Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]On: 20 December 2014, At: 17:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement: An International Journalof Research, Policy and PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nses20
The influence of school orientationto learning on teachers' professionallearning changeV. Darleen Opfer a , David J. Pedder b & Zsolt Lavicza ca RAND , Pittsburgh, PA, USAb University of Leicester , Leicester, UKc University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UKPublished online: 13 May 2011.
To cite this article: V. Darleen Opfer , David J. Pedder & Zsolt Lavicza (2011) The influence ofschool orientation to learning on teachers' professional learning change, School Effectiveness andSchool Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 22:2, 193-214, DOI:10.1080/09243453.2011.572078
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2011.572078
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
The influence of school orientation to learning on teachers’ professional
learning change1
V. Darleen Opfera*, David J. Pedderb and Zsolt Laviczac
aRAND, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; bUniversity of Leicester, Leicester, UK; cUniversity ofCambridge, Cambridge, UK
(Received 12 June 2010; final version received 5 November 2010)
This article presents a theoretical argument for assuming that schools have anorientation to learning that influences both whether teachers learn and alsowhether they change professionally as a result of the learning. This school-levelorientation to learning is hypothesized to consist of beliefs and practices aboutlearning. Results from a structural equation modeling process of 1,126 teachersurvey responses in England show that schools have an orientation to learningthat includes beliefs about learning, systems and supports for learning, andcollective capacity for learning. The practices constituting the school-levelorientation to learning have a strong to moderate influence, via path analysis,on teacher learning change defined as a composite outcome of change in beliefs,practices, and students. The beliefs that constitute a school-level orientation havea weak, but still significant, influence on teacher learning change.
Keywords: school orientation to learning; teacher professional development;teacher professional learning; teacher change
Introduction
It is now well established that the norms of the school, its structures, and practicesboth enable and constrain teachers (Galloway, Parkhurst, Boswell, Boswell, &Green, 1982; Mortimore, Sammons, Stoll, Lewis, & Ecob, 1990; Pollard, 1985;Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, & Ouston, 1979; Woods, Jeffry, Troman, & Boyle1997). Few studies, however, have attempted to understand the influence of theschool specifically on teacher professional learning. This article presents some of thefindings from a national study of teachers’ professional development – Schools andContinuing Professional Development (CPD) in England – State of the NationResearch Project (Pedder, Storey, Opfer, & McCormick, 2008).
The findings from this national study of teachers in England (Pedder et al., 2008),presented here, recognize the overwhelmingly multicausal, multidimensional, andmulticorrelational quality of teacher learning and its impact on instructionalpractices. In this article, we propose to model one part of these complex professionallearning processes – those aspects related to the characteristics and orientations ofthe school and the impact of these on teacher professional learning and change. In
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
School Effectiveness and School Improvement
Vol. 22, No. 2, June 2011, 193–214
ISSN 0924-3453 print/ISSN 1744-5124 online
� 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2011.572078
http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
assuming an influence of these school-level characteristics and conditions on teacherprofessional learning and change, we move beyond a singular focus on the featuresof the learning activity itself (Desimone, 2009) to consider the contexts of learningthat mediate teacher change.
In the following sections, we provide a basis for our hypothesized model from theextant literature on the relationships between school-level beliefs, practices, andteacher change. We specifically show how these literatures help explain professionallearning that occurs post-initial preparation – that is, as a result of continuousprofessional development by teachers in post. After presenting our theoreticalrationale for this model, we then test the model using data from the national surveyof teacher professional development in England. The article concludes with adiscussion of the implications of our model testing for understanding the roles ofschools in teacher professional learning and professional learning change.
The influences of the school on professional learning: a school-level orientationto learning
Emerging literature on organizations, learning, and individual change providessufficient indication to assume that schools have an impact on whether teachers,themselves, learn. For example, Hollingsworth’s (1999) longitudinal study ofprimary mathematics teachers’ professional development demonstrated that teachersencountered difficulties in implementing new learning in their classrooms because ofunsupportive conditions in their schools: a lack of coordination and leadership, littlecollegial activity, and no obvious commitment to professional development inmathematics. Thus, ‘‘features of the social setting constrain or afford particularpractices associated with learning and thereby constrain or afford the learning itself ’’(Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996, p. 39).
Pedder (2006) explicitly investigated the school-level factors that supportedteachers’ learning as part of the Learning How to Learn study. His survey of 1,212teachers in England identified four organizational factors that accounted for 55.6%of the variation in teacher responses about their learning. These factors included: theinvolvement of teachers in decision making; the communication of a clear vision;support for professional learning (via provision of opportunity, class cover,encouragement of experimentation, etc.); and auditing expertise and supportingnetworking. Additionally, Pedder’s study found a statistically significant relationshipbetween the school-level factors – communicating a clear vision, support forprofessional learning, auditing expertise, and supporting networking – and teachers’levels of inquiry and learning. Pedder’s work thus demonstrated that, ‘‘If schools areto embody the conditions that optimise and sustain the quality of teachers’ andpupils’ learning, they need to develop the processes and practices of learningorganizations.’’ (p. 175)
Substantial research and writing on the characteristics of learning organizationshave reached some consensus on the processes and practices that promoteorganizational and individual learning. These include:
. nurturing a learning environment across all levels of the school (Hopkins,West, & Ainscow, 1996; Senge, 2000);
. using self-evaluation as a way of promoting learning (MacBeath, 1999;MacBeath & Mortimore, 2001; MacGilchrist, Myers, & Reed, 2004);
194 V.D. Opfer et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
. examining core and implicit values, assumptions, and beliefs underpinninginstitutional practices via introspection and reflection (Argyris, 1993; Argyris& Schon, 1978; Senge, 1990); and
. creating systems of knowledge management that leverage resources, corecapabilities, and expertise of staff and pupils (Hargreaves, 1999; Nickols, 2000;Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Zack, 2000).
MacGilchrist et al. (2004) summarize well the connection between organizationallearning and individual learning when they state, ‘‘A culture of inquiry and reflectionpervades the intelligent school and support for teachers’ own learning is fundamentalto this culture.’’ (p. 94)
In addition to this work on the school practices and systems that supportteachers’ learning, some of the most important school-level influences identified byresearch are school-level beliefs about learning. These beliefs influence bothindividual and collective behavior by creating norms of action (Sampson, Morenoff,& Earls, 2000). Coleman’s work on the social theory of normative control (1985,1987, 1990) confirmed that a group of teachers will sanction an individual teacher’spractice when that practice violates group pedagogical beliefs. New or inexperiencedteachers are especially vulnerable to constraining their practice to fit with collectivepedagogical beliefs (Chester & Beaudin, 1996; Woolfolk Hoy & Burke Spero, 2005).Thus, while individual teachers have their own beliefs and practices about teachingand learning, schools collectively also have beliefs and practices about teaching andlearning.
