

182

JEROEN G. M. IMANTS and CORNELIS J. DE BRABANDER

researchers found that perceived self-efficacy was positively related to effective use of analytic strategies for discovering optimal managerial rules and to level of personal goals. Both sense of efficacy and the use of analytic strategies contributed to managerial success in raising organizational performance. These findings suggest that principals' perceived self-efficacy might be an important factor in school effectiveness and school improvement. As a first step, research should be devoted to the development of an instrument for the measurement of principals' self-efficacy. For two reasons we decided to measure teachers' and principals' perceived self-efficacy in elementary schools in an identical way with one instrument. Firstly, we started our research from a non-bureaucratic point of view on school organization. The bureaucratic model of school organization emphasizes the hierarchical structure of the school. Building on this bureaucratic model, the professional-bureaucracy image of schools stresses the dual character of schools: a professional and a bureaucratic sphere of influence are distinguished in this image (Lortie, 1975; Mintzberg, 1979; Hanson, 1979; Hoy & Miskel, 1987; Owens, 1991). From this professional-bureaucracy image the conclusion could be derived that principals' and teachers' sense of efficacy are totally different concepts. In the non-bureaucratic view, however, the role of cultural and micro-political linkages between the professional and the bureaucratic spheres in the school is emphasized. Expectations on pupil learning possibilities and results within a specific school culture, whether they are high or low, are the result of interactions between teachers and the principal, and these expectations are not the exclusive result of the influence of one of these parties (see also the interactive character of the professional and bureaucratic spheres as described by Hanson, 1979). Apart from this non-bureaucratic view, it should be stressed that in Dutch elementary schools almost all the principals have a teaching duty, varying from 1 to 4days in a week. And on the other hand, apart from the informal communication between teachers or between teachers and the principal, almost all of the Dutch elementary schools have a weekly faculty meeting visited by all the teachers, in

which a broad range of educational and school items is discussed. We conclude that teachers' and principals' perceived self-efficacy are interrelated at a conceptual level and can be measured in an identical way. The diversity of tasks in educational settings is a second reason for broadening the perspective on self-efficacy in schools. The restriction in previous self-efficacy research to instructional tasks is a consequence of the focus on teacher efficacy. Including the principal, however, is only a minor reason for broadening the perspective of efficacy research to schooloriented tasks. The main reason for doing this is that school-oriented tasks are important in their own right, no matter who is performing them. Further support for expanding the efficacy concept to include school-oriented tasks is provided by Fuller, Wood, Rapoport and Dornbusch (1984). These authors make a distinction between performance efficacy and organizational efficacy. Performance efficacy closely resembles the current conceptualization of teachers' perceived self-efficacy. However, organizational efficacy refers to an organizational actor's feelings of efficacy in gaining valued outcomes by influencing another person at a different level of the organization, for example the self-efficacy experienced by a principal who influences teachers' instructional behavior, or the self-efficacy of a teacher who affects the principal's decisions in a preconceived direction. Three types of tasks are distinguished: 1. pupil-oriented tasks; in these tasks learner-teacher interaction is paramount, 2. school- or colleague-oriented tasks; in these tasks the improvement of the education provided by the school is paramount, 3. administrative and environment-oriented tasks; in these tasks the maintenance of the school is paramount. In this study attention is focussed on pupiloriented and school-oriented tasks, because these tasks are linked most directly to the instructional process and to educational leadership. It is important to note that the distinctions between teacher and principal on one hand and between pupil- and school-oriented tasks

Sense of Efficacy on the other are not identical: school-oriented tasks are not the exclusive domain of the principal, and pupil-oriented tasks are not the exclusive domain of the teacher. It should also be noted that the distinctions between perceived self-efficacy and perceived school efficacy on the one hand and between pupil and school oriented tasks on the other are not identical. Perceived self-efficacy is related to pupil oriented tasks as well as to school oriented tasks. The same relation applies to perceived school efficacy and pupil and school oriented tasks. Teachers' and principals' perceived selfefficacy for school oriented tasks is the extent to which they assess they can affect the professional behavior of colleagues and more generally the school as a context for student learning. Teachers' and principals' perceived school efficacy concerns their expectations about their school as more or less favourable context for efficacious task performance. Summarizing our argument thus far, we propose an extended definition of the self-efficacy of staff members in school organizations. Teachers' and principals' perceived self-efficacy is the extent to which they assess they can affect student learning and their school as a context for student learning and professional behavior of colleagues.

Mediating Factors The research question is how differences in positions and tasks affect the two components of sense of efficacy concurrently. Furthermore, it is likely that the effects of task and position are modified by several other person variables (Imants & De Brabander, 1991). Our data set contained three of such potential mediating variables: grade level, gender and work experience.

Grade level. Starting from the concept of ethic of care there is growing evidence for a negative relationship between grade level and learner-directedness (Nias, 1989; Hargreaves, 1990). Therefore, grade level (kindergarten/ elementary school) is relevant as a mediating variable. Gender. Gender is the second mediating variable that is relevant to our research problem. Outcomes of research outside the field of

183

education show that gender has a significant impact on the relationship between sense of efficacy and career preference or "dispreference" (Wheeler, 1983; Bandura, 1986). Women are extremely under-represented among school principals. It can be expected that gender influences the sense of efficacy of teachers and principals in different types of tasks.

