University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Teacher efficacy and classroom management in the primary setting

(USC Thesis Other)

Teacher efficacy and classroom management in the primary setting

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 1
TEACHER EFFICACY AND CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT IN THE PRIMARY SETTING

by

Jacqueline Rose McGovern

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTORATE OF EDUCATION

May 2015

Copyright 2015 Jacqueline Rose McGovern

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 2
Acknowledgments
Oh the places you’ll go…
On and on you will hike. And I know you’ll hike far and face up to your
problems whatever they are. And when things start to happen, don’t worry. Don’t
stew. Just go right along. You’ll start happening too. (Seuss, 1990)

This dissertation is dedicated to my soul mate, Kevin. His unwavering faith in me has
enabled me to make this dream a reality.
I want to express gratitude to my sister, Jeannie, and to my parents, Cyndee and Dexter
Strawther, Geoff Craig and Randy Gatlin. Their unconditional love, understanding, forgiveness,
and tremendous support has been the richest blessing of my life
This dissertation is finished because of my remarkable mentor and dissertation chair, Dr.
Robert Keim. He stood patiently by me every step of the way.

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 2
Table of Contents 3
List of Tables 5
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 7
Background of the Problem 9
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 10
Research Questions 10
Significance of the Study 11
Limitations of the Study 11
Definition of Terms 12
Organization of the Study 14
Chapter Two: Literature Review 16
Disruptive Behaviors in the Classroom 19
Consequences of Disruptive Behavior 19
The Importance of Classroom Management 20
The Teacher’s Role 21
Classroom Management Techniques 21
Clear Expectations and Consequences 21
Clear Learning Goals 22
Shared Expectations 23
Consistency and Routines 23
Diffusion 23
Isolate the Individual 24
Extrinsic Motivation 24
Stop Light Behavior Chart 25
Body Language 25
Use of Silence 25
Cooperative Learning 26
Take a Personal Interest in Students 26
Assertive Behavior 26
Equitable and Positive Classroom Behaviors 27
Awareness of High-Needs Students 28
Connecting with Parents 28
Disadvantages of Classroom Management Techniques 29
Self-Efficacy 29
Teacher Efficacy 30
Summary 34
Chapter Three: Methodology 36
Research Questions 36
Research Design 36
Population and Sample 36
Instrumentation 37
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 4
Procedure and Data Collection 38
Data Analysis 39
Chapter Four: Results 40
Research Questions 40
Data Collection 41
Data Presentation 41
Scale Reliability 46
Regression Analysis 49
Summary 50
Chapter Five: Discussion 52
Findings and Interpretations 52
Teacher Efficacy and Clear Expectations and Consequences 52
Teacher Efficacy and Clear Learning Goals 53
Teacher Efficacy and Awareness of High-Needs 54
Non-Significance 55
Limitations of the Study 56
Suggestions for Further Research 56
Summary 58
References 60
Appendix A: Email Exchange Regarding Granted Access to Administer the Survey 82
Appendix B: Introduction to the Teachers 83
Appendix C: Description of Classroom Management Techniques 84
Appendix D: Classroom Management Survey 86
Appendix E: Institutional Review Board Handout 91

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 5
List of Tables
Table 1: Techniques Regarded as Always Effective 42
Table 2: Clear Expectations and Consequences 42
Table 3: Clear Learning Goals 42
Table 4: Shared Expectations 42
Table 5: Consistency and Routines 43
Table 6: Diffusion 43
Table 7: Isolate the Individual 43
Table 8: Extrinsic Motivation 43
Table 9: Stop Light Behavior Chart 44
Table 10: Body Language 44
Table 11: Use of Silence 44
Table 12: Cooperative Learning 44
Table 13: Take a Personal Interest in the Student 45
Table 14: Assertive Behavior 45
Table 15: Equitable and Positive Classroom Behaviors 45
Table 16: Awareness of High-Needs Students 45
Table 17: Connecting with Parents 46
Table 18: Item Statistics 47
Table 19: Shapiro-Wilk Test of Distribution 48
Table 20: Spearman’s Rho - Teacher Efficacy 49
Table 21: ANOVA
a
50
Table 22: Coefficients
a
50

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 6
Abstract
Problematic behavior is an escalating concern in schools and one of the most serious
distresses of both teachers and parents. Students who display disruptive behaviors can be
observed on a scale from minor disruptive behaviors, such as the inability to sit still in their seats
and frequent disruptive talking, to major disruptive behaviors, such as physical violence toward
peers. Essential to a thriving academic setting are effective strategies for averting and handling
disruptive behavior in the classroom. Research explored several aspects of disruptive behavior
in the classroom and teacher management of this behavior. This study draws these elements
together in a quantitative investigation of teachers’ beliefs about which methods of behavior
management are most effective. Quantitative surveys of teachers at a Pre-K/Kindergarten
through Fifth Grade Elementary School in an urban environment, with students of diverse ethnic
backgrounds and varying socio-economic status, was conducted. Results suggest that teachers
face multiple forms of disruptive behavior and that there are individual preferences as to which
methods are most effective in relation to handling these. This study presents further evidence
that relationships among teachers’ sense of efficacy, their teaching beliefs, and classroom
management styles yield findings that deserve further consideration by scholars.

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 7
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Children now love luxury, they have bad manners, contempt for
authority, they show disrespect for their elders, and they love chatter
in the place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of
their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room.
They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up
dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize over their teachers.
Socrates (BC, 469-399)
Teachers with high efficacy have good classroom management skills and keep the
students and themselves on task (Hines & Kritsonis, 2010). Historically, research on classroom
management addressed to questions of how order is established and maintained in classroom
environments (Doyle, 1985). This is an overly simplistic view of classroom management,
however, for order and orderliness can mean different things in different contexts and are
inherently variant because they are based on the perspectives of individuals. Martin et al. (1998)
argue that there is no consensus regarding the specific facets of the construct. The fact, that there
are no recipes to follow and no set of guidelines that would work in all classrooms with all
individuals, at all times, makes classroom management a very complicated aspect of teaching.
Research suggests that another strong influence on the classroom management choices of
teachers is self-efficacy. Researchers concluded that teachers’ efficacy is a prominent factor
influencing classroom management philosophy and techniques (Emmer, 1991). Indeed, teaching
efficacy or teachers’ beliefs about their abilities to influence student outcomes was identified as
predictive of teacher effort, attitudes, and perceptions, and of teacher success in promoting
student achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Berman, et al, 1977).
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 8
Emmer (1991) concludes that teachers who believe they have little impact on student
achievement are less likely to try new techniques; conversely, teachers with high self-efficacy
are more likely to try a variety of strategies. Emmer distinguishes classroom
management/discipline efficacy from other types of efficacy. He argues that an understanding of
teacher decision making and behavior may require knowledge of efficacy in management and
discipline, since a considerable amount of teacher attention is focused on behavioral outcomes
that are not immediately linked to student learning but, rather, to achieving order and
cooperation. He states that it might be more informative to examine teachers’ efficacy in critical
sub-areas rather than overall efficacy. Similarly, Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) report that teachers’
sense of efficacy is one of the few variables consistently related to positive teaching behavior
and student learning.
Nationwide, administrators and classroom teachers seek ways to successfully address the
overlapping challenges for discipline and instruction (Baer, 1998). Research reveals that there is
a direct link between teacher effectiveness and teacher behaviors (Collier, 2005). The
identification of specific teacher efficacy beliefs that have an impact on student academic
success and enable teachers to establish effective positive classroom management protocols will
provide instructional leaders with the knowledge necessary to improve new teacher induction
programs, provide targeted staff development opportunities, and offer encouragement and
support to their most effective teachers.
A teacher’s ability to implement effective classroom management within primary school
settings is crucial. Yet, there does not exist one significant management approach that fits every
classroom. The implication is that different primary education learning environments require
varied management approaches (Brophy, 1996; Chui & Tulley, 1997). This study discusses
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 9
diverse classroom management approaches deemed successful by researchers, and identifies the
techniques believed to be most effective by teachers within their own primary classrooms.
Background of the Problem
The term classroom management is multi-dimensional and based on several factors
teachers face teachers. In this regard, the sole duty of the teacher is to make sure that the class
runs in a calm and quiet manner, despite the fact that there are students who create severe and
constant disruptions. Unfortunately, there are certain teachers who are not well aware of the
facts and the functions of classroom management, and, for this reason, they consider it the
hardest part of the job (Emmer, 1984; Kerman, Kimball, & Martin, 1980; Tauber, 1999).
Teaching in primary education settings is challenging and may lead to disenchantment
among teachers who are not psychologically prepared to face the possible outcomes associated
with this particular profession (Emmer, 1984; Kerman, Kimball, & Martin, 1980; Tauber, 1999).
The learning process is interrupted in a classroom that fails to adapt to available management
strategies and where students are unable to process information in a productive learning
environment. It is important to note that the primary element of successful classroom
management is the ability to efficiently manage and organize the intricate learning process
(Evertson, Emmer, Sanford & Clements, 1983).
Research by Van Petegem (2005), examined the correlation between formal teacher
characteristics, teacher behavior as perceived by the teacher, and teacher’s well-being. Teacher
gender became an influential tool on how he or she perceived the submitting-opposing
interpersonal behaviors in the classroom. Teachers with job security saw themselves as helpful
and friendly leaders, in comparison to those who did not have job security. The teachers’ well-
being depended on their years of experience.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 10
Statement of the Problem
This study presents further evidence that relationships among teachers’ sense of efficacy,
their teaching beliefs, and classroom management styles yield findings that deserve further
consideration by scholars. Classroom management, discipline, motivation, and respect are all
interrelated. It is critical that teachers are prepared to enter classrooms ready to create learning
environments and experiences that demonstrate operative use of time and behavior management.
While studies assess behavior management in conjunction with academic achievement and
annual test scores, there is a lack of research on which methods of classroom management are
most commonly used due to the value of those methods based on the personal experience of the
teachers in a primary setting.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to assess the beliefs and behaviors of primary teachers in
grades pre-kindergarten through fifth, at an urban school setting, with varying levels of
experience, and of different genders on their preferred method or methods of classroom
management. Teachers with high efficacy have good classroom management skills and keep the
students and themselves on task (Hines & Kritsonis, 2010). Specifically, this study investigated
the extent of frequently documented disruptive behaviors in the primary setting and the wide-
ranging strategies particular teachers emphasize.
Research Questions
This study sought to answer the following research questions:
1. What methods of classroom management are preferred among teachers in the elementary
school classroom setting?
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 11
2. Does the application of specific classroom management techniques correlate with the
self-efficacy of the teacher?
Significance of the Study
The answers to the research questions are exceedingly pertinent to the field of primary
education because they explore the collective beliefs and behaviors of a critical area of teaching.
These data and accompanying analyses can enlighten the decision-making of educators as they
attempt to prepare healthy classroom climates and successful academic cultures. Furthermore, as
classroom sizes increase, it is significant to investigate whether well-studied ways of managing
classroom behavior promote preferred outcomes.
Research advises institutions to evaluate teachers based on their creativity, innovation,
and upon the methods they adopt for influencing student behavior (Howard, 1998; McCombs &
Stage & Quiroz, 1997; Whisler, 1997). Classroom management approaches are a versatile
concept, which researchers categorize by various elements and situations. Scholars base their
categorization on the level and manner in which a teacher exercises his or her control over the
students (Glasser, 1969, 1990). The most useful measure of classroom management is the
degree of control that teacher exerts on the students and the classroom (Burden, 2000; Dunn &
Baker, 2002; Glasser, 1969, 1990). According to Burden (2000), in order to manage the primary
education classroom setting successfully, a teacher needs to command control of the students at
all times.
Limitations of the Study
The study solely focused on the issues and classroom management techniques that relate
to the behaviors of a particular group of students attending one school in a large city. Therefore,
the external validity will be limited. The researcher only determined that the dependent variable
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 12
and independent variable are related. A potential limitation was bias resulting from teacher
subjects providing answers they deem as socially acceptable. The researcher was unable to
ensure that each survey respondent answered honestly. Self-reported data is limited by the fact
that it rarely can be independently verified. The researcher took what people wrote on the
questionnaires at face value. Self-reported data can contain sources of bias also noted as
limitations: selective memory (remembering or not remembering experiences or events that
occurred at some point in the past), attribution (the act of attributing positive events and
outcomes to one’s own agency but attributing negative events and outcomes to external forces),
and, exaggeration (the act of representing outcomes or embellishing events as more significant
than is actually suggested from other data). Although the researcher made every attempt to
maximize participation in the research, sample bias is a possible limitation if teachers choose not
to complete the survey.
This environment of school connectedness may also influence the findings of this study.
The philosophy of the institution is highly conducive to student involvement in extracurricular
activities and social events. Students are indoctrinated into the overall school culture through
interactions with peers, faculty, and staff. The school’s colorful murals have themes which are
often incorporated into treatment of the students. The study performed was not experimental,
and, therefore, no direct causal relationship was inferred.
Definition of Terms
Diffusion - A behavior when teachers remain calm in order to make sure situations do not
escalate (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990).
Passive - Comprised of students who fear relationships and those who fear failure. (Marzano,
2003).
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 13
Aggressive - Comprised of students are display hostile, oppositional, and covert behaviors.
Hostile students struggle with anger management, showing empathy for others, and taking
accountability for their own actions. Oppositional students display less severe forms of
aggression, but they consistently resist compliance. Covert students may exhibit positive
behaviors, but tend to resist requests from authority figures (Wubbels, Brekelmans, van Tartwijk,
& Admiral, 1999; Wubbels & Levy, 1993).
Extrinsic Motivation- action done for the sake of some external outcome, the inspiration for
acting on intrinsic motivation can be found in the action itself (Schunk, 1996).
Inattentive - Comprised of students who respond well to a behavior contract that teaches the
student to manage behaviors, improve basic concentration, break up tasks into controllable parts,
and allows the student to experience reward for their successes (Adelman & Taylor, 2002).
Intrinsic motivation- performing an action or behavior because you enjoy the activity itself
(Schunk, 1996).
Motivation - Activation to action. Level of motivation is reflected in choice of courses of action,
and in the intensity and persistence of effort (Bandura, 1994).
Perfectionistic - Comprised of students who attempt to achieve unattainable levels of success.
These students may demonstrate self-criticism, low self-esteem, or inferiority. (Marzano, 2003).
Self-Regulation - Exercise of influence over one’s own motivation, thought processes,
emotional states and patterns of behavior (Bandura, 1994).
Socially Inept - Comprised of students who appear to be socially unaccepted and exhibit
behaviors, which other students find annoying, such as talking too much, misreading social cues,
or standing too close to peers (Dunn & Baker, 2002).
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 14
Perceived Self-Efficacy - People’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce effects (Bandura,
1994).
Organization of the Study
The Qualifying Exam/Dissertation Proposal took place at 10:30 am Wednesday, August
6, 2014, on campus at the University of Southern California. The researcher defended the
proposal to the dissertation committee, which included the dissertation chair and two carefully
selected professors from the University of Southern California. The researcher presented the
highlights of the study, which included Chapters One, Two, and Three. The presentation
thoroughly discussed the aim and scope of the proposal and the committee offered suggestions to
foster improvement. With the guidance of the Dissertation Chair, the researcher revised the
study to meet the criteria suggested by the Dissertation Committee over the duration of one
week. Following the conditional passing of the Qualifying Exam, the researcher submitted the
study to the Institutional Review Board on August 13, 2014. The methodology chosen for this
study falls into the IRB Exemption Category 1: Research conducted in established or commonly
accepted educational setting, involving normal educational practices, such as research on the
effectiveness of or the comparison among classroom management methods. The researcher
prepared to wait the common four to six week duration of time for completion of the IRB
process. Before research could commence, the researcher needed to have approval from the
University of Southern California as well as from the Long Beach Unified School District.
By October 1, 2014, the researcher administered hard copies of the survey to the teachers
at Alvarado Elementary School. The survey packet included the following documents:
Introduction to the Teachers (Appendix B), Description of Classroom Management Techniques
(Appendix C), Classroom Management/Teacher Efficacy Survey (Appendix D), IRB
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 15
Information/Facts Sheet for Exempt Non-Medical Research (Appendix E). The teachers utilized
a two-week span of time to complete the survey. Becky, the secretary at Alvarado Elementary
School, had a specified box in which the teachers placed completed surveys. The researcher
entrusted Becky to keep the surveys in an envelope in her desk as they accrued and picked up the
surveys on campus at Alvarado Elementary on October 15, 2014.
The dissertation chair and the researcher carefully analyzed the collected data using
quantitative methods. Findings from the data analysis are written in Chapter Four. Chapter Five
concludes the study with an in depth discussion about the implications for improvements in
education drawn from the study.