In addition to collective pedagogical norms and practices, schools also have acollective awareness of their capacity for learning and growth. As Goddard (2003)has shown, ‘‘Teachers have not only self-referent efficacy perceptions but also beliefsabout the conjoint capability of a school faculty’’ (p. 184). According to Bandura(1997), ‘‘an organization’s beliefs about its efficacy to produce results areundoubtedly an important feature of its operative culture’’ (p. 476). This collectivesense of capacity directly affects the diligence and resolve with which a schoolchooses to pursue its goals.
Creating systems, supports, and norms that encourage both individual andorganizational learning is difficult for most schools. Pedder and MacBeath (2008)caution that schools, ‘‘struggle internally in developing systems and processes foridentifying expertise among staff, supporting the articulation and sharing ofknowledge, and using the know-how to improve practices among colleagues’’ (p.221). Similarly, much of the variation reported by Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon,and Birman (2002) from the Eisenhower professional development studies in theUnited States occurred between teachers within a school rather than betweenteachers in different schools. This suggests that ‘‘schools generally do not have acoherent, coordinated approach to professional development and instruction, atleast not an approach that is effective in building consistency among their teachers’’(Desimone et al., 2002, p. 105).
Further, not all schools recognize the need to attempt the difficult task of creatinga supporting learning environment for teachers. Argyris and Schon’s (1996) work on‘‘theories of action’’ illustrates that dissonance serves as a catalyst for schools toattempt to change their environment in ways that better support learning. Theirdistinction between ‘‘espoused theories’’ (i.e., ideals) and ‘‘theories in use’’ (i.e.,practices) illustrates the possibility that beliefs and practices at the school level may
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 195
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
not align (p. 13). Senge (1990) terms this misalignment ‘‘organisational learningdisabilities’’ when schools lack the tools or strategies to address the contradictions,are simply unaware of them, or choose to live with the dissonance between what theyespouse and what they practice. However, when the mismatch is detected and takenseriously, it serves as the impetus for change.
The research on schools and organizational learning thus indicates that schoolscan play a substantial role in supporting the learning of teachers. Schools thatsupport learning create continuous learning opportunities, promote inquiry anddialogue, encourage collaboration and team learning, and establish systems tocapture and share learning – all of which improves the learning of individuals andalso the school itself. However, creating these systems is difficult, and many schoolsfail to provide the systems and supports necessary for teachers to engage in effectiveprofessional learning. School-level elements constituting the organizational orienta-tion to learning thus include beliefs about learning, practices, systems and supportsfor learning, a collective capacity for learning, and dissonance as a catalyst forchange when practices and beliefs do not align. These elements of the organizationalorientation to learning also show evidence of reciprocity. That is, school practicescan and do enable collective beliefs while collective beliefs can also result in moreenabling school-level practices and structures. In this way, the collective capacity ofthe school impacts collective goals and enabling structures for organizational growththat impact, and are impacted by, collective norms and practices.
Interactions between the individual and school-level orientations to learning
While the traditional literature on professional development indicates that learningoccurs primarily as a result of the learning activities in which teachers participate(Desimone, 2009), we argue that school-level decisions about professional learningresult from the interaction of systems, supports, and collective beliefs about learning.And, these collective beliefs and decisions about school-level learning then influenceheavily individual learning. Further, while characteristics of the individual teachermay lead him or her to participate in professional learning activities, the access,support, encouragement to participate, and ultimately the success of the learning areheavily determined by the school – teachers will not experience learning changewithout a positive school orientation to learning. Thus, our model suggests that wecannot understand teacher learning without understanding the role of the school’sorientation to learning. To understand and explain why and how teachers learn, wemust consider how the school-level learning orientation impacts the changeexperienced by teachers as a result of their learning activities.
Thus far in this conceptual discussion, we have referred repeatedly to teacherlearning change. However, we find the extant conceptualization of change within theliterature on teacher professional development to be problematic and lacking inguidance for assessing change outcomes. A primary consideration for our ownmodel then was how to conceptualize and consider changes that result from teacherlearning. In some of the previous models of teacher professional development,especially those considering features of learning activities in isolation from individualand school contexts, change in belief leads to change in practice leads to change instudents (Desimone, 2009). In others, change in practice leads to change in studentsthat then leads to change in belief (Guskey, 1986, 2002). For example, Guskey (2002)asserts that ‘‘significant change in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs occurs primarily
196 V.D. Opfer et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
after they gain evidence of improvements in student learning. . .. It is not theprofessional development per se, but the experience of successful implementationthat changes teachers’ attitudes and beliefs’’ (p. 383). Thus, disagreement existsabout the order in which the change sequence occurs.
We would assert that this disagreement arises because researchers have, in thefirst instance, considered change to be a linear process. We would also contendthough that the disagreement about order has arisen because researchers have alsoseen these as separate, distinct, processes. Huberman’s (1983, 1985) work on thistopic demonstrated the cyclic nature of the change process for teachers: Changes inbeliefs lead to changes in practice that bring changes in student learning that bringfurther changes in practice that result in additional changes in belief and so on. Therelationship between these processes is also reciprocal with changes in one beingcontingent on changes in another. Further, our reading of the literature on theseteacher learning outcomes indicates that change can begin at any point in the changeprocess – via belief, practice, change in students, and so on. The primary implicationfor our model of teacher learning then is that it assumes that for teacher learning tooccur, change may occur in all three areas, and, as a result, composite measures ofchange are needed, and change in only one area would not constitute teacherlearning.
The model of teacher learning that we propose to test in this article assumesthat schools have collective learning beliefs and practices. Together, these beliefsand practices constitute their organizational orientation to learning whichinfluences both the learning activities in which teachers engage as well as thesuccess of these activities in promoting change as a result of learning. Because ofthis strong determinative relationship between a school’s orientation to learningand teacher engagement in learning, our model assumes that a school’s orientationto learning will have a direct impact on teacher learning change. Because theliterature on learning change outcomes for teachers is opaque on directionalityand sequence, we assume that three aspects of change – beliefs, practices, andchange in students – together constitute a better measure of learning changethan any one of these measured singularly. Figure 1 illustrates our hypothesizedmodel and the relationships between school orientation to learning and learningchange.