Work experience. The third and last mediating variable is work experience. Dembo and Gibson (1985) suggest that personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy develop in different ways during teacher careers. These researchers found that preservice teachers with little confidence in their teaching skills had the highest general teaching efficacy scores of all teachers in their study. These general teaching efficacy scores decreased with experience. On the other hand, beginning teachers had higher personal teaching efficacy scores than the student teachers. These scores increased between 5 and 10years of experience, but then decreased with more time spent in the profession. Empirical research by Hoy and Woolfolk (1990) on the effects of practice teaching on socialization of student teachers shows that student teachers' sense of personal teaching efficacy improved as their sense of general teaching efficacy declined as a result of practice teaching. Nias' analysis of three types of professionality among teachers suggests the hypothesis that efficacy scores for schooloriented tasks modestly increase with experience. Not more than a modest increase should be expected because at least some of the teachers characterized by extended professionality will develop in their careers from teachers to principals, and only some of the remaining teachers will develop from restricted to bounded professionality. Method Based on the definition given above, the Teacher and Principal Sense of Efficacy scale (TPSEs) was developed. This instrument is intended for teachers as well as principals, and it measures perceived self-efficacy and perceievd school efficacy in pupil- and schooloriented tasks (Beintema & Van Greevenbroek, 1984; Van Greevenbroek, 1985). The psycho-

184

JEROEN G. M. IMANTS and CORNELIS J. DE BRABANDER

metric qualities of the TPSEs were tested in a preliminary study (Van Greevenbroek, 1986) and later in a survey study of 121 principals and 204 teachers (Imants & Vriens, 1988; Imants & Vriens, 1989). Both studies were devoted to instrument development. The results of the analyses that were carried out, however, raised questions concerning the simultaneous impact of type of task and position in the organization o f the school on self-efficacy and school efficacy. The sample of respondents in the latter study was of a sufficient magnitude to justify a secondary - - and therefore explorat i v e - analysis. The aim of this study was to explore the intricate interrelationships between perceived self-efficacy and school efficacy, type of task and position in the school hierarchy in relation to grade level, gender and work experience. Because of the explorative character of this study no final conclusions regarding the popultation of primary school teachers and principals are formulated. Sample

Data were gathered from a representative sample of 267 Dutch primary schools. These schools received three questionnaires: one questionnaire for the principal and two more questionnaires for two teachers interested in participating in the research project. The response rates for principals and teachers respectively were 45% (n=121) and 37% (n=204). Despite the modest respons rate these teachers and principals represent the population when characteristics like age, gender, SES pupils, etc, are taken into consideration (Imants & Vriens, 1989). Nevertheless, the respons rate is a second reason to stress the explorative nature of this study. Instrument

The Teacher and Principal Sense of Efficacy scale (TPSEs) consists of items pertaining to 16 tasks, eight pupil-oriented and 8 schooloriented (Appendix A). Specific managerial tasks were not included. Subjects were asked to judge on a 5 point scale with respect to each task these 2 statements (Table 3): I have sufficient capability to perform this task (perceived self-efficacy,P);

In our school this task can be performedsuccessfully (perceived schoolefficacy,R). Each subject thus responded to a total of 32 statements. A satisfactory reliability was found (Imants & Vriens, 1988) for both the P-scale and the R-scale (Cronbach's ~=0.85 and 0.86, respectively). The validity of the instrument was assessed by determining the relationship between the efficacy scores on the 16 tasks with scores on related variables on the same tasks. These related variables were judgments of the same tasks in the context of the teachers' and principals' work conditions: (1) how much they like or dislike the task; (2) the importance of the task; (3) the output of the task as compared to the effort required to perform the task. Although not identical, these judgments are strongly related to the concepts that underlie the practicality ethic of teacher as described by Doyle and Ponder (1977). As might be expected the three variables all correlated with perceived self-efficacy, but they could also be clearly distinguished from self-efficacy (r=0.33, 0.22, and 0.35). Mutually, the three variables correlated much stronger (r=0.58, 0.61, and 0.64). These findings are an indication of the discriminant validity of the TPSEs (Imants & Vriens, 1988). Person Variables

The central variable in this study is position in the hierarchy of the school organization (POS): principal (P) or teacher (T). Based on theoretical arguments and the opportunities presented by the available sample, additional variables were selected: gender (SEX), grade level (GRA) and work experience (EXP). Regarding grade level a distinction was made between kindergarten (K) and elementary school (E). In terms of work experience the subjects were asked to categorize themselves into 1 of 3 groups: less than 4years (L), 59years (M), and 10 or more years (H) of experience. Thus the experience variable was artificially trichotomized, because it was not considered an important variable in the original study. The distribution of these characteristics in the sample are presented in Table 1.