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 16
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study was to explore classroom-management issues within primary
education settings. This study identified classroom management approaches that studies prove
beneficial in primary education settings. These approaches were examined from a scholarly
perspective to enhance the understanding of particular management techniques used within the
classroom environment.
Teachers have generally viewed classroom management as something that is not easy to
deal with in education. Offering a more conducive learning environment in the classroom is not
easy, and research reveals that the vital factor in succeeding in management is the teacher’s
capabilities to supervise and organize instruction (Brophy, 1988). Organized instruction will
lead to students’ engagement in the learning process.
Classrooms, if well managed by teachers, can become places of freedom to learn and can
provide safety for students. Students can even further their long-term memory by attending to
the teacher’s instruction without being disturbed, and then storing the instruction permanently in
their minds for future retrieval, particularly in times of examinations, assignments, and studying.
Conducive classroom environment reduces the number of low achievers.
Little research in the field of teacher self-efficacy for classroom management is evident.
However, among the research that exists, some researchers support theories that imply personal
teaching efficacy has an effect on the behavior of teachers as well as on beliefs and outcomes
(Morris-Rothschild & Brassard, 2006). Criticizing students for failing and showing-impatience
when confronted with challenges in problematic circumstances was found to be related to low
personal teacher efficacy (Gibson & Dembo, 1984).
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 17
Ashton and Webb (1986) also found that teachers with low personal teaching efficacy are
unable to manage behavioral problems. They suggested that teachers’ beliefs were linked to
strict punishment procedures, such as using authority and verbal abuse and sending students out
of class during learning times. Woolfolk Hoy, Rosoff, and Hoy (1990), contend that, “a sense of
personal efficacy becomes related to beliefs about control only after some years of actual
experience in classrooms” (p.146).
Guskey and Passaro (1994) reported “instructional effectiveness,” and Morris-Rothschild
and Brassard (2006) reported fewer referrals to special education from teachers with high
personal efficacy. Cheung, as cited in Morris- Rothschild and Brassard (2006) reported that
being able to help the formation of constructive “interpersonal relationships among students”
was one belief of teachers with high personal teaching efficacy. As a result, when teachers
possess a strong sense of personal teaching efficacy, such teachers are more likely to procure
encouraging classroom results (Morris-Rothschild & Brassard, 2006).
Ecological researchers investigated classroom management and analyzed environmental
factors and their impact on learning. Their early work focused on different activities, both
supported (affordances) and prohibited (constraints) (Brophy, 2006). In these investigations,
classrooms were viewed as ecologies. Researchers concentrated on different aspects of
classroom environments, such as whole class, small group, individual instruction, the activities
that took place in them, and whether there were more teacher-student discourse occurred in
lesson settings than seatwork settings. Effective managers were clear about their expectations
and of unacceptable behaviors. They concentrated on students’ immediate work and taught them
how to do the work. In other words, they aimed to teach students to learn how to learn.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 18
Effective managers pinpointed students who were confused or not paying attention in
class. Classroom sitting arrangements were organized in a way that students could face a
direction in which they could best concentrate. Differences in the way teachers spoke, moved
around the class, or “pace to sustain attention” were also used in the class (Brophy, 2006). As a
result, effective managers did a follow-up on demanding tasks in the first weeks of class,
encouraging and supporting the students’ needs. They offered infrequent remedial teaching and
they remained focused and reliable in implementing their regulations (Brophy, 2006). The
findings of Brophy (2006), reported that, most of the time, teachers instructed their students to
abide by “rules and procedures,” but they also talked about their anticipations with regard to
students’ accountability and engagement in finishing their tasks. Information that defined
students’ tasks was posted, and the due dates were recorded. Teachers also explained in detail
the importance of students submitting excellent work. The written objective on the board held
meaning to the entire class.
Marzano and Marzano (2003) state thatwhen a classroom is under control, it prepares
students for valuable instruction, which is fundamental to the process of learning. Keeping order
with primary age students while teaching an effective lesson is not an easy task for the average
person (Emmer, 1984). Classroom management involves determining the best and most
efficient techniques and approaches.
According to Buck (1992), teachers are in the position to reduce disruptive behaviors and
need to incorporate powerful teaching behaviors into the classroom environment. Moskowitz and
Hayman (1976), note that teachers often experience escalating difficulties when trying to regain
control of their classroom once it is relinquished. Regular teaching is superseded, and normal
interactions are lost when instruction time is delayed by handling challenges that arise from
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 19
insufficient classroom management techniques (Berliner, 1988; Brophy & Good, 1986). As a
result, students’ overall progress is negatively affected.
Disruptive Behaviors in the Classroom
Disruptive behavior exists within a multitude of categories. According to Buck (1992),
the five broad types of disruptive behavior include aggression, immorality, defiance of authority,
class disruptions, clowning around, and children with diagnoses. Buck (1992), states that
aggression refers to physical and verbal assaults on the teacher or other students, and immorality
can include stealing, lying, and cheating. Defiance of authority is defined as refusal to do what
the teacher asks, and class disruptions include acts such as talking loudly, walking around the
room, and calling out. Finally, clowning around consists of fooling around, daydreaming, not
doing assigned work, and wasting time. The themes of disruptive behavior, which emerge out of
these categories, include verbally externalizing behavior and physically externalizing behavior
(Marzano, Marzano, & Pickering, 2003). Marzano and Marzano (2003) define misbehavior as
actions which are inappropriate for the setting or situation in which they occur.
Consequences of Disruptive Behavior
According to Buck (1992) and Capizzi, (2009), disruptive behaviors in the classroom
hinder the process of learning, reduce instruction time, and make it quite difficult for students to
achieve academic success. According to Campbell and Ewing (1990), preschool children who
display high levels of disruptive behaviors have a higher probability of continuing to display
those disruptive behaviors throughout their school years.
Managing disruptive students can be a trial. Academic activities can be disrupted when
the teachers are preoccupied with discipline problems. Eager students are not in a position to
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 20
learn when their teachers halt instruction to discipline disruptive students. According to Buck
(1992), it is vital for teachers to develop rules, rituals, and procedures.
The Importance of Classroom Management
Research frequently describes classroom management as the ability to effectively deliver
classroom lessons regardless of disruptive behaviors (Marzano & Marzano, 2003; Walker, 2009;
Weiner, 2003). Classroom management is devoid of disruptive behaviors that can negatively
affect the learning process (Allen, 2010; Brophy & Good, 1984). When the classroom
environment is disrupted, teachers have a difficult time providing a quality learning experience
to students. This is especially true when they have not devised and executed effective classroom
management strategies. Moreover, once a teacher loses control of the classroom, it becomes
increasingly difficult to regain that control (Buck, 1992; Colvin & Sugai, 1993; Moskowitz &
Hayman, 1976).
Ineffective classroom management strategies lead to lower rates of academic engagement
in class, which can ultimately lead to poor academic performance. Teachers are held
accountable for the poor academic results. Effective classroom management involves clear
communication in regards to behavioral and academic expectations and a cooperative and
productive learning environment (Allen, 1986; Allen, 2010). Effective classroom management,
within a primary education setting, should ideally involve establishing classroom rules and
expectations. Rules and guidelines provide students with direction to needed to endure their
academic success (Brophy & McCaslin, 1992; Emmer, 1984; Gootman, 2008).
Classroom management is the act of introducing discipline to disruptive students.
According to Capizzi (2009), it is imperative that a regimented classroom management plan be
enacted at the beginning of each year to achieve a serene and tranquil classroom environment
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 21
that is a conducive for students. According to Allen (2010), classroom management is
transparent communication and a supportive learning environment.
The Teacher ’s Role
Teachers play a number of roles in a typical classroom. One of the most important roles
that a teacher performs is classroom manager. It is important to note that a well-managed
classroom takes tremendous effort to create and nurture, and the teacher must be the leader in its
creation (Martin & Baldwin, 1992; Marzano, Marzano, & Pickering, 2003). Educators contend
that a fundamental deficiency in the teacher-centered approach lies in the lack of learners’
initiative within the learning process (Freiberg, 1999).
The Student ’s Role
The primary purpose of classroom management techniques within student-centered
classrooms is to allow teachers to actively guide the students during the learning process,
encourage independence among students, and build strong communities (Evertson & Neal,
2005). In this case, teachers relinquish control over both their students and a number of
classroom issues in an effort to develop and encourage a democratic learning community, in
which students feel safe and empowered.
Classroom Management Techniques
Clear Expectations and Consequences
Rules are a powerful, deterrent strategy. Rules make students more aware of their
behaviors. They help establish vast framework within the classroom. They also teach learners to
be aware of the consequences that can arise if they fail to obey the classroom rules. When rules
are positively relayed to students, it informs them of what behaviors are considered appropriate
(Kerr & Nelson, 2006).
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 22
Teachers can institute clear expectations for the classroom environment by establishing
clear rules, procedures, and consequences for student behavior. The seminal research of the
1980s (Emmer, 1984; Emmer, Sanford, Evertson, & Emmer, 1982; Evertson, Clements, &
Martin, 1981) points to the significance of forming rules and general procedures. Students need
to know how the teacher expects them to conduct themselves during group work, seatwork,
transition times, classroom interruptions, independent use of materials or electronic equipment,
and specific periods of the day. Ideally, the students and the teacher create these procedure
guidelines as a shared activity to instill a sense of ownership within the students (Glasser, 1969;
Glasser, 1990).
The research of Stage and Quiroz (1997), states that teachers can build effective
relationships through a multitude of strategies. Teachers can use a wide variety of physical
reactions to disruptive conduct, such as moving closer to offending students and using a physical
cue, such as a placing one finger to the lips. Teachers might want to cue the class about expected
behaviors through established signals, such as clapping twice to indicate that all students should
take their seats. Students respond when teachers provide tangible recognition of appropriate
behavior with tokens or points, and this strategy is effective when it is employed with a group
contingency policy. The teacher may decide to hold an entire table of students responsible for
appropriate classroom behavior.
Clear Learning Goals
Studies by Brophy and McCaslin (1992) state that teachers can exhibit appropriate levels
of authority by providing clarity about the content of the current instructional units. Teachers
can communicate learning goals at the beginning of a unit of instruction and continuously
provide each student with individual feedback on these goals. Systematically, the teacher can
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 23
revisit goals using formative assessments and ultimately provide summative feedback regarding
the students’ academic performance.
Shared Expectations
A beneficial idea that can aid in primary education classroom management is having
shared expectations. Since primary education consists of students who are mature enough to
assert what they deem is right or wrong, it is advisable to seek their opinions when developing
rules used to guide them. Shared expectations help teachers achieve the utmost classroom
supervision because, when students are included in the decision-making processes, they learn
that they are also important members of that particular society (Turner, 2009).
Consistency and Routines
Wubbles and Levy (1993) believe it is important that teachers adhere to the established
rules, regardless of the offense. Teachers need to be consistent with punishments, rewards and
expectations. This kind of consistency will make it possible to manage the classroom with ease
and indicates that the teacher is the leader in the classroom. Routines ensure that teachers and
students are not distracted or bored by particular events that arise in the classroom (Tauber,
1999).
Diffusion
It is important that primary education teachers not only accurately identify the basic
needs of their students, but also provide a safe, supportive and conducive learning environment
for them to prosper. Teachers should refrain from reacting in an aggressive manner should a
student raise a concern or issue. The best way to handle unpleasant or serious issues is diffusion:
to react in a supportive, positive, and helpful manner. A positive classroom environment can
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 24
transform a classroom into a community of well-behaved and self-directed learners (Pintrich &
De Groot, 1990).
Isolate the Individual
McCombs and Whisler (1997) say teachers can isolate the person with whom they are
verbally intervening. The teacher will be more effective one-on-one. Onlookers, especially
those who are peers of the verbally escalating student, tend to cause aggravation.
Extrinsic Motivation
The goal is to encourage the student to exhibit positive behaviors, which is vital in a
primary education setting. Behaviorism fundamentally forces external controls over the student
to contour his or her behaviors in an appropriate manner (Evertson & Emmer, 1982; Evertson,
Emmer, & Worsham, 2003). The task of the teacher is maintain control of the classroom, and he
or she should be able to redirect unpleasant and unfavorable student behaviors through a reward
or punishment approach, if necessary. According to Garrett (2008), the behavioral model
requires strong management techniques in order to control the classroom. In addition, praise can
help increase internal motivation. Researchers found that offering positive praise and feedback
when people do something better in comparison to others can improve intrinsic motivation.
Intrinsic motivation will decrease, however, when external rewards are given for completing a
specific task or for only doing minimal work. For example, if parents heap lavish praise on their
child every time he completes a simple task, he will become less intrinsically motivated to
perform that task in the future. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation can also play an important role
in learning settings, as some experts argue that the traditional emphasis on external rewards such
as grades, report cards, and gold stars undermines any existing intrinsic motivation that students
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 25
might have. Others suggest that these extrinsic motivators help students feel more competent in
the classroom, thus enhancing intrinsic motivation.
Stop Light Behavior Chart
The Stop Light Behavior Chart (Candler, 2012), used in many schools and classrooms, is
a technique based on the red, yellow and green traffic lights, which inspires teachers to construct
a stoplight, and add clothespins to it with each student’s name on it. At the beginning of each
school day, the students’ clothespins are in the green area. When the student breaks a rule, his or
her clothespin moves to yellow, which simply means that the student has been warned. If the
student commits a serious offense, his or her clothespin moves to red, and a parent is called or a
note is sent home. The next day, everyone goes back to green. This technique is more effective
when well-behaved students are rewarded at the end of the day. Candler (2012) recommends
that teachers involve the parents by sending a calendar that contains the student’s weekly or daily
colors.
Body Language
Emmer (1994), Stage and Quiroz (1997), instruct that the teacher can be aware of his or
her space, posture, and gestures. Additionally, the teacher can be sure his or her non-verbal
behavior is consistent with the verbal message.
Use of Silence
Stage and Quiroz (1997) teach that silence is one of the most operative non-verbal
intervention techniques. Silence on the teacher’s part allows the individual student to have think
time before they speak, and therefore, communicate more clearly. This strategy fosters a more
in-depth understanding of the individual’s conflict.