Figure 1. School orientation to learning influence on teacher learning change.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 197
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
The study
Data for the analyses to test this model of the school’s influence on teacher learningchange were collected from a national sample of teachers in England via survey(Opfer & Pedder, 2008a, 2008b). Because we were specifically interested in therelationships between the individual teacher, their school, the professional learningactivities in which they participate, and whether this interaction results in teacherlearning, our sampling targeted schools in the first instance. A sample of 388 schools(329 primary and 59 secondary) were randomly selected from England’s NationalFoundation of Educational Research (NFER) database of schools to berepresentative of the whole of England’s school population in terms of region ofthe country, school type, location (rural versus non-rural), achievement band ofschool, and proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals. Independent schoolswere not included in the sample, and Academies were oversampled, due to theirsmall number, in order to ensure inclusion of teachers from this school type. TheNFER database of schools is the most complete listing of schools available inEngland. No population list of teachers is available for England or even by schoolfrom which to sample teachers. As a result, sampled schools were asked to have alltheir teachers complete the surveys. The lack of a national population list of teachersand school-specific staff lists means that an accurate return rate for teachers cannotbe established. The return rate at the school level was 39% with 36% of primaryschools and 56% of secondary schools surveyed responding. Questionnaires weredeleted from the sample if less than 80% of the items were complete and aretherefore not included in the response rates or findings presented. Responses from1,126 teachers in these schools are included in the analyses presented in this article.
The sample size for this study is significantly larger than for previous studies ofteacher professional development in England and proportional in size to similarstudies conducted in the United States. The response rate for large, national surveysis becoming more and more of an issue for conducting research of this kind. In spiteof attempts to increase response rates with a variety of techniques, Groves, Dillman,Eltinge, and Little, (2001) suggest that response rates for all kinds of surveys havebeen declining since the early 1990s. This tendency especially accelerated after theemergence of web questionnaires. People are receiving an increased number ofsolicitations to participate in research studies or marketing research, and they arebecoming less likely to respond. A meta-study of 68 surveys in 49 studies by Cook,Heath, and Thompson (2000) found an average 39.6% response rate among thesestudies. Similarly, Schonlau, Fricker, and Elliott (2002) reviewed studies andexamined their response rates, and found that they ranged from 7 to 44%. Theresponse fatigue discussed as a reason for decreases in response rates is particularlyapplicable to developed countries such as the UK and the USA, where people arefrequently asked to complete various questionnaires. With recent increases in testingand accountability reporting requirements, teachers and schools more generally are,perhaps, particularly susceptible to response fatigue. Despite these issues, lowresponse rates may not always suggest bias in the result (Dey, 1997; Groves et al.,2001).
At the school level, responding schools mirrored schools in the country as awhole within þ/73% on school level, school type, location, achievement band, andproportion of pupils qualifying for free school meals. There was some deviation fromexpected proportional response by region with more responses received from thenortheast (þ15%) and southeast regions (þ18%) than expected. Comparing the
198 V.D. Opfer et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
demographics of responding teachers to national population estimates, we foundthat responding teachers match national proportions within þ/72% on: ethnicity,gender, school level of employment, position type, career stage, and years experience.A closer look at teacher ethnicity provides a good example of the closeness of ourachieved respondents to the population. According to Department for Educationand Skills statistics (2005), 91% of the teachers identified themselves as WhiteBritish, 2% as Asian, 1.5% as Black, and 05% as Mixed. Of the teachers respondingto our survey, 91% identified themselves as White British, 1.5% as Asian, 1.1% asBlack, and .04% as Mixed. With such close matches between respondents andpopulation estimates at both the school and teacher level of our sample, we feelconfident that the study presented here does represent national patterns of teacherlearning in England.
Instrument
The survey of teachers in the larger State of the Nation Study (Pedder et al., 2008)involved four sections: individual learning beliefs and practices, school-level learningbeliefs and practices, features of the learning activities in which teachers participatedin the previous 12 months, and demographics. In this article, we report findings andanalyses from the third section of the survey – Section C – that focused on school-level learning practices and beliefs for professional learning. Teachers were asked tomake two kinds of responses to 24 questions. The first response focused on learningpractices and supports for learning present in the school. Staff could choose from thefollowing response categories: not true, rarely true, often true, and mostly true. Thesecond response in Section C focused on teachers’ values and beliefs, indicating howimportant they felt a particular learning practice or support was for them (seeFigure 2 for an example of this dual format). The response categories were: notimportant, of limited importance, important, or crucial.
In addition to these questions on school-level beliefs and practices related tolearning, teachers were asked in Section B of the survey a series of 14 questions toassess the types of impacts that engagement in learning activities had for them and
Figure 2. Example of dual format questions for Section C of teacher survey (Pedder et al.,2008).
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 199
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
their students. The questions had a 4-point Likert format of impact – not at all,not a lot, quite a lot, and a lot – and are reported here as learning changeoutcomes.
Our use of teacher perceptions of both organizational processes and individualprocesses could be open to criticism. The dual format of Section C described abovetakes into account our understanding of the methods literature on ensuringreliability of teacher self report. Self-reports of instructional practice have generallybeen found to be consistent with other measures such as observation and classroomartifacts when teacher’s descriptions are linked to specific practices and activities(Burstein et al., 1995; Mayer, 1999; Rowan & Correnti, 2009; Smithson & Porter,1994). Teacher’s self-reports tend to be less reliable when they are asked to providequality judgments about practices or when they are asked about pedagogicalconcerns not tied to specific practices. Thus, the format tying teacher values about apractice to a specific description of a practice should result in more reliable estimatesof teacher’s beliefs than questions that ask them about their values in absence ofpractice.
We believe, further, that some of the criticism of teacher self-report measuresconflates the data obtained from interviews and other openly interpretive measureswith those collected via closed-ended surveys. Supporting our point, Vaisey (2009)has found that, ‘‘interviews may not be the best way to understand how people makejudgments. Carefully constructed and implemented, forced-choice surveys may bebetter suited to the study of the culture-action link’’ (p. 1688). In comparing theresults from interviews and surveys in his own research, Vaisey concludes that,
Well-designed survey questions may measure practical knowledge better because theypresent the respondent with situations that are homologous with everyday decision-making processes. . . When we hear a survey question, we simply have to pick theresponse our practical consciousness prefers, the response that ‘‘feels right’’ or ‘‘soundsright’’ to us. . .. In the same way, we may be able to rely on respondents’ choices [onsurveys] to gain insight . . . and to predict their future behavior. (p. 1689)
Vaisey’s (2009) argument about the ability of carefully constructed, closed-endedsurvey questions to accurately represent everyday processes plus the recent researchon teacher self-report measures discussed above supports our use of these measures.We further established boundaries between organizational practices and individualpractices in the survey by placing questions in separate sections, with clearly wordedintroductions that drew teachers’ attention to the task. For example, the sectionasking about individual professional growth and impact instructed: ‘‘Each statementrelates to an aspect of your professional learning’’ (emphasis in original). The sectionon organizational processes instructed: ‘‘This section focuses on organizationalpractices and systems. The questions ask you how often the systems and practices aretrue for your school’’. Consideration of differences in response variation withinschools and between schools further supports our approach. Between-schoolvariation was twice that of within-school variation on organizational items.Between-school and within-school variation on individual practice items was notsignificantly different. Thus, teachers in the same school responded more similarlyabout school-level processes than teachers in different schools, while this pattern didnot necessarily hold for individual processes indicating that teachers can make aclear distinction between perceptions of the organization and perceptions ofthemselves.