Sense of Efficacy

185

Table 1

Distribution of Characteristics of Staff Members in the Sample -4

Experience (years) Sex

Male

Kindergarten Teachers Principals Elementary school Teachers Principals

5 9

Female

Male

21

8

6

Analysis The analysis was designed to reveal the self-efficacy and school efficacy of principals and teachers for different types of tasks. In a first step the hypothesized three-dimensional structure of the TPSEs (perceived self-efficacy, perceived school efficacy and type of task) was verified by means of a principal components analysis (PCA). Next a variant of multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was applied to investigate the relation of sense of efficacy with the selected person variables. In this M A N O V A the component scores from the PCA rather than the original individual items were used as dependent variables. This approach avoids capitalization on individual items and was chosen, because we were interested in differences on underlying aspects of sense of efficacy. Differences between groups of staff members that were found, were thus differences within the structure of the relations among the 32 items. A comprehensive analysis of person variables would not be useful. A complete M A N O V A design would contain many empty cells. To some extent the accidental formation of the sample is responsible for this, because the data were gathered for a different purpose. More important however is the distribution of characteristics in the population. Male kindergarten teachers are virtually nonexistent, female principals form an extremely small minority, and principals tend to have a substantial amount of experience. Because work experience was already trichotomized in the questionnaire it could

20 9

10

Female

Male

Female

14 6

3

20 6

58 93

28 3

25

not be used as a continuous variable. Between the realities of the population and the characteristics of the available sample on one hand and the theoretical demands on the other we struck an optimal balance by designing three separate, partial analyses, each of which represents a meaningful comparison between all or certain levels of the independent variables. The first analysis examines the effect of gender and level of experience. Only the elementary school teachers were selected (the cells with underscored frequencies in table 1): principals and kindergarten teachers were left out. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the existence of systematic efficacy differences among teachers with respect to different types of tasks so as to demonstrate the relative independence of type of task and position. This comparison has furthermore a special meaning because it involves the standard group in teacher efficacy research. The second analysis focussed on position in the school hierarchy in relation to experience and gender. To that end the female kindergarten staff and the male elementary school staff with medium and high levels of work experience were selected (bold cell frequencies in Table 1). By this design, however, the factors gender and school level were lumped together. The last analysis was a comparison of levels of work experience and school levels. Here only the female teachers were involved (the italicized frequencies in Table 1). Only two groups did not play a role in any analysis: a group of three male principals at the kindergarten level, and a group of 3

186

JEROEN G. M. IMANTS and CORNELIS J. DE BRABANDER

female elementary school principals, both with 10 or more years of experience. None of the analyses designed contained empty cells. However, the analysis factors were of course still contaminated. By combining the results of different analyses and displaying them in one spacial representation of the principal components, it was possible to give a fairly complete account of the relation between characteristics of staff members and their sense of efficacy. For the principal components analysis the SPSS procedure P R I N C A L S (Girl, 1981) was used. P R I N C A L S is a p r o g r a m for principal components analysis of categorical data. The data were treated as ordinal data. The multivariate analysis of variance of the principal component scores was conducted using the G L M procedure in the SAS package. Statistical tests were based on unique effects (represented by the so-called Type III sums of squares).

Results

Principal Components The solution in three dimensions from the P R I N C A L S analysis has eigenvalues of respectively 0.236, 0.122 and 0.078, summing up to a total fit of 0.437. The eigenvalue of the third dimension is small, but acceptable. 1 The component loadings are presented in Table 2. The structure of the relations between the 32 items are concisely summarized in Figure 1. The first dimension in this three-dimensional box (dl) is positioned between back and front, the second dimension (d2) between left and right and the vertical scale depicts the third dimension (d3). This picture should be read as normal picture of component loadings from any standard principal components analysis. Every item is displayed by a vector between the origin of the three-dimensional space and a point that is defined by using the component loadings of the item as coordinates. When vectors have similar directions in the threedimensional space, the items they represent

Table 2

Component Loadings from a Principal Components Analysis of 32 Efficacy Scales

P01 P02 p03 P04 P05 P06 P07 P08 P09 PlO ell P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 R01 R02 R03 R04 R05

-0.336 -0.491 -0.377 -0.464 -0.310 -0.439 -0.561 -0.496 -0.578 -0.359 -0.587 -0.422 -0.484 -0.482 -0.569 -0.573 -0.369 -0.481 -0.521 -0.453 -0.353

0.110 0.212 0.022 0.348 0.510 0.447 0.198 0.135 0.218 0.491 0.516 0.461 0.318 0.310 -0.422 -0.253 -0.297 -0.339 -0.232