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 26
Cooperative Learning
Cooperation occurs when teachers and students share classroom management
responsibilities. Students work in supportive groups while their teachers assess their work. The
students are in support of one another. To demonstrate, the class assembles into supportive
groups. Individuals within the groups are assigned roles like facilitator, recorder, encourager,
timekeeper, and reporter (Freiberg, Stein & Huang, 1995).
Gillie’s (2006) research sought to determine if teachers who implement cooperative
learning strategies efficiently maximized facilitative learning interaction with their students. The
results indicated that teachers who implemented cooperative learning in their classrooms
engaged students in a more effective learning distribution than those who preferred to assign
individual tasks.
Take a Personal Interest in Students
As McCombs and Whisler (1997) note, students feel validated when they receive
individual attention from their teachers. Teachers can implement this strategy by talking
informally with students before, during, and after class about their interests. They might greet
students outside of the classroom, for instance, or single out a few students each day in the
lunchroom and talk with them about their day. Teachers may decide to compliment students on
significant achievements, both inside and outside of school. Most importantly, teachers can meet
students at the door as they come into class in the morning and welcome each one by name.
Assertive Behavior
Teachers can communicate appropriate levels of dominance by exhibiting assertive
behavior. According to Emmer, Evertson, and Worsham (2003), assertive behavior is the
aptitude to guard one’s reasonable rights in a manner where others choose not to circumvent
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 27
them. Teachers can exhibit assertive body language with erect posture, facing the offending
student but maintaining enough space so as not to appear intimidating. Assertive behavior
includes the use of an appropriate tone of voice, speaking deliberately and without emotion, in a
pitch that is slightly louder than a normal classroom voice. The teacher must persist with the
assertive behavior until students respond appropriately. It is essential that teachers do not ignore
disruptive behavior, or become diverted by a student’s denying, arguing, or blaming of others.
When the time is right, the assertive teacher will listen to legitimate explanations.
Equitable and Positive Classroom Behaviors
Programs like Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement recommend many
practical strategies that emphasize equitable and positive classroom interactions with all students
by stating the importance of the subtle ways in which teachers can communicate their interest in
students (Kerr & Nelson, 2006). Allow and encourage all students to participate in class
discussions and interactions. Make sure to call on students who do not commonly participate,
not just those who respond most frequently. Provide appropriate wait time for all students to
respond to questions, regardless of their past performance or your perception of their abilities.
Teachers may scan the entire classroom while they speak to the students, making an effort to
make eye contact with each student. By deliberately moving toward students and standing by
them during lessons, teachers are showing a high level of concern. Essential to this practice is a
seating arrangement which facilitates mobility for both teachers and students. Teachers should
encourage active participation from every student in the class by calling on students who might
not commonly participate. Allowing appropriate wait time for all students to respond to
questions relieves pressure and reassures students to participate again in the future (Martella,
Nelson, & Marchand-Martella, 2003).
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 28
Awareness of High-Needs Students
The classroom contains a wide-ranging cross-section of students. In general, 12 to 22
percent of all students in school suffer from mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders, and,
unfortunately, few of these students receive mental health services outside of school, and school
may be the only place where many students who face extreme challenges can get their needs
addressed. The reality of today’s schools often demands that classroom teachers address these
severe issues (Adelman & Taylor, 2002).
These students require daily interventions, which extend past the typical resources
available to the general education teacher (Dunn & Baker, 2002). Although the general
education classroom teacher is not in the best position to address such high-needs, teachers with
effective classroom management skills remain aware of high-needs students, and utilize a variety
of techniques. General education teachers use techniques such as creating a contract with the
student to manage behaviors, teach basic concentration, place the student in a quiet work area
(perhaps with a peer tutor), reward the student’s successes, and break down tasks into more
manageable steps (Marzano & Pickering, 2003).
Connecting with Parents
Connecting with parents will help identify factors that can lead to distraction or
misbehavior amongst students. The most effective way for teachers to accomplish this goal is to
invite parents to come to parent-teacher meetings. During these meetings, teachers and parents
can discuss issues that may affect the student’s academic progress and classroom behavior
(Evertson & Emmer, 1982; Glasser, 1969; Glasser, 1990; Tauber, 1999).

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 29
Disadvantages of Classroom Management Techniques
According to teaching analyst and consultant, Fredric Jones (2000), there are potential
disadvantages that draw a parallel to classroom management techniques. Student-oriented
expectations can encourage the teacher to vary off the focus of their own written philosophy as
their guidance tool, and possibly enable the students to control the environment (Jones, 2000).
Extrinsic motivation has a significant impact. However, rewards should instill in the
students the abilities to do the right thing at the right time, instead of receiving a tangible object
as a way of stating, “you will get a gift if you do the right thing” (Jones, 2000).
Self-Efficacy
The recent years brought burgeoning research on the development and modification of
human behavior. Nevertheless, comparatively little attention was devoted to the mechanisms by
which different modes of influence produce their effects. There is much to be gained from
theoretical clarifications of operative mechanisms. A theory inspires and sharpens empirical
investigations that have the potential of deepening our understanding of human behavior. It
provides a common conceptual framework within which to integrate diverse sets of findings.
Additionally, it offers guidelines for developing effective methods of psychological change.
Without such knowledge, the search for promising modes of treatment relies on a fortuitous
process of trial and error in which failures typically far exceed successes. Self-efficacy theory
postulates that different modes of influence alter coping behavior by creating and strengthening
expectations of personal efficacy. According to this formulation, perceived efficacy can affect
behavior in several ways. It influences choice of activities and environmental settings. Any
factor that helps to determine choice behavior can have profound effects on the course of
personal development. Individuals who shirk enriching activities and environments fail to
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 30
develop their potentialities and shield their negative self- conceptions from corrective change.
Self-perceptions also determine how much effort people will expend and how long they will
persist in the face of obstacles or aversive experiences. Because knowledge and competencies
are achieved through sustained effort, any factor that leads people to give up readily can have
personally limiting consequences (Bandura, 1977b).
Teacher Efficacy
The Report from the National Commission on Education (1993) argued that social,
economic and technical changes taking place require teachers in the near future who are better
prepared to teach in a rapidly changing economy. Research indicates that the quality of an
education system of a country depends on teachers, and these should possess self-efficacy and
effective classroom management strategies. Therefore, the review of literature will be beneficial
to teacher educators, teacher training institutions and stakeholders. It is important to review the
literature for the reasons that teacher efficacy is vital as a construct in the development of
education “in every part of the world” (Berman, MacLaughlin, Bass, Paully and Zellman, 1997
(as cited in Cheung, 2008).
Teacher efficacy has also been described by Armor et al. (1976) as “teachers‟ beliefs in
their abilities to affect student performance” (as cited in Dellinger, Bobbett, Olivier, & Ellett,
2008, p. 753). What other countries have done to enhance teacher efficacy could also help
American teachers to have high efficacy and to be productive in classroom management.
When interviewed by Shaughnessy (2004), Woolfolk mentioned that the term “teacher
efficacy” is often mistaken with teacher “effectiveness”. However, Melby (2001) commented
that “teacher efficacy is sometimes considered to be a general indicator or predictor of teaching
effectiveness” (p. 5).
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 31
Effective teachers develop student learning through interactive instruction. Effective
teachers increase students‟ accomplishments by facilitating active learning. Questions,
discussions, and other methods that aid learning are essential forms of instruction. According to
Mastropieri and Scruggs (as cited in Tournaki et al., 2009, p.98), when students receive
feedback on their work and are aware of their progress in learning, the teachers are viewed as
using “effective teaching techniques and communicating with clarity and accuracy”. When
effective teachers use the above-mentioned methods of teaching, the classroom becomes what
Greenberg (2005) calls “a laboratory for learning…, for the learning community places a great
value on every class member’s developing an understanding of the process of learning, and the
classroom atmosphere enhances the possibilities of high quality… learning experiences” (p. 41).
Considering how effective teachers become experts in helping students to learn is useful
in establishing responsibility in teaching, which reduces the problems in education. Ross (2007)
contends “more effective teaching should increase the likelihood of teachers obtaining mastery
experiences, the strongest predictor of self-efficacy” (p.52).
Effective teachers act as mediators as they interact with learners. The instruction of
effective teachers is conceived as “scaffolded” instruction that supports learners in benefiting
from objectives. Learners may not achieve this benefit without the support of effective teachers
(Ashman & Conway, 1997). In this scenario, learning can be thought of as “mediated by an
expert guiding a novice through a task to ensure the learner acquires the expert’s skills” (p.137).
Teacher self-efficacy is essential in education and can play a major role in overcoming the
above-mentioned problems in education.
The literature reviewed on teacher efficacy research covers research for the past 20 years,
but that on classroom management is recent. Teacher efficacy research can reduce some
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 32
problems in education, especially if researchers investigate teacher efficacy with other factors.
For example, experience in teaching has been associated with positive teacher efficacy. “Rizvi
and Elliot argued that teacher efficacy is an important dimension of teacher professionalism and,
together with other dimensions such as teacher practice, leadership and collaboration” (as cited
in Cheung, 2008, p.103).
Teacher efficacy research can assist teachers who have insufficient beliefs about their
teaching abilities. According to Ng et al. (2010), personal teaching efficacy has been thought of
as having an impact on the growth of beliefs about being a good teacher. Efficacy is the ability
to bring into being the desired results (Tschannen- Moran and Hoy, 2007). Therefore, teacher
self-efficacy can influence teachers to be effective and manage difficult students.
Bandura’s (1977) theory and research provided the second theoretical framework of self-
efficacy. He proposed that “teacher’s efficacy is a type of self-efficacy” he defines as “the
outcomes of cognitive process in which people construct beliefs about their capacity to perform
at a given level of competence” (p. 480). He suggested that peoples’ beliefs have an effect on
their efforts, particularly their determination or flexibility when encountering problems, and the
ways they cope with anxiety in dealing with challenging situations (Bandura, 1977).
Bandura suggested that teacher efficacy consists of personal teaching efficacy and
professional teaching efficacy (as cited in Cheung, 2008). Personal teaching efficacy refers to an
individual’s accountability, how a teacher acknowledges student learning. On the other hand,
professional teaching efficacy is the teacher’s conviction that every teacher possesses the
capabilities to affect what Wheatley termed “external factors” (as cited in Cheung, 2008).
Drawing on the theories of Rotter (1966) and Bandura (1977), Gibson and Dembo (1994)
designed a 30- item instrument based on Rand Corporation researchers‟ (Tschannen- Moran et
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 33
al., 1998). Gibson and Dembo found that teacher efficacy consists of teaching efficacy, general
teaching efficacy, and personal teaching efficacy (Cheung, 2008). Their findings were consistent
with the Rand studies. Rotter (1966) had contrary ideas in regard to self-efficacy.
Bandura (1977) emphasized the distinctions between his theory and that of Rotter (1966)
when he implied that individuals trust themselves to perform some activities (perceived self-
efficacy) which differ from the “beliefs about whether actions affect outcomes (locus of
control)” (p. 481). Rotter (1966’s theory of internal-external locus of control explores
underlying beliefs and associations “between actions and outcomes, not with personal efficacy”
(p.481). An individual may hold the belief that a specific outcome is “internally controllable
caused by actions of people” (p.481) though he or she may still lack confidence in achieving the
desired actions. (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000).
Rotter’s and Bandura’s notions about self-efficacy are indistinguishable from earlier
theories. For example, Bandura mentioned mental abilities with which people can formulate
their beliefs. Rotter investigated teachers’ internal and external beliefs, those definitions that
address thinking alone does not show much difference from earlier theories. Goddard et al.
(2000) contend, “Some educators have assumed that Rotter’s internal locus of control and
Bandura’s perceived self-efficacy and locus of control are roughly the same” (p. 481).
Although some of his definitions about mental abilities did not differ greatly with
previous research, Bandura (1977, 1986, and 1997) is a major contributor among researchers in
the area of teacher self-efficacy theory. The model of self-efficacy theory is characterized by
connections of the self to the community (triadic reciprocal causation) and involves “behavior,
internal personal factors (cognitive, affective, and biological events”) and the external
environment as reciprocating factors (Dellinger et al., 2008).
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 34
Self-efficacy model is vital in that it helps us to understand how an individual’s behavior
can be influenced by the environment as well as by biological factors. For example, some
Batswana teacher trainees chose teaching in response to the shortage of teachers in their country
rather than from having an actual passion to help students learn. This decision shows the
influence of culture on some individuals.
Summary
Teachers must remember they cannot expect adult behavior from students (Wang,
Haertal, & Walberg, 1993). Earning the students’ respect is most likely the most important
prevention strategy of all (Martin & Baldwin, 1992; Marzano, 2003). Teacher-student
relationships provide an essential foundation for effective classroom management. Teacher-
student relationships that are developed deliberately by using strategies supported by research
can influence the dynamics of the classroom and will support student learning. Researchers and
scholars have recently developed great interest in teacher efficacy because it promotes teacher
effectiveness and provides solutions to problems in teacher education. Furthermore, it enhances
teacher productivity. Teacher efficacy influences classroom instruction, students’ learning, and
performance. Literature indicates that teachers, who do not believe in themselves as effective,
do not use instructions that will promote cognitive learning. Other scholars and researchers
alluded to teacher efficacy as an important component of teaching for it helps teachers to
conceptualize teaching and to develop self-conception. Teachers with high efficacy are able to
motivate students to learn and are capable of engaging students in learning even if students are
disruptive. Teacher efficacy is an important attribute of classroom management. Literature
indicates that classroom management is a difficult issue to deal with. Teachers with high efficacy
are effective managers and student counselors. They know how to handle misbehaving students;
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 35
they can effectively organize classrooms in which learning and good performance will be
achieved.