200 V.D. Opfer et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Data collection procedures
In administering the survey, we identified a member of the senior leadership team ateach of our sampled schools to act as school contact for the project. Surveys weremailed to these contacts who had responsibility for the administering and collection ofthe completed questionnaires. The local school coordinator then mailed the packageof completed questionnaires back in a postage-paid envelope, and the responses wereentered by scanning. Combining posted letters, postcards, telephone calls, faxes, andemails, we maintained a regular focused communication strategy with schoolsthrough a series of repeated contacts to encourage response. An honorarium of £100was also offered to participating schools in order to optimize response.
Data analysis procedures
Survey responses from teachers were entered and analyzed originally in SPSS. SPSSwas used to calculate means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients (Cronbach’salpha), and correlation coefficients. Responses were aggregated to the school levelfor all school-level influence measures. Mean score imputation was used for allmissing data since missing data accounted for less than 1% for all variables and thesurvey as a whole. Model testing followed this initial descriptive analysis using Amosin two phases. In the first instance, we needed to determine whether our datamatched our theoretical understandings of school-level influences and change inteacher learning – that is, to test our measurement models. Given the complexity ofthese measurement models and the number of latent variables involved, separatebeliefs and practices models for school-level orientation to learning were developed.Once these measurement models were tested and refined, our second phase thenanalyzed the predictive relationships between these measurement models to test thestructure of the hypothesized model – the influence of the school-level orientation tolearning on teacher learning change. Thus, our modeling processes are best describedas a model development approach combining both exploratory (Phase 1) andconfirmatory (Phase 2) purposes.
In the first phase – measurement model testing – school orientation to learningand also the measurement model for teacher learning change were tested usingconfirmatory factor analysis in Amos. Hypothesized factors (or latent variables) foreach of the measurement models were entered into Amos, and the latent variables,taken together, were then tested for model fit. Once all measurement models wererefined and the best model fit established, each were regressed independently on eachother, in the second phase of testing, in order to determine whether our hypothesizedinfluences were indeed occurring in our data.
Results
Results for this article are presented below in three sections. In the first section, wesummarize responses to survey items included in the measurement models. Givenour two-phase model testing analysis, our modeling results are reported in twosubsequent sections. In the first section on modeling, we report results of model fitfor the school’s orientation to learning and teacher learning change. In the secondmodeling results section, we will report how a school’s orientation to learn impactsteacher learning change. Beliefs and practices in orientation were modeled separatelyfor orientation to learning. However, the relationship between beliefs and practices
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 201
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
of schools is presented in this third section to further support our hypothesizedstructural model indicating that beliefs and practices, jointly, constitute anorientation to learning.
School-level orientation to learning: summary of responses to survey
Teachers were asked to evaluate, on a 4-point scale, how true a practice was for theirschool. Likewise, they were then asked how important they believed this practice tobe for their professional learning. Teachers record higher ratings of school-levelbeliefs about learning than their estimation of school-level practice (see Table 1).Teachers attach the highest level of beliefs to the importance of providing formalsystems and supports for professional learning (M ¼ 3.30) as well as to theimportance of social capital conditions (M ¼ 3.27). Teachers express moderate belief(M ¼ 3.10) in the importance of performance management systems, and schoolpractices closely match these beliefs (M ¼ 2.99). Teachers record the lowest beliefs inthe importance of school-level support for collaboration and networking(M ¼ 2.98), and this is accompanied by similarly lower school level practice(M ¼ 2.61). (Further descriptive analyses of these questions and the development ofthe factors can be found in Opfer, Pedder, & Lavicza, 2010.)
Change in teacher learning: responses to the survey
Teachers were asked on a 4-point Likert scale whether the professional learningactivities from the previous 12 months had impacts in their classroom. Responses topossible impact categories were not at all, not a lot, quite a lot, and a lot. Teachersperceived that their professional learning activities had the most impact on theirteaching practice (M ¼ 2.85) and on their students’ learning (M ¼ 2.42). Teachersidentified the least impact on their teaching beliefs (M ¼ 2.15) indicating that theirlearning activities did not have a lot of impact on their beliefs about teaching,learning, or how pupils learn (see Table 2).
Correlations between model measures
A correlation table for all the measures to be used in the models is provided inAppendix 1. Establishing the correlations between these measures is important inunderstanding the power of our modeling analysis. Generally, the lower thecorrelations between measures in the model, the easier it is to find ‘‘good fit’’. Ascorrelations between measures increase, structural equation modeling (SEM) hasmore power to detect whether the hypothesized models are incorrect. Our modelinvolves 66 correlations between measures. Of these, all were significant at p ¼ .001or better. Of these correlations between our measures, 10% would be consideredstrong correlations (greater than .50), 65% would be considered moderatecorrelations (between .20 and .5), and only 25% would be considered weakcorrelations (below .20).
Modeling school-level influences on teacher professional learning: results
In our exploration of our hypothesized model of teacher professional learning, wefirst had to establish whether our theorized school-level influences or constructs of
202 V.D. Opfer et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and scale reliabilities for school orientation to learning.
Beliefs Practices
School Orientation to Learning Model M SD N/a M SD N/a
Providing formal systems and supports
for professional learning
3.30 3.120 1056/.81 .3.14 2.482 1053/.72
The senior leadership teampromotes commitment amongstaff to the whole school as wellas to the department, key stage,or year group.
3.46 58 3.29 .78
Members of staff see the schoolimprovement plan as relevantand useful to teaching andlearning.
3.12 .65 2.93 .84
Staff development time is usedeffectively to realize schoolimprovement priorities.
3.28 .58 3.08 .80
Formal training providesopportunities for staff to developprofessionally.
3.24 .52 3.23 .68
Teachers are helped to developskills to assess pupils’ work inways that move their pupils on intheir learning.
3.38 .55 3.19 .73
Performance management 3.01 2.709 1073/.89 2.99 3.216 1075/.89
Performance managementprocesses help teachers becomemore aware of professionalstandards.
3.01 .67 3.02 .79
Performance managementprocesses help teachers to seehow their personal professionallearning goals relate to schoolimprovement priorities.