R06 R07 R08 R09 R 10 Rll R12 R13 RI4 R15 R16

-0.481 -0.545 -0.511 -0.442 -0.440 -0.514 -0.564 -0.582 -0.607 -0.556 -0.376

-0.348 -0.266 -0.387 -0.377 -0.424 -0.471 -0.156 -0.185 -0.217 -0.422 -0.407

0.290 0.579

-0.337 -0.269 0.114 -0.019 -0.573 -0.121 0.097 0.055 -0.420 -0.474 -0.301 0.413 0.402 0.305 -0.259 -0.262 -0.093 0.107 0.243 0.089 -0.403 0.015 0.284 0.152 -0.118 -0.163 0.020 0.381 0.447 0.348 -0.137 -0.125

were judged similarly. The length of a vector indicates to what extent the variance of the corresponding item is shared with the other items. All items have a negative loading on the first dimension. In the figure this is visualized by the projection of all 32 items on the side plane at the right, which in fact is a two-dimensional plot of dimension 1 and 3. The first dimension thus represents the overall similarity of the 32 items. The second dimension describes the difference between personal sense of efficacy and result or outcome expectancy. All vectors labeled "p" (perceived self-efficacy) project on the positive side of the second dimension, whereas all vectors labeled "r" (perceived

IEigenvalues reported by P R I N C A L S indicate the proportion of variance explained by each component. W h e n no missing values are present, these proportions are exact.

Sense of Efficacy

187

All

Ill

0.4

$,

• .gS S.

li. I1.

. !i

S.

li.

6.

.li "$ • B

0.0

'jp

-0.4

me

lp

. .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

]- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

'

:~ . . . . . . . . . . .

\

.-~.w ,-~.m

[32

Figure 1. Three-dimensional PRINCALS solution for the 32 efficacy items.

school efficacy) project on the negative side of the second dimension. The position on the second dimension thus indicates to what extent an individual's sense of efficacy is based on perceived self-efficacy or on perceived school efficacy. From the angle between the two bundles it can be seen that these directions are quite independent. Therefore, the two bundles of vectors, perceived self-efficacy and perceived school efficacy, are interpreted as two independent factors. The position on the first dimen-

sion is in that case the resultant of the position on each of both factors. On the back plane of the box in Figure 1 the component loadings are projected once more, this time as points labeled with the type of task represented by each vector, An "s" stands for school-oriented task, an "1" for pupil- or learner-oriented task. This "picture in the picture" is a two-dimensional plot .of the component loadings on dimensions 2 and 3. The interpretation o f the third dimension is

188

JEROEN G. M. IMANTS and CORNELIS J. DE BRABANDER

straightforward and places its status beyond any doubt: within each bundle of vectors all school-oriented tasks except one have a higher projection on the third dimension than the pupil-oriented tasks. The third dimension indicates the extent to which a person derives his sense of efficacy from pupil- or school-oriented tasks.

Sense of Efficacy and Person Variables The results of the analyses of the relationship between sense of efficacy and individual characteristics are presented in a somewhat unusual format. To meet the needs of replication the integral procedures are presented in Appendix 2. In this section the significant results of the MANOVA's are discussed (see: Table 4 in Appendix 2; p < 0.05). These results are illustrated with some figures of the principal component space. In these figures the structure of the efficacy items is reproduced. To reduce the information load the four bundles of vectors are replaced by four single vectors that represent the medians of the bundles. Each figure shows the average position of two or more groups of individuals that are compared according to their perceived self-efficacy and school efficacy scores, for example male and female elementary school teachers in Figure 2. In the first analysis of only the elementary school teachers (analysis 1, Table 4) we find a significant main effect for SEX and EXP. From Figure 2 it can be seen that the difference between male (M) and female (F) teachers is a matter of efficacy expectation (self-efficacy vs school efficacy) and type of task (schooloriented versus pupil-oriented). Male teachers show relatively high self-efficacy scores for pupil-oriented tasks and for school-oriented tasks. Female teachers show relatively high school efficacy scores and attend almost exclusively to pupil-oriented tasks. This does not mean that women are characterized by low perceived self-efficacy for all tasks. The pvectors of pupil-oriented tasks are to a certain extent associated with the type of task dimension. The low position in the three-dimensional space of female teachers indicates a positive judgement of one's capacity to perform pupiloriented tasks.

O~

0.4

0.0

0,4

D•

D,4D

D2 Figure 2. Centroid of Male and Female elementary school teachers in the PRINCALS structure.

The EXP effect can be interpreted in terms of percei,md school efficacy and type of task (Figure 3). The medium experience (M) and high experience (H) groups show a diminished school efficacy compared to the low experience (L) group, whereas the M group is distinguished from the other two by a strong orientation on school directed tasks. If we interpret these differences developmentally, the analysis thus suggest a curvilinear relation between experience and both school efficacy and task type. Between low and intermediate levels of experience teachers tend to loose their positive image of the capacity of'the school and at the same time get school-oriented tasks in focus. With additional experience teachers return to pupil-oriented tasks and their perceived school efficacy changes slightly towards higher school efficacy. In the second analysis (analysis 2, Table 4) SEX and G R A were completely confounded: female kindergarten staff members were compared to male elementary school staff. Teachers with less than 5years of experience were excluded from the analysis. There are three effects to be discussed: SEX, POS and EXP*SEX. The SEX difference is comparable to the results of the first analysis (compare Figure 2). The two SEX groups are however

Sense of Efficacy

189

a high level of experience on the other hand shows an increase in perceived self-efficacy and school efficacy. All female teachers were involved in the last analysis (analysis 3, Table 4). None of the terms in the model reach statistical significance.