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 36
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter elaborates on the methodology followed to gather the data that is required.
Research Questions
1. What methods of classroom management are preferred among teachers in the elementary
school classroom setting?
2. Does the application of specific classroom management techniques correlate with the
self-efficacy of the teacher?
Research Design
The researcher used a non-experimental survey research design. A survey in this case
was a questionnaire answered by the teachers, as the most convenient method of gaining
maximum data from the most number of participants possible. It offered results in a very direct
and simple way. The first portion of the survey contained Likert-scale type questions about
preferred classroom management techniques. The second portion of the survey contained Likert-
scale type questions that were specific questions about teaching beliefs in regards to efficacy,.
The research concentrates on some direct questions that are essential to the research and are
based on the practices that teachers employ while they are managing their classrooms.
Population and Sample
Selecting a school that satisfied the criteria for a good judgment sample was critical.
Alvarado Elementary School in Long Beach, CA (part of Long Beach Unified School District)
was selected because it is a sample of both high and low socio-economic status kids from the
surrounding areas, which differ greatly. The school has pre-kindergarten through fifth grade
with a distinctive integration program of special education and mainstreaming, as noted by the
researcher during administrative credential internship work in summer, 2012. This means that
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 37
distinct classes are present in the sample for regular students and students with special needs,
which improves the discrete nature in which we can study the management of classes of special
education.
Apart from the merits of the school, the researcher has been an acting principal at the
school and thus has knowledge of the school’s administrative structure, which gives enormous
room to conduct the study. Knowing the teachers allows maximum exchange of information.
Instrumentation
Gibson and Dembo (1984) were first to develop an instrument specifically to measure
teacher self-efficacy. Their instrument, the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES), has been used in many
studies and is considered a standard tool for measuring the teacher self-efficacy construct. It also
inspired researchers to develop and use similar instruments, especially subject-specific measures
such as ones for teaching mathematics
Gibson and Dembo’s 22 item scale reveals that teacher efficacy is significantly correlated
with student control ideology. The purpose of the Teacher Efficacy Scale is to measure teachers’
attitude towards working with students. There are two versions of the scale – the long form
(Gibson and Dembo, 1984) and the short form (Hoy, W.K. & Woolfolk, 1993). These are
designed to take a sample from areas that are said to play vital roles in teacher effectiveness,
such as organization and behavior management. According to Gibson and Dembo (1985),
during the 1980s, and into the current decade, educational researchers have demonstrated a keen
interest in the construct of teacher efficacy, or the extent to which teachers believe they can
affect student learning.
Researchers generally credit Bandura (1977; Bandura, 1986) for providing the theoretical
framework for studying teacher efficacy. Bandura (1997) pointed out that teachers’ sense of
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 38
efficacy is not necessarily uniform across the many different types of tasks teachers perform. In
response, he constructed a 30-item instrument with seven subscales: efficacy to influence
decision-making, efficacy to influence school resources, instructional efficacy, disciplinary
efficacy, efficacy to enlist parental involvement, efficacy to enlist community involvement, and
efficacy to create a positive school climate. Each item is measured on a 9-point scale anchored
with the notations: “nothing, very little, some influence, quite a bit, a great deal.” This measure
attempts to provide a multi-faceted picture of teachers’ efficacy beliefs without becoming too
narrow or specific. Unfortunately, reliability and validity information about the measure have not
been available.
Fixed interval Likert-type scales commonly measure attitudes, perceptions and behavior.
A quantitative study based on a number of statements about organizations, people, and teaching
are presented in the form of a six point Likert scale in the Teacher Efficacy measurement
developed by Gibson and Dembo in 1984. The Classroom Management Technique survey,
which is a creation of the researcher, uses a five point fixed interval Likert scale. In using a
Likert Scale, it is evident that numerical data is sufficient in determining the underlying factors
that affect choices made with behavior management in schools and thus concentrating on a
quantitative study is the appropriate decision. The Gibson and Dembo (1984) is located in
Appendix D.
Procedure and Data Collection
An advance statement was communicated to the respondents in person during a staff
meeting. A short introduction accompanied the survey, about the person who conducted the
survey. It allowed the respondents to become familiar with the researcher, which promotes the
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 39
probability that they answered questions in a comfortable manner and gave due attention to the
research topic.
Data collection in this particular case was three-fold, and this was to ensure that the
number of respondents could be maximized. A questionnaire was printed out and placed in
teachers’ mailboxes. This strategy offered convenience for teachers who did not wish to be
caught up at either work or home, and a greater depth to questioning could be ensured.
All respondents were told of the purpose of the study, and they were informed of the
details of each classroom management technique listed within the survey questions. Finally, no
teacher is named to ensure the maximum level of participation and transparency in conducting
the survey. Anonymity was guaranteed for the participants.
Data Analysis
All data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 21. Initial data exploration consisted
of descriptive statistics including the mean, standard deviation, median, mode, skewness and
kurtosis, and frequencies for all scale variables (Likert-type scale items) and frequencies for all
categorical variables. Tests of the assumption of normal distribution were conducted using
skewness and kurtosis statistics, visual inspection of normal curves superimposed over the
individual histograms of each scale variable and by the Shapiro-Wilk test of distribution with an
alpha set a priori at α = .05. It was determined that none of the scale variables were normally
distributed so all correlations were assessed using the non-parametric Spearman’s rho correlation
coefficient. Subsequently, significant relationships between scalar variables were determined
using Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient. A multiple linear regression model was developed
to identify and quantify significant factors in the determination of teacher preference in
classroom management techniques.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 40
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The researcher generated descriptive statistics for all variables, which includes the mean,
median, mode, standard deviation, standard error, and skewness and kurtosis for each of the
interval and ratio level variables. Following the previous step, the researcher created
frequencies, along with their modes, for each of the categorical variables. Presentation of these
findings is in Table 1. Essential to the results section of the study was that the researcher tested
the scalar variables for normal distribution using three methods: visual inspection of histograms
with normal curves superimposed, inspection of skewness and kurtosis statistics, and, lastly, the
use of the Shapiro-Wilk test for distribution. Presentation of these findings is in Table 2. The
researcher determines that for each of the scalar variables in the study the assumption of normal
distributions violated, therefore, non-parametric statistics were used for all inferential analyses.
Research Questions
A research component of this study was to analyze the self-efficacy beliefs of teachers,
which might influence numerous aspects of thinking, decision-making, and behavior. Self-
efficacy describes the teacher’s self-conception of their individual performance capability, rather
than a universal self-evaluation (Bandura, 1977, 1982). The greater specificity of the survey
construct may permit a more direct prediction of teacher behavior, as self-efficacy is a judgment
of an individual’s capability to accomplish a particular level of performance (Bandura, 1986).
This discussion leads into the following research questions:
1. What methods of classroom management are preferred among teachers in the elementary
school classroom setting?
2. Does the application of specific classroom management techniques correlate with the
self-efficacy of the teacher?
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 41

Data Collection
The study involved collection and analysis of quantitative data, which were
collected through surveys at Alvarado Elementary School in the Long Beach Unified School
District. The study was conducted between October 1, 2014 and November 7, 2014. Prior to
delivering the survey packets to the selected sample, permission to conduct the study and solicit
participation was obtained from the University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB)
(see Appendix C). Collection of data terminated at the beginning of November 2014. By that
date, of the 52 survey packets delivered, 41 questionnaires were returned to the researcher with a
total return rate of approximately 79%. The survey packets included the demographic questions,
the Classroom Management Techniques Description Sheet and Questionnaire, the Gibson and
Dembo Teacher Efficacy Survey, a letter inviting teachers to participate in the study, a Human
Subjects Information Sheet, and a personal note of thanks.
Data Presentation
The first research question was answered by frequency counts on the responses of each of
the subjects in the study. Results are presented below, in Tables 6-21. The management
techniques were ranked according to the numbers of respondents who regarded each technique as
“Always Effective” on the Likert-type scale. This is presented in Table 22. The techniques that
were deemed “Always Effective” are Awareness of High Needs with a frequency of 27, Take a
Personal Interest in the Student with a frequency of 17, and Extrinsic Motivation and Connecting
with Parents, both with a frequency of 14.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 42
Table 1
Techniques Regarded as Always Effective
Technique Frequency Percent
Awareness of High-Needs 27 65.9
Take a Personal Interest in the Student 17 41.5
Connecting with Parents 14 34.1
Extrinsic Motivation 14
Body Language 12 29.3
Use of Silence 12 29.3
Clear Expectations and Consequences 11 26.8
Clear Learning Goals 11 26.8
Assertive Behavior 10 24.4
Equitable and Positive Behaviors 10 24.4
Shared Expectations 9 22.0
Isolate the Individual 8 19.5
Cooperative Learning 7 17.1
Stop Light Behavior Chart 6 14.6

Table 2
Clear Expectations and Consequences
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 7 17.1 17.1 17.1
4 23 56.1 56.1 73.2
5 11 26.8 26.8 100.0
Total 41 100.0 100.0

Table 3
Clear Learning Goals
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 8 19.5 19.5 19.5
4 22 53.7 53.7 73.2
5 11 26.8 26.8 100.0
Total 41 100.0 100.0