2.97 .68 2.99 .81
Performance managementprocesses help teachersachieve their professionallearning goals.
3.05 .66 2.97 .80
Social capital conditions for
organizational learning
3.27 3.227 1062/.67 3.23 3.632 1057/.80
Staff offer one another reassuranceand support.
3.63 .50 3.59 .59
Teachers make collectiveagreements with colleagues to testout new ideas.
3.07 .54 2.96 .73
Teachers discuss openly withcolleagues what and how they arelearning.
3.10 .59 2.98 .76
Staff frequently use informalopportunities to discuss howpupils learn.
3.26 .59 3.33 .70
Teachers suggest ideas orapproaches for colleagues to tryin class.
3.31 .54 3.31 .67
(continued)
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 203
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
the model fitted our teacher survey data. To do this, each school-level influence onteacher learning was modeled separately using Amos. The process simultaneouslyconducted a confirmatory factor analysis of individual latent variables as well asestimated their relationship (correlation) to one another. Refinements were made toeach latent variable in order to improve both the latent variable and model fitoverall. Individual questions in each latent variable were deleted if they had highcovariation across latent variables (according to the modification indices for themodel), if they harmed construct reliability, or if they negatively impacted model fit.In going through this process, some latent variables were renamed to better reflectthe new underlying structure of included measures. Parallel structures in themeasurement models for beliefs and practices in the school’s orientation to learningwere maintained in the refinement process – that is, as latent variables were refinedin, for example, the practice models, the same refinement was made in the beliefsmodels. In each instance, this parallel refinement process led to better model fit inboth the practices and beliefs models thus reinforcing our dual scale measurementformulation and indicating that teachers hold beliefs specific to practices. For anillustration of how latent variables changed between the original hypothesizedversion and the final refined version reported here, see Table 3. No refinements weremade to the Change in Teacher Learning measurement model during this process.
Table 2. Means and standard deviations for change in teacher learning.
Change Model M SD
Change in teaching beliefs 2.15
Changed the way I think about teaching and learning 2.46 .81Changed my beliefs about teaching 1.91 .73Changed my beliefs about pupil learning 2.07 .75
Change in teaching practice 2.85
Improved my knowledge and skills 2.96 .72Prompted me to use new curriculum materials 2.73 .82
Change in students 2.42
Improved pupil performance/outcomes 2.67 .73Changed pupil learning practices 2.61 .75Changed pupil behavior 1.99 .73
Table 1. (Continued)
Beliefs Practices
School Orientation to Learning Model M SD N/a M SD N/a
Supporting collaboration and
networking
2.98 2.221 1033/.56 2.61 2.891 1056/.60
The school provides staff joint-planning time
3.21 .69 2.69 1.06
School leaders support teachers insharing practice with otherschools through networking
2.85 .65 2.48 .89
Teacher-initiated networking is anintegral element of staffdevelopment
2.87 .64 2.65 .83
204 V.D. Opfer et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Table 3. Example of latent variable refinement during model exploration for schoolorientation measures.
Refinement of School Learning Orientation Measurement Model
Original Latent Variables with Questions Refined Latent Variables with Questions
Developing a sense of where we are going and
providing formal systems of professional
support
Providing formal systems and supports for
professional learning
The senior leadership team promotescommitment among staff to the wholeschool as well as to the department, keystage, or year group.
The senior leadership team promotescommitment among staff to the wholeschool as well as to the department, keystage or year group.
The senior leadership team communicates aclear vision of where the school is going.
DELETED
Members of staff have a commitment to thewhole school as well as to theirdepartment, key stage, and/or year group
DELETED
Members of staff have a good workingknowledge of the school improvementplan.
DELETED
Members of staff see the schoolimprovement plan as relevant and usefulto teaching and learning.
Members of staff see the schoolimprovement plan as relevant and usefulto teaching and learning.
Staff development time is used effectively torealize school improvement priorities.
Staff development time is used effectively torealize school improvement priorities.
Formal training provides opportunities forstaff to develop professionally.
Formal training provides opportunities forstaff to develop professionally.
Teachers are helped to develop skills toassess pupils’ work in ways that movetheir pupils on in their learning.
Teachers are helped to develop skills toassess pupils’ work in ways that movetheir pupils on in their learning.
Performance management Performance management
Performance management processes helpteachers become more aware ofprofessional standards.
Performance management processes helpteachers become more aware ofprofessional standards.
Performance management processes helpteachers to see how their personalprofessional learning goals relate toschool improvement priorities.
Performance management processes helpteachers to see how their personalprofessional learning goals relate toschool improvement priorities.
Performance management processes helpteachers achieve their professionallearning goals.
Performance management processes helpteachers achieve their professionallearning goals.
Building social capital Social capital conditions for learning
Staff offer one another reassurance andsupport.
Staff offer one another reassurance andsupport.
Teachers make collective agreements withcolleagues to test out new ideas.
Teachers make collective agreements withcolleagues to test out new ideas.
Teachers discuss openly with colleagueswhat and how they are learning.
Teachers discuss openly with colleagueswhat and how they are learning.
If members of staff have a problem withtheir teaching they usually turn tocolleagues for help.
DELETED
Staff frequently use informal opportunitiesto discuss how pupils learn.
Staff frequently use informal opportunitiesto discuss how pupils learn.
Teachers suggest ideas or approaches forcolleagues to try in class.
Teachers suggest ideas or approaches forcolleagues to try in class.
(continued)
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 205
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
In addition to refinement of latent variables, our model development processesled to some refinement of the structure of our school orientation to learningmeasurement model. The latent variables remained intact throughout the analysis,but adjustments were made in the way these variables were thought to relate.Figure 3 compares the structure of the model before and after adjustment.
In our analysis of the latent variables for the school’s orientation to learning, itbecame clear that ‘‘systems and support for learning’’ and ‘‘support forcollaboration and networking’’ were related and were thus combined into asecond-order latent variable – supports for learning. Latent variables for bothperformance management and social capital conditions in the school were thenconsidered with this new supports for learning variable to constitute a school’sorientation to learning.
By refining both the latent variables and the structure of the measurementmodels, we were able to establish constructs that fit the data at both the latentvariable level and also at the level of the measurement models. We then used two
Table 3. (Continued)
Refinement of School Learning Orientation Measurement Model
Original Latent Variables with Questions Refined Latent Variables with Questions
Supporting collaboration, networking, and
experimentation
Supporting collaboration and networking
Staff regularly collaborate to plan teaching. DELETEDThe school provides staff joint-planningtime
The school provides staff joint-planningtime
School leaders support teachers in sharingpractice with other schools throughnetworking
School leaders support teachers in sharingpractice with other schools throughnetworking
Teacher-initiated networking is an integralelement of staff development
Teacher-initiated networking is an integralelement of staff development
Teachers are helped to develop skills toobserve learning as it happens in theclassroom.