U

g.M A

Conclusions

M

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ................... ~ ................... ~ ..................

02

Figure 3. Centroid of elementary school teachers with Low, Medium, and High levels of work experience in the PRINCALS structure.

more apart on both the second and the third dimension. The differences between the two analyses were induced by the principals, who were predominantly male, and kindergarten staff members, who were predominantly female (cf. Table 2). An EXP effect is absent, perhaps because the lowest level of experience had to be excluded from this analysis. The POS effect is as expected. The difference between teachers (T) and principals (P) almost parallels the type of task dimension (Figure 4). At the same time, however, principals seem to maintain a slightly higher level of perceived selfefficacy. The third effect is an interaction between SEX (= GRA) and EXP. Of course this interaction concerns only the medium and high level of experience. The SEX*EXP effect consists in a reversal of effects. A medium level of experience implies for the male staff a high level of perceived self-efficacy, especially in school-oriented tasks. Male staff with at least 10years of experience perceive less selfefficacy. For female staff members a medium level of experience is associated with a low level of perceived self-efficacy especially on school-oriented tasks. The female group with

The results of this study are a persuasive demonstration of the theoretical and practical relevance of our conceptualization of the efficacy construct. This conclusion applies both to the proposed definitions of perceived selfefficacy and perceived school efficacy and to their operationalization in the Teacher and Principal Sense of Efficacy scale (TPSEs). However, the explorative nature of this study prohibits definite statements about the specifics of teachers' and principals' self-efficacy in school- and pupil-oriented tasks. Moreover, the cross-sectional nature of the study makes assertions about developmental changes speculative. The conclusion, drawn from earlier analyses (Imants & Vriens, 1989), that principals in general attend more to school-oriented tasks and teachers attend more to pupil-oriented

o.I

It4 TIB A

o.0 ----------.

. ..;., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

_.. t

,_L

lID

.~

"...

:..,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~ .................

2.

&

.

D2 Figure 4. Centroid of Teachers and Principals among the female kindergarten and the male elementary school staff in, the PRINCALS structure.

190

JEROEN G. M. IMANTS and CORNELIS J. DE BRABANDER

tasks, can now be refined. The analyses performed in this study show that type of task and position in the school hierarchy are relatively independent. Not only between but also within the group of principals and the group of teachers we found systematic differences in the extent to which self-efficacy and school efficacy are derived from school-oriented as opposed to pupil-0riented tasks. These differences are related to gender, grade level and experience. In general, female staff members showed relatively high scores for school efficacy and for pupil-oriented tasks. In comparison, male staff members showed relatively high scores for self-efficacy and for school-oriented tasks. However, a certain amount of experience seems to be required before these differences become clearly visible. From the main effect for experience it can be derived that the position of male staff members in the beginning of their career was almost identical with that their female counterparts: high school efficacy with exclusive attention on learner-oriented tasks. With growing experience, school efficacy diminished. The analyses show signs that lead us to suspect a different development of self-efficacy in the careers of men and women. The difference between kindergarten and elementary school staff was by and large comparable to the difference between women and men, because kindergarten staff is almost exclusively female. The elementary school staff has a mixed composition and demonstrated correspondingly a greater variation in all efficacy aspects. In the discussion we will elaborate further on these points. An analysis of the relation between perceived self-efficacy and perceived school efficacy was not explicitly intended in the current study. The results support their relative independence. Men and women used the two concepts differently. In addition, school efficacy "reacted" differently to experience as compared to selfefficacy. Discussion

The Context of Perceived Self-Efficacy Bandura (1977, 1986) claims that perceived self-efficacy should not be seen as a stable

personality trait, but as a context dependent characteristic. The results of the analyses support a substantial measure of context dependency of self-efficacy. In the first place it is clear that self-efficacy varies depending on the specific task at hand. Secondly, we have shown that position in the school hierarchy and gender influence self-efficacy. Thirdly, selfefficacy qualitatively and quantitatively changes presumably under influence of experience. And last, gender and experience seem to be related to the relative weight that teachers and principals attach to perceived self-efficacy and perceived school efficacy. In this study perceived school efficacy is conceptualized as an expectation about the context of the school. The relevance of the distinction between perceived self-efficacy and perceived school efficacy is demonstrated by a study on teachers' sicknes absence in primary schools (Imants & Van Zoelen, 1995). This study showed that at the school level teachers' sickness absence was related to school climate factors like directivity of the principal. At the level of individual teachers perceived self-efficacy was not related to teachers' sickness absence. Perceived school efficacy, on the other hand, was strongly related to teachers' sickness absence. An explanation for this finding might be that a positive belief in the school as a context for teaching and collaborating with colleagues discourages teachers from absenteeism behavior in situations where no clear medical grounds for sickness absence are present. This context dependency of perceived selfefficacy has several implications. For instance, treating self-efficacy as a global and stable personality trait necessarily leads to simplifications and unjustified conclusions. Statements about self-efficacy without reference to specific tasks and to individual and contextual characteristics are loosing much of their significance. The context dependency of self-efficacy has methodological and substantial implications for future research as well. It needs no explanation that the composition of samples of respondents should be tuned carefully to the research question. Moreover, in current research the self-efficacy of teachers is usually related to effect measures and other quality criteria. Judged from the results obtained in

Sense of Efficacy

these studies there is every reason to continue this line of research. The results of our analyses suggest, however, that it makes sense to investigate self-efficacy as a dependent variable, for example related to aspects of school climate (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). In the next section the importance of such an approach will be illustrated in a discussion of the association between work experience and self-efficacy.