Table 4
Shared Expectations
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 13 31.7 37.1 37.1
4 13 31.7 37.1 74.3
5 9 22.0 25.7 100.0
Total 35 85.4 100.0
Missing 9 6 14.6
Total 41 100.0
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 43

Table 6
Diffusion
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 14 34.1 38.9 38.9
4 13 31.7 36.1 75.0
5 9 22.0 25.0 100.0
Total 36 87.8 100.0
Missing 9 5 12.2

Table 7
Isolate the Individual
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 10 24.4 27.8 27.8
4 18 43.9 50.0 77.8
5 8 19.5 22.2 100.0
Total 36 87.8 100.0
Missing 9 5 12.2
Total 41 100.0

Table 8
Extrinsic Motivation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 8 19.5 21.6 21.6
4 15 36.6 40.5 62.2
5 14 34.1 37.8 100.0
Total 37 90.2 100.0
Missing 9 4 9.8
Total 41 100.0

Table 5
Consistency and Routines
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 3 7.3 7.3 7.3
4 13 31.7 31.7 39.0
5 25 61.0 61.0 100.0
Total 41 100.0 100.0
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 44
Table 9
Stop Light Behavior Chart
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 3 7.3 20.0 20.0
4 6 14.6 40.0 60.0
5 6 14.6 40.0 100.0
Total 15 36.6 100.0
Missing 9 26 63.4
Total 41 100.0

Table 10
Body Language
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 7 17.1 20.0 20.0
4 16 39.0 45.7 65.7
5 12 29.3 34.3 100.0
Total 35 85.4 100.0
Missing 9 6 14.6
Total 41 100.0

Table 11
Use of Silence
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 2 1 2.4 3.0 3.0
3 5 12.2 15.2 18.2
4 15 36.6 45.5 63.6
5 12 29.3 36.4 100.0
Total 33 80.5 100.0
Missing 9 8 19.5
Total 41 100.0

Table 12
Cooperative Learning
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 10 24.4 31.3 31.3
4 15 36.6 46.9 78.1
5 7 17.1 21.9 100.0
Total 32 78.0 100.0
Missing 9 9 22.0
Total 41 100.0

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 45
Table 13
Take a Personal Interest in the Student
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 6 14.6 14.6 14.6
4 18 43.9 43.9 58.5
5 17 41.5 41.5 100.0
Total 41 100.0 100.0

Table 14
Assertive Behavior
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 10 24.4 25.6 25.6
4 19 46.3 48.7 74.4
5 10 24.4 25.6 100.0
Total 39 95.1 100.0
Missing 9 2 4.9
Total 41 100.0

Table 15
Equitable and Positive Classroom Behaviors

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 8 19.5 22.2 22.2
4 18 43.9 50.0 72.2
5 10 24.4 27.8 100.0
Total 36 87.8 100.0
Missing 9 5 12.2
Total 41 100.0

Table 16
Awareness of High-Needs Students
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 3 7.3 7.3 7.3
4 11 26.8 26.8 34.1
5 27 65.9 65.9 100.0
Total 41 100.0 100.0

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 46
Table 17
Connecting with Parents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 2 1 2.4 2.4 2.4
3 11 26.8 26.8 29.3
4 15 36.6 36.6 65.9
5 14 34.1 34.1 100.0
Total 41 100.0 100.0

Scale Reliability
Validity of the instrument was examined by the researcher and the dissertation committee
by comparing the scores on this instrument with those obtained from a well-known and
established instrument, the Gibson and Dembo (1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES). The
Teacher Efficacy Scale was developed in 1984 by Sherri Gibson and Myron Dembo, and may be
used to measure the two dimensions of efficacy: teaching efficacy and personal efficacy. The
Gibson and Dembo Efficacy Scale is a thirty-item questionnaire, which requires Likert type
responses. In completing the analysis of internal consistency, Gibson found that only sixteen of
the thirty items yielded acceptable reliability coefficients: Cronbach’s alpha for the nine items
measuring personal efficacy was .78; and for the seven items measuring teaching efficacy
Cronbach’s alpha was .75, with a .79 alpha for the combined scales.
The researcher implemented scale reliability assessments, also conducted using the
Cronbach’s alpha statistic, where values higher than 0.70 were taken as acceptable. In the
current study, Cronbach’s alpha for the Gibson- Dembo Scale was found to be alpha (α) = .924,
which is interpreted as excellent (Cronbach, 1951). Each item used in the initial scale was
assessed to determine if the overall value of Cronbach’s Alpha would increase if the individual
item were deleted. All variables that were included in the preliminary trial were included in the
final scale. In agreement with Gibson and Dembo (1984), the research determines that no
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 47
individual variable in the initial scale assessment reduced the resulting value of the overall alpha
statistic.

Table 18
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Teacher Effort 3.70 .564 40
Teacher Training 3.58 .675 40
Assignment Adjustment 3.65 .580 40
Better Grade 3.63 .740 40
Trying with Difficult Students 3.60 .841 40
Effective Approaches 3.55 .639 40
New Concepts 3.50 .555 40
Lesson Retention 3.38 .628 40
Disruptive Students 3.75 .809 40
Level of Difficulty 3.45 .677 40

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 48
Table 19
Shapiro-Wilk Test of Distribution
Statistic df Sig.
Clear Expectations and Goals .801 14 .005
Clear Learning Goals .821 14 .009
Shared Expectations .792 14 .004
Consistency and Routines .627 14 .000
Diffusion .763 14 .002
Isolate the Individual .823 14 .010
Extrinsic Motivation .786 14 .003
Stop Light Behavior Chart .798 14 .005
Body Language .798 14 .005
Use of Silence .816 14 .008
Cooperative Learning .823 14 .010
Take a Personal Interest in Students .796 14 .005
Assertive Behavior .823 14 .010
Equitable and Positive Classroom Behaviors .810 14 .007
Awareness of High-Needs Students .627 14 .000
Connecting with Parents .824 14 .010
Teacher Effort .801 14 .005
Teacher Training .771 14 .002
Adjust Assignment .750 14 .001
Better Grade .821 14 .009
Trying with Difficult Students .816 14 .008
Effective Approaches .773 14 .002
New Concepts .639 14 .000
Lesson Retention .731 14 .001
Disruptive Students .786 14 .003
Level of Difficulty .688 14 .000

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 49
Table 20
Spearman ’s Rho - Teacher Efficacy
Correlation Coefficient p value
Teacher Efficacy 1.000 .
Clear Expectations and Consequences .368 .019*
Clear Learning Goals .359 .023*
Shared Expectations .228 .195
Routines .291 .069
Diffusion -.011 .952
Isolate the Student .059 .736
Extrinsic Motivation -.056 .747
Stoplight Chart -.020. .942
Body Language .191 .279
Use of Silence .226 .213
Cooperative Learning .002 .991
Personal Interest .170 .294
Assertive .194 .242
Equitable/Positive .050 .776
Awareness of High -Needs .304 .056 Ϯ
Connecting with Parents .103 .527
* Significance = p < .05
Ϯ Approaching significance = p < .10

Regression Analysis
A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate whether or not any of the
classroom management techniques, which had been identified as significantly correlated with
teachers’ self-efficacy, were significant predictors of a teacher’s choice of management
techniques. None were found to be significant predictors at the α =.05 level.

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 50

Since the data were determined to violate the assumption of normal distribution,
Spearman’s rho was used to quantify relationships between variables rather than Pearson’s
Product-moment Correlation Coefficient. An experiment wide level of significance was set a
priori at α = .05. While carefully reviewing the nonparametric correlation data, the researcher
found moderately weak but statistically significant relationships between Teacher Efficacy and
Expectations and Goals (rho = .368, p= .019), along with Teacher Efficacy and Clear Learning
Goals (rho = .359, p = .023). Relationships approached significance (p < .10) for Teacher
Efficacy and High Needs (rho = .304, p = .056), respectively. The data did not reveal further
significant relationships at the .05 level for the Spearman’s Rho or p values.
Summary
During observant analysis of the nonparametric correlation data, the researcher found
moderately weak but statistically significant relationships between Teacher Efficacy and

Table 21
ANOVA
a

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 190.819 4 47.705 1.910 .131
b

Residual 874.156 35 24.976
Total 1064.975 39
a. Dependent Variable: Teacher_Efficacy
b. Predictors: (Constant), highneeds, goals, routines, expectations

Table 22
Coefficients
a

Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
95.0% Confidence
Interval for B
B Std. Error Beta
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1 (Constant) 18.549 6.873 2.699 .011 4.597 32.501
expectations
2.351 5.531 .302 .425 .673 -8.877 13.578
goals .168 5.145 .022 .033 .974 -10.278 10.614
routines -.011 1.698 -.001 -.006 .995 -3.459 3.437
High-Needs 1.520 1.459 .185 1.042 .305 -1.441 4.481
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 51
Expectations and Consequences (rho = .368, p= .019), along with Teacher Efficacy and Clear
Learning Goals (rho = .359, p = .023). The study found relationships that approached
significance for Teacher Efficacy and High Needs (rho = .304, p = .056). It can be reasonably
presumed, that with a larger sample size, further significant relationships could have been seen.
Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that use of particular management strategies was not
predictive of teacher self-efficacy.

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 52
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Classroom management is often a difficult issue for teachers, as providing a learning
environment conducive to student learning is not an easy task (Brooks & Brooks, 1999).
Furthermore, studies illustrated that the most important factor in succeeding in classroom
management is the teacher’s ability to supervise and organize instruction that leads to student
engagement and an improved teaching and learning process (Brophy, 1988).
When teachers effectively manage their classrooms, the classrooms become places of
freedom and safety for students to learn. Students are able to improve their skill sets by
attending to the teacher’s instruction without interference from disruptive classmates. Even
more, well-managed classrooms reduce the number of low-achieving students (Dibapile, 2011).
Findings and Interpretations
This study sought to examine the relationship between teacher efficacy and attitudes in
classroom management. To accomplish this, the following research questions were proposed:
Research Question 1 asked, “What methods of classroom management are preferred among
teachers in the elementary school classroom setting?”
Research Question 2 asked, “Does the application of specific classroom management techniques
correlate with the self-efficacy of the teacher?”
Teacher Efficacy and Clear Expectations and Consequences
This study sought teachers’ understandings of how teacher participation in the
classroom’s decision-making affected individual student and whole classroom activity.
According to Zimmerman (2000, 2006, & 2008), the primary effects of clear expectation is seen
with student assessment, curriculum frameworks, use of technology, and working with students
who do not conform to school norms. Strong school-level consequences and weak classroom-
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 53
level consequences are reflections of teachers’ beliefs about their own competence, the
persistence of the culture of teacher isolation, professional educators’ uncertainty about what
makes up excellence in schools, and information and decision-making overload (Pajares &
Schunk, 2001; Pintrich, 2003).
Teacher Efficacy and Clear Learning Goals
This study suggests that teacher efficacy might correlate to improving students’ learning
and achievement. This finding implies that teacher efficacy could allow students to become
confident individuals who set their own learning goals have more self-assurance to take on added
challenging tasks, regardless of their ability (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003). With clear learning
goals, students’ motivation to improve and master a task is improved and their self-esteem
remains strong, even in the case of failure (Darling-Hammond &Baratz-Snowden, 2006). When
students receive help in delving into their own thinking and learning processes, they are drawn to
think about the effectiveness of the strategies they used to achieve their learning goals (Muijs &
Reynolds, 2002). A teacher with self-efficacy models this for the class during instruction.
Students listen to the teacher speak aloud about planning what to do, monitoring progress
towards achieving it, and evaluating the outcome. This helps students take more control over
their thinking and learning processes and equip them with the wisdom to learn metacognitive
skills (Bandura, 1993).
Efficacious teachers engage the students by commanding their attention through active
participation in their own education (Dibapile, 2011). Strategies used by teachers with a strong
sense of efficacy are support activities to identify and build strategies for students to understand
learning goals. These strategies include discussing “SMART” (Specific, Meaningful, Action-
based, Realistic and Time-based) learning goals with students, revealing aspects of the
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 54
development process of which students may not be aware (Locke, 2001). Apart from learning
goals being specific and meaningful, students become aware that they achieve these goals
through their own actions (action-based) and within a timeframe (time-based). Developing
personal learning goals through this process helps students focus on planning how to achieve
their goals within a certain timeframe. The efficacious teacher is able to teach with
metacognition strategies (Locke, 2001). According to Locke (2001), asking students to
participate in their own learning requires teaching them to think about their thinking.
Teacher Efficacy and Awareness of High-Needs
Results of the study, shown in the Frequency Table 2, imply that efficacious teachers
have an awareness about support of students with high-needs as indicated with the “Always
Effective” Likert-type scale option they selected. Bryman (2004), states that these changes
generally focus on teacher efficacy, as well as the review of the child’s rights to individualized
instruction. Burden (2000), posits that it can be inferred that teachers with a solid sense of
efficacy naturally create collaborative approaches for high-needs students within the general
education or special education classroom. Teachers who are mostly inclusive are warm and
welcoming to students with high needs (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Self-efficacious teachers are
committed to creating an inclusive culture where students with high needs are valued members
of the school community (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003). Students have well-developed
Individual Education Plans with specific and achievable social, cultural and academic goals.
School staff and outside personnel must be asked to be coordinated to provide appropriate
support (Krippendorf, 2004).