DELETED
Figure 3. School orientation to learning measurement model refinement.
206 V.D. Opfer et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
measures to establish model fit – the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the RootMean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The CFI compares existing modelfit with a null model that assumes the indicator and latent variables are uncorrelated.By convention, CFI should be equal or greater than .90 to accept the model. Thiswould indicate that 90% of the covariation in the data is explained by the model.RMSEA was chosen as a fit measure because it is considered a better measure forcomplex models in that it penalizes for parsimony. Schumacker and Lomax (2004, p.82) suggest that a model has good fit with an RMSEA less than or equal to .05 andadequate model fit if it is less than or equal to .08. Bollen (1989) suggests thatestablishing an acceptable model fit should not rely on an arbitrary cut-off. Rather,he suggests that model fit should be established in comparison to other, prior modelsof the same phenomenon. For example, a CFI of .80 may indicate good model fit ifprior models had only achieved .70. Because we are not aware of any prior modelingof school influences on teacher learning, the hypothesized models presented hereestablish a baseline for future modeling of the phenomenon.
By using these SEM procedures and fit statistics, we are able to draw someconclusions about whether our theorized influences on teacher professional learningare ‘‘good’’ constructs given our teacher survey data (see Table 4). The models forschool orientations and learning change were statistically significant (p ¼ .000) andhad CFI above .90. Additionally, these measurement models had RMSEA in thegood range with only two – School Learning Beliefs and Teacher Learning Change –in the adequate range. The RMSEA for both of these measures indicates thatimprovement could be made in these constructs in future models – especially withour measure of teacher learning change. However, Leithwood and Jantzi (2006), in anational survey of teachers in England, reported RMSEA for their models oftransformational leadership between .07 and .09 and concluded that their modelshad good fit. Since our measurement models for school orientations and learningchange have better fit than these measurement models with a similar sample ofteachers, we believe at this stage that the fit statistics for these measurement modelsprovide enough evidence that our hypothesized constructs were present in the data tocontinue with testing of the structure of teacher professional learning.
Modeling the relationship between school orientation to learning and teacher learningchange: results
There are now two questions to be addressed in our analysis: Does our hypothesisthat a school’s orientation to learning influences teacher learning change fit the datafrom teachers? And if so, to what extent is teacher learning change affected by theschool’s orientation to learning? To answer these questions, we conducted a pathanalysis in Amos between our school-level learning influences and teacher learningchange. The path analysis function utilizes ordinary least squares regression to
Table 4. Measurement models with indices of fit.
Models X2 df p CFI RMSEA
School Learning Orientation Practices 288.2 99 .000 .974 .041School Learning Orientation Beliefs 517 99 .000 .926 .061Learning Change 156.7 17 .000 .957 .086
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 207
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
establish whether a connection exists between the various measurement models.Because of the complexity of our measurement models in our hypothesized model ofteacher professional learning, we present the model fit for each of these pathsseparately in Table 5. As with the measurement model analysis presented in theprevious section, CFI and RMSEA are reported to indicate whether thehypothesized path in the structural model fits the data.
The structural paths in our model of teacher learning have good model fit. In allcases, the CFI is above .90 and the RMSEA is below .05. The path model betweenschool learning practices and teacher learning change have RMSEA below .04indicating very good fit. Thus, we can conclude that these hypothesized elements ofthe dynamic model of teacher learning are present in our teacher data. These school-level beliefs and practices have a direct relationship to teacher learning change.
Table 6 shows the percentage of variance explained between elements of theschool orientation to learning models and teacher change. Our analyses illustratethat school practices related to supports for learning has a strong effect on teachers’learning change (.42). We find it interesting that social capital conditions has anegative effect on teacher learning change although this is very slight indeed (–.01).School-level beliefs about learning have a weak effect on teacher learning change(supports for learning ¼ .14, performance management ¼ .14, and social capitalconditions ¼ .18), as illustrated in Table 6.
Discussion and conclusion
The results of our model testing support our argument that teacher learning is adynamic process and cannot be understood by separating the professionaldevelopment of teachers from the environments in which teachers undertake their
Table 5. Structural models with indices of fit.
Models X2 df p CFI RMSEA
School Learning Orientation Beliefs
effects Teacher Learning Change
834 241 .000 .934 .047
School Learning Orientation Practices
effects Teacher Learning Change
600 241 .000 .966 .036
Table 6. Percentage of variance explained by path analysis: school orientation to learningmodels.
School Orientation to Learning Practices
EffectsSupports
for LearningPerformanceManagement
Social CapitalConditions
Teacher Learning Change .42 .06 7.01
School Orientation to Learning Beliefs
EffectsSupports forLearning
PerformanceManagement
Social CapitalConditions
Teacher Learning Change .14 .14 .18
208 V.D. Opfer et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
learning. This stands in contrast to the linear notions of teacher learning whereparticipation in a learning activity leads to change in belief, change in practice, andthen change in student learning (Desimone, 2009; Guskey, 2002). Whether or not ateacher engages in professional learning activities and then experiences professionalchange is influenced by the beliefs and practices about learning that characterize theorganizational culture, practices, and systems of their school.
Our findings here support Pedder’s (2006) conclusions from the Learning How toLearn (LHtL) study, ‘‘If schools are to embody the conditions that optimise andsustain the quality of teachers’ and pupils’ learning, they need to develop theprocesses and practices of learning organizations’’ (p. 175). The research reportedhere extends Pedder’s work to explore those school-level processes and practices thatare necessary for this to occur. Pedder identified three school factors associated withhigh levels of teacher inquiry: communicating a clear vision, support for professionallearning, and auditing expertise and supporting networking. The factors identified inour study as being associated with teacher change that results from professionallearning have different conceptual configurations than Pedder’s factors. Importantly,our factors place a greater emphasis on organizational behaviors than onorganizational conditions – that is, for teacher change to occur, it is more importantto consider what schools ‘‘do’’ than how they ‘‘are’’.
We assume that some of the differences in the two studies are due to differences instated outcomes for teachers. In Pedder’s LHtL study (2006), the outcomes wereincreases in teacher inquiry and learning – processes that may or may not lead tochanges in either teaching practice or students. As stated previously, our study wentfurther to consider all aspects of teacher change – change in belief, change inpractice, and change in students. Thus, we conclude from examining the differencesin findings between the LHtL study and this one that school practices become moreimportant as changes in teaching practice, rather than just changes in teacherlearning processes, are of concern.