Career effects The results of our analysis of the effect of work experience on self-efficacy is not in line with the conclusions of Dembo and Gibson (1985), because in our data we did not find an overall increase in perceived self-efficacy. This outcome is meaningful because it is obtained from a comparable group of respondents (elementary school teachers), though Dembo and Gibson used a broader definition of the experience variable (student teachers were included as well). An explanation for the absence in our data of an increase in selfefficacy at the middle level of experience is not immediately available. However, the factors gender and type of task might contribute to a hypothetical explanation. Dividing the experience groups into different gender groups shows differences which suggest that the expected increase of self-efficacy is indeed present, but only in the male group, and is accompanied by a shift toward schooloriented tasks. In the female group on the contrary, we find a decreased self-efficacy, especially in school-oriented tasks. It seems that the relation between self-efficacy and experience takes an opposite course for men and women and can only be described adequately, when the distinction between pupil-oriented and school-oriented tasks is taken into account. The opposite position of men and women in the group of teachers with intermediate experience suggests that the teaching career is construed differently by men and women. Related to the differences found between male and female teachers is the difference between female kindergarten principals and male elementary school principals. The female principals had a stronger bond with pupil-oriented tasks and above all

191

a high school efficacy, whereas male principals above all had a strong self-efficacy in schooloriented tasks. However, at the same time the main effect of the teacher-principal difference (Kimpston, 1987; Jorde-Bloom, 1988) implies that the type of task difference is to be found at both grade levels. Within each grade level principals scored higher school-oriented tasks than teachers do. An attempt to explain the trend would be sheer speculation, but the difference is compelling enough to justify further research with a sample of teachers and principals that has been composed more systematically. Continued investigation of career effects is desirable in other respects as well. From our findings we could speculate that male elementary school teachers with an intermediate level of experience find themselves at crossroads: they must decide whether to strive for the position of principal or to remain a teacher. Judged by the self-efficacy associated with these two options, they represent different futures. The sense of efficacy of the principal tallies very well with the "extended professional" as proposed by Nias (1989). The position of the very experienced male elementary teachers shows an unfavorable contrast and suggests a career that "got stuck." An important question is for instance whether the decreased school-orientation of this group of teachers is a reaction to a loss of challenges in their career, or the consequence of the departure of the more schooloriented teachers among them to the position of principal.

Implications Though the outcomes presented here have only exploratory value, they have enough potential to raise some implications. First, we turn to the difference between kindergarten and elementary school levels. When the difference in orientation to different types of tasks is as clear as we have found it to be between these two levels, it is reasonable to expect a reflection of it at the level of the school in the formation of subcultures around pupil-oriented and school-oriented tasks. Presumably, the difference is in part attributable to gender and in part to grade level. And because woman are

192

J E R O E N G. M. I M A N T S and C O R N E L I S J. D E B R A B A N D E R

o v e r r e p r e s e n t e d in l o w e r grades, these facts imply that distinct subcultures of teaching younger and teaching older children might h a v e a p e r s i s t e n t n a t u r e (Nias, S o u t h w o r t h , & Y e o m a n s , 1989). T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t in the light o f the fact t h a t r e c e n t l i t e r a t u r e stresses the i m p o r t a n c e o f the h o m o g e n e i t y o f s c h o o l c u l t u r e ( R o s e n h o l t z , 1989; Staessens, 1990). O u r f i n d i n g s are also r e l e v a n t to the p r o b l e m o f the accessibility o f l e a d e r s h i p p o s i t i o n s to w o m e n . O u r a n a l y s e s a d v a n c e self-efficacy as a n i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r in e x p l a i n i n g the u n d e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f w o m a n in p o s i t i o n s o f l e a d e r ship. A s s u m i n g t h a t self-efficacy is a c r u c i a l f a c t o r in c a r e e r d e c i s i o n s ( W h e e l e r , 1983), the self-efficacy o f w o m e n w i t h an i n t e r m e d i a t e level o f e x p e r i e n c e is m o s t c e r t a i n l y a h i n d r a n c e to p o t e n t i a l a s p i r a t i o n s to l e a d e r s h i p p o s i t i o n s . T h e self-efficacy o f the c o m p a r a b l e m a l e g r o u p , o n the c o n t r a r y , fully s u p p o r t s s u c h ambitions.