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 55
Non-Significance
Teacher Efficacy with Shared Expectations, Routines, Diffusion, Isolate the Individual,
Extrinsic Motivation, Stoplight Chart, Body Language, Use of Silence, Cooperative Learning,
Personal Interest, Assertive Attitude, and Equitable/Positive Outcomes did not show a significant
correlation. Numerous factors influence these specific variables in the classroom in conjunction
with the teacher’s efficacy (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003). A small sample is not powerful
enough to elucidate a weak yet significant correlation. An underpowered sample will skew
results, which a larger sample size may display as significant. The convenience sample was
intended to maximize the chance of uncovering a specific mean difference, which is also
statistically significant. Essential to comprehending non-significance is that specific difference
and statistical significance are two quite different ideas. Statistical significance is a probability
statement telling us how likely it is that the observed difference was due to chance only. The
reason larger samples increase the chance of significance is they more reliably reflect the
population mean (Cronbach, 1951). The low number of significant correlations implies that use
of many specific classroom management techniques is not related to teacher-efficacy.
Individual teachers have specified perceptions of Extrinsic Motivation, Body Language,
taking Personal Interest in students, and using an Assertive Attitude for student behavior
modification. Each of these variables, if used in the classroom, will most likely look very
different from individual to individual and across vertical grade levels (Candler, 2012). Teacher
Efficacy with Shared Expectations, Routines, Diffusion, Stoplight Chart, Use of Silence,
Cooperative Learning, and Equitable/Positive Outcomes did not show a significant correlation,
as many teachers may experience a different locus of control and comfort level with these
methods (Stringer, 2007).
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 56
Limitations of the Study
Varieties of limitations naturally constrain the conclusions drawn from this research, as in
all studies (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008). The potential limitations discussed in the beginning of
the study were affirmed once again with the conclusion. The study exclusively focused on the
issues and classroom management practices that relate to the behaviors of a particular group of
students attending one school in a large city; therefore, external validity is limited. The
researcher only determined that the dependent variables and independent variables are related. A
potential limitation was that of bias, resulting from teachers providing answers they consider
socially acceptable. The researcher was unable to certify that each survey respondent replied
honestly. Self-reported data is limited by the fact that it rarely can be independently verified.
The researcher took what people wrote on the questionnaires at face value. Self-reported data
can contain sources of bias also regarded as limitations: selective memory, attribution, and,
exaggeration. Although the researcher sought to maximize participation, sample bias is a
limitation if teachers chose not to complete the survey. In addition, the environment of school
connectedness may have also influenced the conclusions of this study. Lastly, the study was not
experimental, and, therefore, no direct causal relationship was implied.
Suggestions for Further Research
Results from correlational analysis and multiple regression revealed a moderately weak
but statistically significant relationship between Teacher Efficacy and Expectations and Goals, as
well as between Teacher Efficacy and Clear Learning Goals but failed to demonstrate any
predictive value of those variables. Additional research, using a larger sample size and a wider
geographical distribution, in this area will help further clarify the nature of relationships among
the study variables. Deeper insights into the study’s variables may be obtained by incorporating
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 57
observational and interview data. Another suggestion may be to replicate this study with upper
elementary grade teachers for comparison purposes. Such a comparison would prove useful in
understanding how classroom management beliefs vary according to grade level and what
additional factors may be at play. More research using this instrument will contribute to the
refinement process of a promising efficacy scale with a classroom management subscale.
Primary classroom management and teacher efficacy research can assist teachers’ desire
of becoming masterful, promoting the best of student conduct. Efficacy is the ability to bring
into being the desired results of a particular task, which enables this study to define teacher self-
efficacy as the influence teachers exude in regards to bring about the desired daily objectives in
the classroom setting (Viel-Ruma, Houchins, Jolivette, & Benson, 2010).
Although this topic easily attracts the attention of researchers, teachers, and parents, the
mission continues. The dynamics of classroom management beliefs and its relationship with
other integral variables, such as teachers’ sense of efficacy, need further exploration (Viel-Ruma,
Houchins, Jolivette, & Benson, 2010). Adding the relatively new variable of teacher efficacy
into classroom management, the researcher hopes this study enables all parties interested in this
construct to have a better understanding of what is going on in our classrooms. The success of
students in the classroom depends largely on the teachers’ attitude and their confidence in
promoting positive educational outcomes for the entire class (Woolfolk-Hoy, 2004). The
teacher’s amount of teaching and previous experience teaching special education students does
influence the attitude’s teachers have toward behavior modification (Burke & Sutherland, 2004).
This study may shed some light on the complex and equally important construct of classroom
management.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 58
Results show that primary grade teachers’ efficacy levels and their teaching beliefs
influence their classroom practices. At the same time, results show that primary grade teachers’
classroom practices influence their efficacy and teaching beliefs. Researchers identified positive
relationships between the class management skills of teachers and the achievement of their
students (Brophy & Good, 1986; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990; Woolfolk, Rosoff & Hoy, 1990). An
important finding was that teachers’ efficacy levels and teaching beliefs were predictive of their
preferred methods of classroom management.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to explore relationships between teacher efficacy and
classroom management in the primary setting. Chapter Four provided a detailed account of the
data and results. This chapter provides discussion of the conclusions drawn from the analysis
and considers implications both for practice and for future research. As Melby (1995), stated,
“Individuals who believe that students’ destinies are fixed, that teaching doesn’t matter, and they
personally are unable to effect change with students have no business being teachers” (p. 78).
The results also point to the need for teacher educators to arm their pre-service teachers with a
strong sense of who they are, what they believe and why, and the skills and strategies to help
them feel efficacious in the implementation of those beliefs (Melby, 1995).
The study looked at management techniques choices, and relationships between those
choices with teacher-efficacy in how people handle the challenges and stresses in the primary
classroom. Bandura (1977, 1993) argued that self-efficacy beliefs lie at the core of human
functioning. For example, an individual teacher may have the skills and knowledge to
accomplish a given task characteristic of classroom management; however, that does not mean
the task will be accomplished correctly (McKinney, Sexton, & Myerson, 1999). The research
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 59
that teachers must believe they can successfully accomplish the task under pressure or duress in
order to obtain management of a classroom. Effective human functioning, according to Bandura
(1977), requires that a person have both skills and efficacy beliefs.