The conclusion that school-level practices are important to the implementation ofteacher learning is entirely consistent with the literature on organizational practicesassociated with organizational learning. Fiol and Lyles (1985) have suggested thatthe processes for developing understanding and those for changes in behavior on theorganizational level are not as directly linked as we might suppose. Changes inunderstanding may not lead to changes in behavior, and conversely, small changes inbehavior may take place in the absence of new understanding. Fiol and Lyles havealso shown that structure and strategy (in addition to environment and culture) playimportant roles in whether learning is actualized in schools. In discussing theimportance of strategy, Fiol and Lyles argue, ‘‘strategy influences learning byproviding a boundary to decision making and a context for the perception andinterpretation of the environment’’ (p. 805). School-level strategy, what in our studywould be systems and supports, for teacher professional development provides clearboundaries for making decisions about what should be offered and to whom, whatfoci and types of learning should be prioritized, and what types of new practice willbe required given changes in the school environment. And, these systems andsupports make it more likely that when teacher learning occurs it is of use to theorganization, making implementation more likely.
Likewise, Leithwood, Aitken, and Jantzi (2006) have described how withoutsystems and supports that structure and strategize teacher professional learning,schools by default end up with a ‘‘many but small changes’’ approach to learning
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 209
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
(p. 34). They argue that an important function for schools is to ‘‘create anappreciation for how a ‘few but large’ changes strategy will be better for the long-term health of a . . .school’’ (p. 34). Furthermore, Seashore Louis and Leithwood(1998) suggest that the organizational response to the disequilibrium created by theneed for new learning in a school must be the creation of equilibrium in order forthat learning to be effective and embedded in the culture and community of theschool. These authors argue, ‘‘the notions of stable patterns of trust, mutualinterdependence, and permanent personal investment to the group are core’’ (p. 279),and these are accomplished via ‘‘reliable practices, consensual norms, and explicitstructures’’ (p. 279).
Given that schools in our study had relatively low levels of practice of systemsand supports for professional learning, it appears that most schools in our sampleengage in what Argyris and Schon (1978) call single-loop learning. That is, theyengage in small, narrow behaviors to support teacher learning. For example, theymay provide access to professional development, but the access is not coordinatedand the choices provided do not fit with a strategic plan for improvement. Fewschools engage in double-loop learning support for teachers – the systematic,planned systems of professional learning that our research indicates are mostassociated with teacher learning change. An important implication of our researchis that a significant shift in schools’ thinking about their role in teacherprofessional learning is required. The disorder of professional learning for teachersin schools has overwhelmed capacities for learning at both the individual andorganizational levels (Weick & Westley, 1996); systems and supports for learningare required to rebalance and bring equilibrium to these complex learningprocesses. If this shift were to occur, then as a result of focusing on supportingteacher professional learning, organizational learning and school improvementbecome more likely.
While this article illustrates well that a school has a learning orientation thatimpacts whether teachers learn and change as a result of this learning, we wouldassert that teachers are also influenced by an individual orientation to learning.Additional papers reporting outcomes of our analyses (Opfer, Pedder, & Lavicza,2010, 2011) consider both individual influences as well as the interaction ofindividual and organizational influences on teacher professional learning. Reportedhere is thus only one part of the complex process that teachers engage in whilelearning. Until we begin to understand how characteristics of individual teachers andtheir schools interact to enhance and constrain professional learning, we will beunable to explain how professional development can be made more effective.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank co-researchers on the TDA funded project, Bob McCormick andAnne Storey, for their support in this project. They also wish to thank Viviane Robinson,David Garrow, and anonymous reviewers for comments made on earlier drafts. Anyremaining errors, mistakes, and omissions are solely our own.
Note
1. The research reported in this article was funded by the Training and Development Agency(TDA) for Schools in England under contract T34718. The views expressed in the reportare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the TDA or any otherorganizations by which the authors are employed.
210 V.D. Opfer et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Notes on contributors
V. Darleen Opfer is Director of RAND Education and Distinguished Chair in EducationPolicy. Prior to this, she was a University Senior Lecturer in research methods and schoolimprovement at the University of Cambridge. She has research interests including interestgroup influence, the political aspects of policymaking, and the impact of national policies onschools, teachers, and students. She has completed both large- and small-scale policyevaluations for national and international agencies. Funded research projects have includedthe impacts of accountability policies and teacher professional development on teacherpractice, schools’ efforts to close achievement gaps, and teacher and head teacher mobility andattrition.
David Pedder is Professor of Education at the University of Leicester. Prior to this, he wasSenior Lecturer in leadership and learning at the University of Cambridge. His teaching andresearch interests are concerned with understanding processes, practices, perspectives, andconditions that support improvement in teaching and learning in schools and classrooms. Heconducts research with teachers and students in primary and secondary school and classroomcontexts. He uses qualitative and quantitative research methods to test and developunderstandings about innovation in classroom teaching and learning, teachers’ professionallearning, and school improvement.
Zsolt Lavicza is an Associate Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at the University ofCambridge. After receiving his degrees in mathematics and physics in Hungary, Zsolt beganhis postgraduate studies in applied mathematics. While teaching several mathematics coursesat the University of Cincinnati, he became interested in researching issues in the teaching andlearning mathematics. In particular, he focused on investigating issues in relation to the use oftechnology in undergraduate mathematics education. Since then, both at the University ofMichigan and Cambridge, he has worked on several research projects examining technologyand mathematics teaching in a variety of classroom environments. In addition, he becameinterested in studying quantitative methodologies in educational research.
References
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizationalchange. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice.New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.Burstein, L., McDonnell, L.M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guitton, G.
(1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Chester, M.D., & Beaudin, B.Q. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of newly hired teachers in urban
schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 233–257.Coleman, J.S. (1985). Schools and the communities they serve. Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 527–532.Coleman, J.S. (1987). Norms as social capital. In G. Radnitzky & P. Bernholz (Eds.),
Economic imperialism: The economic method applied outside the field of economics (pp. 133–155). New York, NY: Paragon House Publishers.
Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R.L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or
internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychology Measurement, 60, 821–836.Department for Education and Skills. (2005). Ethnicity and education: The evidence on minority
ethnic children. (Research Topic Paper No. RTP01-05). London, UK: Author.Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.Desimone, L.M., Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S., Yoon, K.S., & Birman, B.F. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinalstudy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81–112.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 211
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Dey, E.L. (1997). Working with low survey response rates: The efficacy of weightingadjustments. Research in Higher Education, 38, 215–227.
Fiol, C.M., & Lyles, M.A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review,10, 803–813.
Galloway, D., Parkhurst, F., Boswell, K., Boswell, C., & Green, K. (1982). Sources of stressfor classroom teachers. National Education, 64, 166–169.
Goddard, R.D. (2003). The impact of schools on teacher beliefs, influence, andstudent achievement: The role of collective efficacy beliefs. In J. Raths & A.C. McAninch(Eds.), Teacher beliefs and classroom performance: The impact of teacher education. Volume6, advances in teacher education (pp. 183–202). Greenwich, CT: Information AgePublishing.
Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C. Berliner &R.C. Calfree (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York, NY:Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Groves, R.M., Dillman, D.A., Eltinge, J.L., & Little, R.J.A. (Eds.). (2001). Surveynonresponse. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Guskey, T.R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. EducationalResearcher, 15(5), 5–12.
Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8,381–391.
Hargreaves, D.H. (1999). The knowledge-creating school. British Journal of EducationalStudies, 47, 122–144.
Hollingsworth, H. (1999). Teacher professional growth: A study of primary teachers involved inmathematics professional development (PhD Thesis). Deakin University, Burwood,Victoria, Australia.
Hopkins, D., West, M., & Ainscow, M. (1996). Improving the quality of education for all.London, UK: David Fulton.
Huberman, M. (1983). Recipes for busy teachers. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, andUtilization, 4, 478–510.
Huberman, M. (1995). Professional careers and professional development: Someintersections. In T. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development ineducation: New paradigms and practices (pp. 193–224). New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.
Leithwood, K., Aitken, R., & Jantzi, D. (2006).Making schools smarter: Leading with evidence(3r ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scalereform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectivenessand School Improvement, 17, 201–227.
MacBeath, J. (1999). Schools must speak for themselves: The case for school self-evaluation.London, UK: Routledge.
MacBeath, J., & Mortimore, P. (Eds.). (2001). Improving school effectiveness. Buckingham,UK, Open University Press.
MacGilchrist, B., Myers, K., & Reed, J. (2004). The intelligent school. London, UK: Sage.Mayer, D.P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data?
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 29–45.Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D., & Ecob, R. (1988). School matters: The
junior years. Wells, UK: Open Books.Nickols, F. (2000). ‘‘What is’’ in the world of work and working: Some implications of
the shift to knowledge in work. In J.W. Cortada & J.A. Woods (Eds.), Theknowledge management yearbook, 2000–2001 (pp. 3–11). Boston, MA: ButterworthHeinemann.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companiescreate the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Opfer, V.D., & Pedder, D. (2008a). Schools and continuing professional development inEngland: The state of the nation. Questionnaire for headteacher, deputy headteacher,assistant headteacher and CPD leader. Cambridge, UK: Authors.
Opfer, V.D., & Pedder, D. (2008b). Schools and continuing professional development inEngland: The state of the nation. Teacher questionnaire. Cambridge, UK: Authors.
212 V.D. Opfer et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Opfer, V.D., Pedder, D., & Lavicza, Z. (2010, May). Testing a model of teacher professionallearning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation Conference, Denver, CO.
Opfer, V.D., Pedder, D., & Lavicza, Z. (2011). The role of teachers’ orientation to learning inprofessional development and change: A national study of teachers in England. Teachingand Teacher Education, 27, 443–453.
Pedder, D. (2006). Organizational conditions that foster successful classroom promotion oflearning how to learn. Research Papers in Education, 21, 171–200.
Pedder, D., & MacBeath, J. (2008). Organisational learning approaches to school leadershipand management: Teachers’ values and perceptions of practice. School Effectiveness andSchool Improvement, 19, 207–224.
Pedder, D., Storey, A., Opfer, V.D., & McCormick, R. (2008). Schools and ContinuingProfessional Development (CPD) in England – State of the Nation Research Project(T34718): Synthesis report. London, UK: Training and Development Agency for Schools.
Pollard, A. (1985). The social world of the primary school. London, UK: Holt, Reinhart &Winston.
Rowan, B., & Correnti, R. (2009). Studying reading instruction with teacher logs: Lessonsfrom the study of instructional improvement. Educational Researcher, 38, 120–131.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours.London, UK: Open Books.
Sampson, R.J., Morenoff, J.D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics ofcollective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633–660.
Schonlau, M., Fricker, R.D., & Elliott, M.N. (2002). Conducting research surveys via e-mailand the Web. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
SeashoreLouis, K., & Leithwood, K. (1998). From organizational learning to professionallearning communities. In K. Seashore Louis & K.Leithwood (Eds.), Organisationallearning in schools (pp. 275–285). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. NewYork, NY: Doubleday.
Smithson, J.L., & Porter, A.C. (1994). Measuring classroom practice: Lessons learned from theefforts to describe the enacted curriculum – the Reform Up Close study (CPRE ResearchReport Series #31). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Consortium for policyResearch in Education.
Vaisey, S. (2009). Motivation and justification: A dual-process model of culture in action.American Journal of Sociology, 114, 1675–1715.
Weick, K., & Westley, F. (1996). Organizational learning: Affirming an oxymoron. In S.Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (pp. 440–458).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Woods, P., Jeffry, B., Troman, G., & Boyle, M. (1997). Restructuring schools, reconstructingteachers: Responding to change in the primary school. Buckingham, UK: Open UniversityPress.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the earlyyears if teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,343–356.
Zack M.H. (2000). Managing organizational ignorance. In J.W. Cortada & J.A. Woods(Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 2000–2001 (pp. 353–373). Boston, MA:Butterworth Heinemann.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 213
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
Appendix
1.Relationshipsbetweenvariablesin
modelstested
SchoolOrientationto
Learning
LearningChange
Promoting
Commitment
Perform
ance
Managem
ent
Social
Capital
Supporting
Collaboration
Practice
change
Belief
change
Student
change
PB
PB
PB
PB
School
Orientationto
Learning
Promoting
Commitment
P1.00
.355**
.632**
.271**
.542**
.216**
.588**
.132**
.290**
.227**
.261**
B1.00
.295**
.494**
.195**
.487**
.242**
.464**
.178**
.159**
.162**
Perform
ance
Managem
ent
P1.00
.559**
.514**
.247**
.477**
.167**
.250**
.214**
.259**
B1.00
.209**
.394**
.254**
.350**
.195**
.217**
.207**
SocialCapital
P1.00
.481**
.460**
.114**
.206**
.149**
.220**
B1.00
.210**
.450**
.193**
.220**
.202**
Supporting
Collaboration
P1.00
.416**
.249**
.212**
.265**
B1.00
.153**
.168**
.184**
LearningChange
PracticeChange
1.00
.458**
.466**
BeliefChange
1.00
.484**
StudentChange
1.00
**p�
.001.
214 V.D. Opfer et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Geo
rge
Mas
on U
nive
rsity
] at
17:
10 2
0 D
ecem
ber
2014