References Ashton, P. & Webb, R. (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, 191215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117 148. Beintema, K. & Van Greevenbroek, A. (1984). Een theoretisch model van gedragsintenties van docenten. [A theoretical model of behavioral intentions of teachers.] Pedagogische Studi~'n, 61,509 514. Berman, P. & McLaughlin, M. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change, vol. VII: Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Dembo, M. & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers' sense of efficacy: An important factor in school improvement. Elementary School Journal, 86, 173-184. Doyle, W. & Ponder, G. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision making. Interchange. 8, 1 9. Fiedler, F. & Garcia, J. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership." cognitive resources and organizational performance. New York: Wiley. Firestone, W. & Wilson, B. (1985). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to improve instruction: the principals contribution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21, 7-30.

Fullan, M. (with S. Stiegelbauer) (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell. Fuller, B., Wood, K., Rapoport, T. & Dornbusch, S. (1984). The organizational context of individual efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 52, 7 30. Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. Girl, A. (1981). Non-linear multivariate analysis. Leiden: University of Leiden. Guskey, T. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education. 4, 6369. Hanson, E. (1979). Educational administration and organizational behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Hargreaves, A. (1990). Individualism and individuality: Reinterpreting teacher culture. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, Boston, MA. Hargreaves, A. & Dawe, R. (1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived collegiality, collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 227-241. Hoy, W. & Miskel, C. (1987). Educational administration." Theory, research and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Random House. Hoy, W. & Woolfolk, A. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 279 300. Hoy, W. & Woolfolk, A. (1993). Teachers' sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. Elementary School Journal, 93, 355 372. Imants, J. & Bakkenes, I. (1993). Professional isolation of teachers, school culture and teachers' sense of efficacy. In: F. Kieviet & R. Vandenberghe, (Eds.). School culture, school improvement, and teacher development. Leiden: DSWO Press. Imants, J. & De Brabander, C. J. (1991, April). Teachers' and principals' sense of efficacy in primary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, Chicago, IL. Imants, J. & Van Zoelen, A. (1995). Teachers' sickness absence in primary schools, school climate and teachers' sense of efficacy. School Organisation, 15, 73 82. Imants, J. & Vriens, M. (1988). Het meten van doelmatigheidsbeleving bij leerkrachten in het basisonderwijs [Measuring sense of efficacy of elementary school teachers]. Nederlands Tijdsehrift voor Opvoeding, Vorming en Onderwijs, 4, 206219. Imants, J. & Vriens, M. (1989). Determinanten van doelmatigheidsbeleving van schoolleiders en leerkrachten in basisscholen. [Determinants of sense of efficacy of principals and teachers in elementary schools.] In J. Scheerens & J. Verhoeven (red.). Schoolorganisatie, beleid en onderwijskwaliteit. [School organization, policy, and quality of education.] Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Jorde-Bloom, P. (1988). Closing the gap: An analysis of teacher and administrator perceptions of organizational climate in the early childhood setting. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 111 120.

Sense of Efficacy

Kimpston, R. (1987). Teacher and principal stage of concern regarding implementation of benchmark testing: A longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 205 217. Lee, V., Dedrick, R., & Smith, J. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on teachers' efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190 208. Leithwood, K. & Montgomery, D. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 53, 309-339. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher." A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Meijer, C. & Foster, S. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral chance. Journal of Special Education, 22, 378 385. Miles, M. & Ekholm, M. (1985). School improvement at the school level. In W. Van Velzen et al. (Eds.). Making school improvement work." A conceptual guide to practice. Leuven: Acco. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall. Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in the study of instructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 117-139. Murphy, J. (1992). School effectiveness and school restructuring: Contributions to educational improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 3, 9(~109. Newmann, F., Rutter, R. & Smith, M. (1989). Organizational factors that affect school sense of efficacy, community and expectations. Sociology of Education, 62, 221-238. Nias, J. (1989). Primary teachers talking." A study of teaching as work. London: Routledge. Nias, J., Southworth, G. & Yeomans, R. (1989). Staff relationships in the primary school. London: Cassell. Owens, R. (1991). Organizational behavior in education (4th ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon. Purkey, S. & Smith, M. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary' School Journal, 83, 427~152. Raudenbush, S., Rowan, B. & Cheong, Y. (1991, April). Contextual factors on the self-effica~k, of high school teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, Chicago, IL. Rosenholtz, S. (1985). Effective school: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education, 93, 352388. Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers' work place." The social organization of schools. New York: Longman. Smylie, M. (1990). Teacher efficacy at work. In P. Reyes (Ed.). Teachers and their workplace. Commitment, performance and productivity. Newbury Park: Sage. Staessens, K. (1990). De professionele eultuur van basisscholen in vernieuwing. [The professional culture of elementary schools in a process of innovation.] Doctoral dissertation. Centrum voor Onderwijsbeleid en vernieuwing, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven. Stein, M. & Wang, M. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171-187. Van Greevenbroek, A. (1985). Doelmatigheidsbeleving van

193

docenten. [Teachers' sense of efficacy.] Pedagogisch T~idschrift, 10, 251 257. Van Greevenbroek, A. (1986). Doelmatigheidsbeleving van leraren en schoolleiders. [Sense of efficacy of teachers and principals.] Pedagogisch Tijdschrift, 11, 214-219. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19. Wheeler, K. (1983). Comparisons of self-efficacy and expectancy models of occupational preferences for college males and females. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 73-78. Wood, R., Bandura, A. & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing organizational performance in complex decision making environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 181 201. Woolfolk, A. & Hoy, W. (1990). Prospective teachers' sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81 91. Woolfolk, A., Rosoff, B. & Hoy, W. (1990). Teachers' sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137 148. Submitted 18 February 1994 Accepted 8 June 1995

Appendix 1

8 learner oriented tasks: 1. glving extra help or guidance to pupils with learning problems 5. guiding pupils in various expressive activities 6. making an error analysis of graded work 9. instructing individuals or small groups of pupils 10. making supplementary teaching materials in cooperation with colleagues 11. expanding one's professional knowledge by studying or by taking courses Table 3 Task definition

Perceived self-efficacy

Perceived school efficacy

16 tasks

I have sufficient capability to perform this task

In our school this task can be performed succesfully

(8 learner oriented tasks)

Totally disagree

Totally agree

Totally disagree

Totally agree

(8 school oriented tasks)

(1)

(5)

(1)

(5)

194

J E R O E N G. M. I M A N T S a n d C O R N E L I S J. D E B R A B A N D E R

15. discussing lacunae in methods and teaching materials with colleagues 16. discussing the performance, development and progress of pupils with a school counselor.

8 school oriented tasks." 2. conferring with colleagues about school projects, sports and play, and the like 3. taking the minutes of staff meetings 4. coaching inexperienced novice teachers 7. discussing the school development plan in staff meetings 8. keeping in touch with educational innovations 12. leading staff meetings 13. preparing staff meetings, for example making the agenda or compiling reading materials to support a discussion 14. writing a paper about an issue for school educational policy.

Appendix 2 The results of the analysis are presented in terms of canonical axes in the principal

components structure; these axes indicate the direction along which the differences between groups of staff members are greatest. This approach helps us to interpret differences in terms of principal components and enables the display of all differences in one principal components space. For, the components scores are coordinates that define for each and every individual a position in the principal components space. By averaging the components scores it is possible to define the average position of a group of individuals. Imagining a perpendicular projection on each of the directions to which we have ascribed above a particular sense, each position can be given a specific interpretation. For instance, a low position at the right front side of our three-dimensional box would signify a combination of a very high sense of personal efficacy in learner oriented tasks, a medium to high sense of personal efficacy in school oriented tasks, and a medium to low result expectancy both of school oriented as well as learner oriented tasks. Of course such interpretations are based on a model of the scores, not on actual scores. Table 4 gives an overview of the results of all

Table 4

Results of all canonical analyses of characteristics of staff members and their principal component scores Variate rcc2 Analysis 1: SEX I EXP SEX 1 EXP 1 2 EXP*SEX 1 2

0.059 0.086 0.010 0.046 0.015

F

df

p-value

Wcj

we2

Wc3

0.731 0.712 0.345 -0.159 0.809

N - 145 0.959 0.874 -0.792 0.574 0.689

2.85 2.35 0.71 1.45 1.04

3 6 2 6 2

137 274 138 274 138

0.0398 0.0311 0.4950 0.1966 0.3573

0.028 0.342 0.622 0.868 0.397

Analysis 2: SEX (GRA) I EXP I POS SEX 1 0.125 EXP 1 0.014 POS 1 0.045 EXP*SEX 1 0.045 SEX*POS 1 0.019 EXP*POS 1 0.011 EXP*SEX*POS 1 0.002

10.29 1.02 3.36 3.39 1.41 0.82 0.12

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

216 216 216 216 216 216 216

0.0001 0.3876 0.0196 0.0189 0.2419 0.4846 0.9509

0.009 0.861 -0.424 0.812 -0.001 -0.604 0.806

0.749 0.593 0.436 -0.076 1.011 0.608 -0.481

N = 226 0.923 -0.034 1.002 -0.718 -0.367 0.728 0.304

Analysis 3: GRA I EXP GRA 1 EXP 1 2 EXP*GRA 1 2

1.06 1.64 0.1 0.46 0.34

3 6 2 6 2

106 212 107 212 107

0.3704 0.1379 0.9070 0.8359 0.7093

-0.186 0.945 0.373 0.325 0.964

0.900 0.363 0.813 0.084 0.237

N = 114 0.705 0.247 -0.305 0.983 0.398

0.029 0.085 0.002 0.019 0.006

Sense of Efficacy analyses. In each analysis for every term in the design one or two canonical variates are described by the squared canonical correlation (rcc2), the F-value of the corresponding likelihood ratio, degrees of freedom (dj0, p-value and canonical function coefficients (wcl, w~2 and Wc3). These coefficients are the coordinates

195

of a point in the principal components space that together with the origin defines a canonical direction. The number of canonical variates depends on the degrees of freedom and the number of dependent variables. Means of subgroups of respondents are depicted in the principal components space.