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 60
References
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2002). School counselors and school reform: New directions.
Professional School Counseling, 5(4), 235–248.
Allen, J. D. (1986). Classroom management: students’ perspectives, goals, and strategies.
American Educational Research Journal, 23, 437-459.
Allen, K. (2010). Classroom management, bullying, and teacher practices. Professional
Educator, 34(1), 1-15.
Allinder, R. M. (1995). An examination of the relationship between teacher efficacy and
curriculum-based measurement and student achievement. Remedial and Special
Education, 16(4), 247-54.
Anderson, R. N., Greene, M. L., & Loewen, P. S. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and
students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of
Educational Research, 34(2), 148-165.
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., E., & Zellman, G. (1976).
Analysis of the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles minority
schools (No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Ashton, P. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 28-32.
Ashton, P. T., Buhr, D., & Crocker L. (1984). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: A self- or norm-
referenced construct? Florida Journal of Education, 26(1), 29-41.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers ’ sense of efficacy and
student achievement. New York, NY: Longman.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 61
Attributed to Socrates by Plato, according to Johnson, L. and Patty, W. (1953). Personality and
Adjustment. American Journal of Nursing, 53(11) pp. 1312-1313
Ayers, B. J. (1994). Equity, excellence, and diversity in the regular classroom. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 54(10).
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 8(3), 231-255.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York, NY: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman
[Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998).
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
Bandura, A. (2001) Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales (Monograph). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University.
Barber, M. & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world ’s best-performing school systems come out
on top. London, England: McKinsey & Company.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 62
Barkley, J. M. (2006). Reading education: Is self-efficacy important? Reading Improvement,
43(4), 194-210.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs
supporting educational change, vol. VII: Factors affecting implementation and
continuation. (No. R-1589/7-HEW). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and
practice (pp. 47–63). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Books, S. (2007). What are we talking about when we talk about “closing the achievement gap”?
International Journal of Learning, 14(2), 11-17.
Brady, K., & Woolfson, L. (2008). What teacher factors influence their attributions for children’s
difficulties in learning? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 527-544.
Bray-Clark, N., & Bates, R. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs and teacher effectiveness: Implications
for professional development. Professional Educator, 26(1), 13-22.
Bredeson, P., & Scribner, J. (1996). Professional development through action research: A
collaborative school/university project. Planning and Change, 27(1), 74-88.
Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership,
57(3), 18-24.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1984). Teacher behavior and student achievement. Institute for
Research on Teaching: Michigan State University.
Brophy, J. (1988). Educating teachers about managing classrooms and students. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 4(1), 1-18.
Brophy, J. E. (1996). Teaching problem students. New York: Guilford.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 63
Brophy, J. E., & McCaslin, N. (1992). Teachers’ reports of how they perceive and cope with
problem students. Elementary School Journal, 93, 3–68.
Bruce, C. D., Esmonde, I., Ross, J., Dookie, L., & Beatty, R. (2010). The effects of sustained
classroom-embedded teacher professional learning on teacher efficacy and related student
achievement. Teaching & Teacher Education, 26(8), 1598-1608.
Bryman, A. (2004). Triangulation and measurement. Retrieved from www.referenceworld.com/
sage/socialscience/triangulation.pdf
Bryant, L., & Yan, W. (2010). Urban school teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and AYP status. The
Charter Schools Resource Journal. (6)1, 1-16.
Buck, G. H. (1992). Classroom management and the disruptive child. Music Educators Journal,
79(3), 36.
Burden, P. R. (2000). Powerful classroom management strategies: motivating students to learn.
Thousand Oaks. CA: Corwin Press.
Burden, P. (2006). Classroom management: creating successful K12 learning community.
Recherche, 67(2).
Cambell, S. B., & Ewing, L. J. (1990). Follow-up of hard-to-manage preschoolers: adjustment at
age 9 and predictors of continuing symptoms. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 31(6), 871-889.
Candler, L. (2012). Teaching resources: Stoplight behavior management system. Retrieved from
http://www.lauracandler.com/filecabinet/misc/stoplite.pdf.
Caprara, G. V., Barbranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the
school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473-490.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 64
Capizzi, A. M. (2009). Start the year off right: designing and evaluating a supportive classroom
management plan. Focus on Exceptional Children. Journal of Theory & Practice in
Education, 6(1), 68-85.
Cerit, Y. (2010). Teacher efficacy scale: The study of validity and reliability and preservice
classroom teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Theory & Practice in Education,
6(1), 68-85.
Cheung, H.Y. (2008) Teacher efficacy: A comparative study of Hong Kong and Shanghai
primary inservice teachers. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 103-123.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of
Experimental Education, 60(4), 323-337.
Chiu, L. H., & Tulley, M. (1997). Student preferences of teacher discipline styles. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 24(3), 168–175.
Collier, M. D., (2005). An ethic of caring: The fuel for high teacher efficacy. Urban Review,
37(4), 351-359.
Collins, J. L. (1982, March). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior. Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Research Association, New York, NY.
Cooper, H. M., (1979a). Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectations communication
and performance influence. Review of Educational Research, 49(3), 389-410.
Cooper, H. M. (1979b, September ). Understanding Pygmalion: The social psychology of self-
fulfilling classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American
Psychological Association, New York, NY.
Colvin, G., Kameenui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993). Reconceptualizing behavior management and
school-wide discipline in general education. Education & Treatment of Children.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 65
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16(3), 297-334.
Curran, M. E. (2003). Linguistic diversity and classroom management. Theory into Practice,
42(4). 334-340.
Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). The reflective educator ’s guide to classroom
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (2006). A good teacher in everyday classroom:
Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Davies, B. (2004, December). The relationship between teacher efficacy and higher order
instructional emphasis. Paper presented at the meeting of the Australian Association for
Research in Education, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from
http://publications.aare.edu.au/04pap/dav04854.pdf
Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J. J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, C. D. (2008). Measuring teachers’ self-
efficacy beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS-self. Teaching and Teacher
Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24(3), 751-766
Del Rio-Roberts, M. (2011). How I learned to conduct focus groups. The Qualitative Report,
16(1), 312-315. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR16-1/rioroberts.pdf
Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important factor in school
Improvement. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 173-184.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y. (2003). (Eds). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and
issues (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage Publications.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 66
Dibapile, W. T. S. (2011, March). A literature review of literature on teacher efficacy and
classroom management. Paper presented at New Orleans International Academic
Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Doyle, W. & Ponder, G. (1977). The practicality ethic and teacher decision-making. Interchange,
(8)3, 1-12.
Dunn, N. A., & Baker, S. B. (2002). Readiness to serve students with disabilities: A survey of
elementary school counselors. Professional School Counselors, 5(4), 277–284.
Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Worsham, M. E. (2003). Classroom management for
secondary teachers (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Erpenbach, W. J., Forte-Fast, E., & Potts, A. (2003). Statewide educational accountability under
NCLB: Central issues arising from an examination of state accountability workbooks and
U.S. Department of Education reviews under the No Child Left Behind act of 2001.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Evans, A. (2009). No Child Left Behind and the quest for educational equity: The role of
teachers’ collective sense of efficacy. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 8(1), 64-91.
Evertson, C. M., Emmer, E. T., & Worsham, M. E. (2003). Classroom management for
elementary teachers (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Evertson, C. M. & Neal, K. W. (2005). Looking into learning-centered classrooms: Implications
for classroom management. In B. Demarest (Ed.) Benchmarks for Excellence.
Washington. DC: NEA.
Fecso, R. S., Kalsbeek, W. D., Lohr, S. L., Scheaffer, R. L., Scheuren, F. J., & Stasny, E. A.
(1996). Teaching survey sampling. The American Statistician,50(4), 328-340.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 67
Ferguson, R. F. (2008). Toward excellence with equity: An emerging vision for closing the
achievement gap. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Freiberg, H. J. (Ed.). (1999). Beyond behaviorism: changing the classroom management
paradigm. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Freiberg, H. J., Stein, T. A., & Huang, S. (1995). Effects of a classroom management
intervention on student achievement in inner-city elementary schools. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 1, 36–66.
Friedman, I. A., & Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-organization
conceptualization. Teaching & Teacher Education, 18(6), 675-686.
Gariepy, D.K., Spencer, B.L., & Couture, J. (Eds.). (2009). Educational accountability:
Professional voices from the field. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Garrett, T. (2008). Student and teacher-centered classroom management: A case study of three
teachers’ beliefs and practices. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The State University
of New Jersey: New Brunswick.
Gavora, P. (2010). Slovak pre-service teacher self-efficacy: theoretical and research
considerations. The New Educational Review, 21(2), 17-30.
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. M. (1997). Relations among experience, teacher efficacy and attitudes
towards the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Record,
(13)4, 451-458.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 68
Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers ’ and students ’ verbal behaviors during cooperative and small-
group learning. Retrieved from: www.ERIC.Edu.Gov
Glasser, W. (1969). Schools without failure. New York: Harper and Row.
Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York:
Harper and Row.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and
student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 467-476.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
37(2), 479-507.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.
Griffin, G. A. (1983). Introduction: The work of staff development. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.) Staff
development, eighty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education
(pp. 1-12). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Guskey, T. R. (1982). Differences in teachers’ perceptions of personal control of positive versus
negative student learning outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7(1), 70-80.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of
instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63-69.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching:
theory and practice, 8(3), 381-391.
Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1991). What to consider when evaluating staff development.
Educational Leadership, 49(3), 73-76.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 69
Harlin, J. F., Roberts, T. G., Briers, G. E., Mowen, D. L., & Edgar, D. W. (2007). A longitudinal
examination of teaching efficacy of agricultural science students at four different
institutions. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(3), 78-90.
Harwell, S. H. (2003). Teacher professional development: It ’s not an event, it ’s a process. Waco,
TX: CORD Communications. Retrieved from http://www.cord.org/teacher-professional-
Development
Henson, R.K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). Reliability generalizations study of the
teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 61(3), 404-420.
Hines, M. T., & Kritsonis, W. A. (2010). The interactive effects of race and teacher self-efficacy
on the achievement gap in school. National Forum of Multicultural Issues Journal, 7(1),
1-14.
Hipp, K. A. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Influence of principal leadership behavior. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New York, NY.
Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of
achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 77-93.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health
of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372.
Hurwitz, N., & Hurwitz, S. (2005). The challenge of teacher quality: High standards and
expectation must apply to teachers as well as students. American School Board Journal,
192(4), 38-41.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 70
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed
methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
Jones, F. (2000). Tools for Teaching. Hong Kong: Frederic H. Jones & Associates, Inc.
Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2006). Strategies for addressing behavior problems in the
classroom. Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2
nd
ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Lerner, J. (1997). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin. Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student
engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119.
Locke, Edwin A. (2001). Motivation by goal setting. In Golembiewski, Robert T. Handbook of
organizational behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 43–56.
Maddux, J. (1995). Self-efficacy theory: An introduction. In J. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy,
adaptation and adjustment: Theory, research, application. (pp. 3-33). New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Marcos, T. (2008). Affective teaching for data driven learning: How can strengths-based training
support urban teacher efficacy? Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research,
4(1), 57-72.
Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2003). Managing disruptive
behaviors in the schools: A school wide, classroom, and individual social learning
approach. Allyn and Bacon.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 71
Martin, N. & Baldwin, B. (1992). Beliefs regarding classroom management style: The
differences between pre-service and experienced teachers. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Knoxville, TN.
Martin, N. K., Yin, Z., & Mayhall, H. (2006). Classroom management training, teaching
experience and gender. Do these variables impact teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward
classroom management style. Annual Conference of the Southwest Educational Research
Association. Austin, TX.
Marzano, R. J. (2003a). What works in schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J. &Marzano, J. S. (2003).The key to classroom management. Educational
Leadership, 61(1), 6-13.
Marzano, R. J. &Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. (2003). Classroom management that works:
Research based strategies for every teacher. Association for Supervision & Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R. J. (with Marzano, J. S., & Pickering, D. J.). (2003b). Classroom management that
works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Matus, D. E. (2001). Traditional classroom management revised in the urban school. American
Secondary Education, 46-57.
Maxwell, J. (1997). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.) Handbook
of applied social research methods (pp. 69-100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McCaslin, M. & Good, T. L. (1992). Compliant cognition: The misalliance of management and
instructional goals in current school reform. Educational Researcher 21(3), 4-17.
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 72
McDaniel T. R. (1984). Developing the skills of humanistic discipline. Educational Leadership,
41(8), 71-74.
McKinney, M., Sexton, T., & Meyerson, M. (1999). Validating the efficacy-based change model.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(1), 471-485.
McLaughlin, M., & Marsh, D. D. (1978). Staff development and school change. Teachers
College Record, 80(1), 69-94.
Meijer, C.J., & Foster, S.F. (1988). The effect of teacher self-efficacy on referral chance. The
Journal of Special Education, 22(3), 378-385.
Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2007). Student learning assessment: Options
and resources. Philadelphia, PA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.msche.org/publications/SLA_Book_0808080728085320.pdf
Moalosi, W. T. S. (2012). Teacher Efficacy: Is student engagement essential in Botswana Junior
Secondary Schools? International Journal of Scientific Research in Education, 5(3), 207-
213.
Moore, W. P., & Esselman, M. E. (1992, April). Teacher efficacy, empowerment, and a focused
instructional climate: Does student achievement benefit? Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Moore, W. P., & Esselman, M. E. (1994, April). Exploring the context of teacher efficacy: The
role of achievement and climate. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Moskowitz, G.; Hayman Jr., J. L. (1976). "Success strategies of inner-city teachers: A year-
longstudy". Journal of Educational Research69 (8): 283–289.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 73
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers’ beliefs and behaviors: What really matters? Journal
of Classroom Interaction, 37(2), 3-15.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching
for America ’s future. New York, New York, NY: Author.
National Education Association. (2006). Retrieved from www.nea.org.
Nelson, J., & Johnson, A. (1996). Effects of direct instruction, cooperative learning, and
independent learning practices on the classroom behavior of students with behavioral
disorders: A comparative analysis [Electronic version]. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 4(1).
New Jersey Department of Education. (2010a). Department of Education District Factor
Groups. Trenton, NJ: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.state.nj.us/education/finance/sf/dfg.shtml.
New Jersey Department of Education. (2010b). Understanding accountability in New Jersey for
2010 state assessments. Trenton, NJ: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.state.nj.us/education/title1/accountability/ayp/1011/understanding.pdf
New Jersey Department of Education. (2010c). How Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is
calculated. Trenton, NJ: Author. Retrieved from
http://education.state.nj.us/rc/nclb/ayp.html
New Jersey Department of Education (2010d). Title 1 planning information. Trenton, NJ:
Author. Retrieved from
http://www.state.nj.us/education/grants/entitlement/nclb/FY10TitleIPlanningInfo.pdf
New Jersey Department of Education (2011a). New Jersey school Report Cards. Trenton, NJ:
Author. Retrieved from http://education.state.nj.us/rc/rc11/nav.php?c=03;d=1370
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 74
New Jersey Department of Education. (2011b). School improvement status summary: School
year 2010-2011. Trenton, NJ: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.nj.gov/education/title1/accountability/ayp/1011/profiles/sini/03_profiles.pd
New Jersey Department of Education. (2012). Definition of the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT).
Trenton, NJ: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.state.nj.us/education/profdev/nclb/hqtcharts.pdf
Nir, A. E., & Kranot, N. (2006). School principal’s leadership style and teachers’ self-efficacy.
Planning and Changing, 37(3-4), 205-218.
Njus, D.M., & Brockway, J.H. (1999). Perceptions of competence and locus of control for
positive and negative outcomes: Predicting depression and adjustment to college.
Personality and Individual Differences, 26(3), 531-548.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Public Law 107–110, 107th Congress (2002).
Oliver, R. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). Effective classroom management: Teacher preparation
and professional development. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for
Teacher Quality.
Paine, S. C., Radicchi, J. A., Deutchman, L., Rosellini, L. C., & Darch, C. B. (1983). Structuring
your classroom for academic success. Research Press: Champaign, IL.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66, 543-578.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept,
and school achievement. In R. J. Riding, & S. G. Rayner (Eds.), Self perception (pp. 239-
265). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 75
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. HSR: Health
Services Research, 34(5), 1189-1208.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Protheroe, N. (2008). Teacher efficacy: What is it and does it matter? Principal, 87(5), 42-45.
Radenbush, S. W. (1984). Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on pupil IQ as a function of
credibility of expectancy induction: A synthesis of findings from 18 experiments. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 85-97.
Raudenbush, S., Rowen, B., Cheong, Y. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-perceived efficacy
of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65(1), 150-167.
Rhem, J. (1999). Pygmalion in the classroom. The National Teaching and Learning Forum, 8(2),
1-4.
Ritter, J. T. (2003). Classroom management beliefs and practices of middle school teachers
based on years of experience and teaching certification. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. The University of North Carolina, Charlotte.
Riggs, I., & Enochs, L. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science
teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6) 625-638.
Rimm-Kaufman, S., & Sawyer, B. E. (2004). Primary-grade teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs,
attitudes toward teaching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in relation to the
responsive classroom approach. Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 321.
Rogers, C. & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to learn (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan/Merrill.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 76
Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1-28.
Rose, J.S., & Medway, F.J. (1981a). Teacher locus of control, teacher behavior and student
behavior as determinants of student achievement. Journal of Educational Research,
74(6), 375-81.
Rose, J.S., & Medway, F.J. (1981b). Measurement of teachers’ beliefs in their control over
student outcome. Journal of Educational Research, 74(3), 185-189.
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student achievement.
Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51-65.
Ross, J. A. (1994b). The impact of an in-service to promote cooperative learning on the stability
of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 381-394.
Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Gray, P. (2004). Prior student achievement, collaborative
school processes, and collective teacher efficacy. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 3(3),
163-188.
Ross, J., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of
randomized field trial. Journal of Educational Research, 101(1), 50-60.
Rubeck, M. L., & Enochs, L. G. (1991, April). A path analytic model of variables that influence
science and chemistry teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in middle school
science teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for
Research In Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, WI.
Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best for students: Teacher
expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3),
429-444.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 77
Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA:
Association of Curriculum and Development.
Sanford, J. P., & Evertson, C. M. (1981). Classroom management in a low SES junior high:
Three case studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 3(1), 34-38.
Schunk, D. H. (1996, April). Self-efficacy for learning and performance. Paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey (pp. 54-5). NewYork:
Wiley.
Savage, T. V. (1999). Teaching self-control through management and discipline. Boston, Mass:
Allyn and Bacon.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools
that learn. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Shaughnessy, M. F. (2004). An interview with Anita Woolfolk: The educational psychology of
teacher efficacy. Educational Psychology Review, 16(2), 153-176.
Shidler, L. (2009). The impact of time spent coaching for teacher efficacy on student
achievement. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(5), 453-460.
Smylie, M. (1988). The enhancement of function of staff development: Organizational and
psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research
Journal, 25(1), 1-30.
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993a). Teacher efficacy and student problems as factors in
special education referrals. Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 66-81.
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993b). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals.
Journal of Educational Research, 86(4), 247-253.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 78
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (2001). Teachers’ thinking about difficult-to-teach students. The
Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 44-51.
Sparks, G. M. (1983). Synthesis of research on staff development for effective teaching.
Educational Leadership, 41(3), 65-72.
Sparks, G. M. (1986). The effectiveness of alternative training activities in changing teaching
practices. American Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 217-225.
Stage, S. A., & Quiroz, D. R. (1997). A meta-analysis of interventions to decrease disruptive
classroom behavior in public education settings. School Psychology Review, 26(3),
333–368.
Stein, M., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process
of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 171-87.
Stewart, V. (2012). A world-class education: Learning from international models of excellence
and innovation. Alexandria, VA: Association of Curriculum and Development.
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Tauber, R. (1999). Classroom management: Sound theory and effective practice. Bergin &
Garvey. Westport, Connecticut London.
Tella, A., Tella, A., & Adeniyi, O. (2009). Locus of control, interest in schooling, self-efficacy
and academic achievement. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 168-182.
Treder, D. W., Morse, W. C., & Ferron, J. M. (2000). The relationship between teacher
effectiveness and teacher attitudes toward issues related to inclusion. Teacher Education
and Special Education Journal, 23(3), 202–210.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 79
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching & Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.
Turner, C. (2009). Ideas for effective classroom management in primary schools. E-zine articles.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). QuickFacts. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). A guide to the individualized education program.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/iepguide/iepguide.pdf
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the
literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751-796.
Van Petegem, K. (2005). Relationships between teacher characteristics, interpersonal teacher
behavior and teacher well-being. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(2), 34-43.
Viel-Ruma, K., Houchins, D., Jolivette, K., & Benson, G. (2010). Efficacy beliefs of special
educators: The relationships among collective efficacy, teacher self-efficacy, and job
satisfaction. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(3), 225-233.
Walberg (Eds.), New directions for teaching practice and research (pp. 151–170). Berkeley,
CA: McCutchan.
Walker, J. M. T. (2009). Authoritative classroom management: How control and nurturance
work together. Theory Into Practice, 122-129.
Wallston, K.A., Wallston, B.S., Smith, S. & Dobbins, C. (1987). Perceived control and health.
Current Psychological Research and Review, 6(1), 5-25.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school
learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 80
Wax, A.S., & Dutton, M.M. (1991, April). The relationship between teacher use of cooperative
learning and teacher efficacy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Weiner, L. (2003). Why is classroom management so vexing to urban teachers? Theory Into
Practice, 42(4), 305-312.
Weasmer, J., & Woods, A. M. (1998). I think I can: The role of personal teaching efficacy in
bringing about change. Clearing House, 71(1), 245-247.
Webb, R. & Ashton, P. T. (1987). Teachers’ motivation and the conditions of teaching: A Call
for ecological reform. In S. Walker, & L. Barton, Eds. Changing policies, changing
teachers: New directions for schooling (pp. 22-40). Philadelphia, PA: Open University
Press.
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development
in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
Wolters, C. A. & Daughterty, S. A. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of efficacy: Their
relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Education
Psychology, 99(1), 181-193.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory
Mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56(3), 407-415.
Woolfolk, A. & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about
control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81-91.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 81
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke-Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years
of teaching: A Comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4),
343-356.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about
control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.
Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., van Tartwijk, J., & Admiral, W. (1999). Interpersonal
relationships between teachers and students in the classroom.
Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (1993). Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in
education. London: Falmer Press.
Yeo, L., Ang, R., Chong, W., Huan, V., & Quek, C. (2008). Teacher efficacy in the context of
teaching low achieving students. Current Psychology, 27(3), 192.
Yilmaz, C. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy, English proficiency, and instructional
strategies. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 39(1), 91-100.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Cleary, T.J. (2006). Adolescents ’ development of personal agency. The role
of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skills. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-
efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 45-69). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Dibenedetto, M. K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment: Implications
for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools,
45(3), 206-216.

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 82
Appendix A
Email Exchange Regarding Granted Access to Administer the Survey
Hi Jackie, July 25, 2014
Go ahead and plan to administer your survey. Our office is open until August 1
st
and then it will
be closed until August 22
nd
. Becky is out and will return on August 22
nd
.
Let me know if this works.
Lucy Salazar
Principal, Alvarado Elementary School
1900 E. 21
st
St, Signal Hill, CA 90755
562) 985-0019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much! I will be in touch when you return. Enjoy your off track time, and I
really appreciate the immediate response. I look forward to doing the survey.
Take care,
Jacqueline McGovern

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 83
Appendix B
Introduction to the Teachers
Dear Teachers at Alvarado,
Thank you for welcoming me back to your fabulous school! For those of you who may
not know me, I was a principal trainee here at Alvarado during the summer of 2012. I worked
with your previous principal, Dr. Brett Geithman. As my mentor, Dr. Geithman encouraged me
to take risks and be courageous. One of the risks he convinced me to take was to complete a
doctorate in education at the University of Southern California. I am now in my final stage of
the program and my dissertation is in progress. The research component of the dissertation
requires going out and conducting a study on an area of interest. The topic I selected to study is
Classroom Management in grades Kindergarten through Fifth. The campus with which I am
most enamored is of course, Alvarado Elementary.
Please, take a moment to complete the surveys about Classroom Management and
Teacher Self-Efficacy. Your experience and knowledge is very important to me. You may fill
out the hard copy and turn it in to Becky. I will collect these in about two weeks’ time.
I appreciate your sincere effort and valuable time completing this survey. You are
incredible teachers and I look forward to learning from the information you provide. (ALL
SURVEYS REMAIN ANONYMOUS.)
Sincerely,
Jacqueline McGovern

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 84
Appendix C
Description of Classroom Management Techniques
Clear Expectations and Consequences-The teacher establishes clear expectations for behavior
in two ways: by establishing clear rules and procedures, and by providing consequences for
student behavior.
Clear Learning Goals-The teacher provide clarity about the content and expectations of an
upcoming instructional unit. Providing summative feedback regarding the goals.
Shared Expectations-The teacher seek students’ opinions when the rules used to guide them are
developed.
Consistency and Routines-The teachers is consistent with punishments, rewards and
expectations.
Diffusion-The teacher handles unpleasant or serious issues with diffusion, and reacts in a
supportive, positive, and helpful manner.
Isolate the Individual-The teacher isolates the person with who they are verbally intervening.
The teacher will be more effective one-on-one.

Extrinsic Motivation-The teacher redirects unpleasant and unfavorable student behaviors
through a reward or punishment approach.

Stop Light Behavior Chart-The teacher bases this method on the red, yellow and green traffic
lights, crafts a laminated paper stoplight, and adds clothespins to it with each student’s name on
it. At the beginning of each school day, the students’ clothespins are green. When the student
breaks a rule, his or her clothespin turns yellow, which simply means that the student has been
warned. If the student commits a serious offense, his or her clothespin turns red, and a phone
call home occurs. The next day everyone goes back to green.

Body Language-The teacher is very aware of his or her space, posture, and gestures.

Use of Silence-The teacher uses silence to allow clearer understanding of the true source of
classroom conflict.

Cooperative Learning-Cooperation occurs when classroom management responsibilities are
shared between the teacher and students. Students work in supportive groups, while the teacher
assess their work.

Take a Personal Interest in Students-The teachers takes a personal interest in each student in
the class perhaps by complimenting the students on important achievements in and outside of
school or meeting students at the door as they come into class, greeting each one by name.

Assertive Behavior-The teacher can exhibit appropriate dominance by establishing clear
behavior expectations and learning goals and by exhibiting assertive behavior.

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 85
Equitable and Positive Classroom Behaviors-The teacher makes eye contact by scanning the
entire room as they speak, freely moves about all sections of the room, and provides appropriate
wait time for all students to respond to questions.

Awareness of High-Needs Students-The teacher is aware of high-needs students and has a
repertoire of specific techniques for meeting some of their needs such as: contract with the
student to manage behaviors, teach basic concentration, study, and thinking skills, separate the
student in a quiet work area, help the student list each step of a task, reward successes, assign a
peer tutor.

Connecting with Parents-Teachers and parents can discuss issues that may be affecting the
student’s academic progress and classroom behavior.

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 86
Appendix D
Classroom Management Survey
Directions: Please rate the following techniques you have used on their effectiveness using the
scale of Likert Scale categories 1-5. If you have not used a particular technique, please answer
“No” and proceed to the next question. If you are unsure if you have used a particular technique,
please refer to the Classroom Management Techniques Description page attached.
1. Clear Expectations and Consequences
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
2. Clear Learning Goals
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
3. Shared Expectations.
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
4. Consistency and Routines
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
5. Diffusion
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 87
6. Isolate the Individual
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
7. Extrinsic Motivation.
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
8. Stop Light Behavior Chart
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
9. Body Language
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
10. Use of Silence
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
11. Cooperative Learning
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
12. Take a Personal Interest in Students
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 88
13. Assertive Behavior
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
14. Equitable and Positive Classroom Behaviors
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
15. Awareness of High-Needs Students
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
16. Connecting with Parents.
Have you used this method of classroom management? Yes No
1 2 3 4 5
Never Effective Rarely Effective Sometimes Effective Often Effective Always Effective
17. Please indicate your gender Male Female
18. Please indicate the grade level(s) you teach by circling one or more of the following:
Pre-K Kinder 1
st
2
nd
3
rd
4
th
5
th

19. Please indicate your teaching experience by circling one of the following:
0-1 year 2-4 years 5-10years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-30 years 31+ years
20. Write down whether or not you teach Special Education or a specific content area.
______________________________________________________________________________

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 89
Teacher Efficacy
A number of statements about organizations, people, and teaching are presented below. The purpose is to gather
information regarding the actual attitudes of educators concerning these statements. There are no correct or incorrect
answers. We are interested only in your frank opinions. Your responses will remain confidential.
INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate your personal opinion about each statement by circling the
appropriate response at the right of each statement.
KEY: 1=Strongly Agree 2=Moderately Agree 3=Agree slightly more than disagree
4=Disagree slightly more than agree 4=Moderately Disagree 6=Strongly Disagree
1. When a student does better than usually, many times it is because I exert a little extra effort.
2. The hours in my class have little influence on students compared to the influence of their
home environment.
3. The amount a student can learn is primarily related to family background.
4. If students aren’t disciplined at home, they aren’t likely to accept any discipline.
5. I have enough training to deal with almost any learning problem.
6. When a student is having difficulty with an assignment, I am usually able to adjust it his/her
level.
7. When a student gets a better grade than he/she usually gets, it is usually because I found better
ways of teaching that student.
8. When I really try, I can get through to most difficult students.
9. A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve because a student’s home environment
large influence on his/her achievement.
10. Teachers are not a very powerful influence on student achievement when all factors are
considered.
11. When the grades of my students improve, it is usually because I found more effective
approaches.
12. If a student masters a new concept quickly, this might be because I knew the necessary steps
in teaching that concept.
13. If parents would do more for their children, I could do more.
14. If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would know how to
increase his/her retention in the next lesson.
TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 90
15. The influences of a student’s home experiences can be overcome by good teaching.
16. If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I know some
techniques to redirect him/her quickly.
17. Even a teacher with good teaching abilities may not reach many students.
18. If one of my students couldn’t do a class assignment, I would be able to accurately assess
whether the assignment was at the correct level of difficulty.
19. If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students.
20. When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much because most of a student’s
motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment.
21. Some students need to be placed in slower groups so they are not subjected to unrealistic
expectations.
22. My teacher training program and/or experience has given me the necessary skills to be an
effective teacher.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs
about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91. Originally based on the Teacher
Efficacy Scale developed by S. Gibson & M. Dembo (1984). Teacher Efficacy: a construct
validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 91
Appendix E
Institutional Review Board Handout

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Ph: (213) 740-0224
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

EFFECTIVE CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES WITHIN PRIMARY
EDUCATION SETTINGS
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand the preferred classroom management techniques of
teachers in the primary setting.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete a two page survey which
asks you to rate the effectiveness of classroom management strategies and your self-efficacy
beliefs as a teacher. The survey will be distributed in your mailboxes and you may return
them to Becky upon completion. I will return to collect the completed surveys in two weeks.
Each survey may take up to fifteen minutes to complete.

TEACHER EFFICACY AND MANAGEMENT 92
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for your participation; however, your contribution is highly
valued.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be
affected whether you participate or not in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your name,
address or other identifiable information will not be collected. The data will be uploaded into
SPSS and stored on a password protected computer in the researcher ’s office until after the
study has been completed and then destroyed.

Required language:
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Jacqueline McGovern via email at jackieroselb@gmail.com or phone
at (562) 370-6849 or Faculty Advisor Dr. Robert Keim at rkeim@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment

PDF

Teachers' experiences implementing social and emotional learning in the elementary classroom

PDF

Which grain will grow? Case studies of the impact of teacher beliefs on classroom climate through caring and rigor

PDF

Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior

PDF

The influence of teacher characteristics on preference for models of teaching

PDF

Managing cyberloafing in the undergraduate business school's classroom

PDF

The effect on teacher career choices: exploring teacher perceptions on the impact of non‐instructional workload on self‐efficacy and self‐determination

PDF

What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban elementary schools

PDF

Teacher perceptions of Marzano's instructional strategies in traditional and virtual classrooms

PDF

Elementary principal perceptions of teacher to student bullying within classroom management practices

PDF

The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms

PDF

Effective strategies used by general education teachers to address the learning needs of students with selective mutism

PDF

How does the evidence-based method of training impact learning transfer, motivation, self-efficacy, and mastery goal orientation compared to the traditional method of training in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu?

PDF

Positive classroom leadership: how teachers manage meaningfully in high needs contexts

PDF

The effect of traditional method of training on learning transfer, motivation, self-efficacy, and performance orientation in comparison to evidence-based training in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

PDF

Classrooms beyond the binary: elementary teachers gendered beliefs and classroom practices

PDF

Urban teacher persistence: self-efficacy, affect, and values

PDF

A quantitative study on southeast Asian and Latino student's perceptions of teachers' expectations and self-efficacy

PDF

What are the relationships among program delivery, classroom experience, content knowledge, and demographics on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy?

Asset Metadata

Creator McGovern, Jacqueline Rose (author)

Core Title Teacher efficacy and classroom management in the primary setting

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/16/2015

Defense Date 03/03/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag behavior,classroom,efficacy,Management,method,methods,OAI-PMH Harvest,Primary,self-efficacy,strategies,strategy,student,Students,teacher efficacy

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Keim, Robert G. (committee chair), McGinty-McCord, Paige (committee member), Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee member)

Creator Email jackieroselb@gmail.com,jmcgover@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-550729

Unique identifier UC11297438

Identifier etd-McGovernJa-3318.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-550729 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-McGovernJa-3318.pdf

Dmrecord 550729

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights McGovern, Jacqueline Rose

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA