TEACHERS' CONCERNS AND EFFICACY BELIEFS TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL REFORMS: CONNECTING THE TWO CONCEPTS


Published: Oct 8, 2018
Keywords:
educational reform problem solving teacher concerns teacher efficacy belief
Xαράλαμπος Χαραλάμπους (Charalampos Charalampous)
Λεωνίδας Κυριακίδης (Leonidas Kyriakidis)
Γιώργος Φιλίππου (Giorgos Philippou)
Abstract

Previous studies have documented the role that teachers' concerns and efficacy beliefs play in their implementation of educational reforms (Ghaith & Shaaban, 1999; Mc Kinney, Sexton, & Meyer son, 1999; van den Berg & Ros, 1999; van den Berg, Sleegers, Geijsel, & Vandenberghe, 2000). It was found that teachers' concerns develop in three stages: teachers are initially concerned about their personal competence to respond to the expectations of the innovation, then they are concerned about managing the reform, and finally, they focus on the potential of the reform to affect student learning. Research has also shown a positive correlation between teachers' efficacy beliefs and their disposition toward the reform. Despite the accumulating body of studies in the two aforementioned realms, the examination of teachers ' concerns and efficacy beliefs regarding a reform has largely moved onto parallel rather than intersecting paths.

In this paper, we attempted to integrate research pursued in the two realms. To this effect, we examined teachers' concerns and efficacy beliefs toward a reform on problem solving introduced in elementary school mathematics, we also proposed and tested a model that integrates teachers' concerns and efficacy beliefs with respect to the reform under consideration. The model assumes that the concerns of each successive stage are affected by the concerns of preceding stages; that efficacy beliefs affect the level of concerns related to the latter two stages and are affected by the strength of the concerns of the first stage; and that efficacy beliefs with respect to instructional approaches used prior to the introduction of the reform affect the strength of the concerns of all three stages.

The analysis of data collected from a sample of 157 Cypriot elementary school teachers showed that even five years after the introduction of this reform to the teaching of mathematics in the upper three elementary grades, teachers were concerned about their personal competence to respond to the expectations of the reform (first stage of concern); they were also found to feel more competent to teach problem solving employing instructional approaches used prior to the introduction of the reform. The analysis of the data using a structural equation model supported all three assumptions of the theoretical model integrating teachers' concerns and efficacy beliefs tested in this study.

The findings of the study point to the need for more comprehensive and systematic professional development efforts that introduce teachers to the philosophy and the main goals of the proposed reform. They also suggest that teachers' efficacy beliefs regarding instructional approaches used prior to the introduction of the innovation should not be underestimated, since they can affect teachers' concerns about, and accordingly their overall attitude toward, the reform. Additional studies are needed to cross-validate the model that was developed in the present study. Future studies that use Item Response Theory (IRT) models could also be used to further test the developmental character of teachers' concerns.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Articles
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Author Biographies
Xαράλαμπος Χαραλάμπους (Charalampos Charalampous), University of Michigan, School of Education
PhD Student
Λεωνίδας Κυριακίδης (Leonidas Kyriakidis), University of Cyprus, School of Education
Assistant Professor
Γιώργος Φιλίππου (Giorgos Philippou), University of Cyprus, School of Education
Professor
References
Amit, M., & Fried, M. N. (2002). Research, reform, and times of change. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 355-381). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Banilower, E. R., Boyd, S. E., Pasley, J. D., & Weiss, I. R. (2006). Lessons from a decade of mathematics and science reform: A capstone report for the local systemic change through
teacher enhancement initiative. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. (1996). Reform by the book: What is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform. Educational Research,
(9), 6-8, 14.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS-Structural equations program, manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
Brown, M. W., & Mels, G. (1990). RAMONA PC: User manual. Pretoria: University of South Africa.
Burn, K., Hagger, H., Mutton, T, & Everton, T. (2003). The complex development of student teachers' thinking. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(4), 309-331.
Charalambous, C, Kyriakides, L., & Philippou, G. (2003). Testing a developmental model or measuring problem solving and problem posing skills of primary pupils. In N. A.
Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. Zxilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th PME conference, (vol.2, pp. 205-212). Hawaii: College of Education and University of Hawaii.
Christou, C, & Philippou, G. (1999). The role of schémas in one-step word problems. Educational Research and Evaluation, 5(3), 269-289.
Christou, C, Philippou, G., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Menon-Eliophotou, M. (2002). The effect of efficacy on teachers' concerns with regard to implementation of a new mathematics
curriculum. In A. D. Cockburn, & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th PME conference, (vol.2, pp. 257-264). Norwich: University of East Anglia.
Cronbach, L.J. (3rd Ed.) (1990). Essentials of psychological testing. NY: Harper & Row. Datnow, Α., Borman, G., Stringfield, S., Overman, L. T., Castellano, M. (2003). Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2),
-170.
Diezmann, C , & English, L. (2001). Promoting the use of diagrams as tools for thinking. In A. A. Cuoco, & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics
(pp. 77-89). NCTM: VA, Reston.
Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, Α., & Tomic, W (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: A study on teachers' beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in Netherlands.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 227-243.
Fullan, G. M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Cassell. Ghaith, G., & Shaaban, K. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of teaching concerns,
teacher efficacy, and selected teacher characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education,
, 487-496.
Greer, B. (1992). Multiplication and division as models of situations. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 276-295). New York:
MacMillan.
Kline, R. H. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. London: Gilford Press.
Kouba, V. L., & Franklin, K. (1993). Multiplication and division: Sense making and meaning. In R. Jensen (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: Early childhood mathematics (pp.
-126). New YorkMacmillan
Kyriakides, L. (2005). Evaluating school policy on parents working with their children in class. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(5), 281-298.
Kyriakides, L., Charalambous, C, Philippou, G., & Campbell, R.J. (2006). Illuminating reform evaluation studies through incorporating teacher effectiveness research: a case study in Mathematics. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(1), 3-32.
Lester, F, Κ. (1994). Musings about mathematical problem-solving research: 1970-1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 660-675.
Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Hegarty, M. (1996). The process of understanding mathematical problems. In R. Stenberg, & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking
(pp. 29-53). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McKinney, M., Sexton, T., & Meyerson, M. J. (1999). Validating the efficacy-based change model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 471-485.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: Virginia.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211 -246.
Schoen, H. L., Cebulla, K., J., Finn, K. F., & Fi, C. (2003). Teacher variables that relate to student achievement when using a Standards-based curriculum. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 34(3), 228-259.
Sztajn, P. (2003). Adapting reform ideas in different mathematics classrooms: Beliefs beyond mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 53-75.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, Α., Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
van den Berg, R., & Ros, A. (1999). The permanent importance of the subjective reality of teachers during educational innovation: A concerns-based approach. American
Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 879-906.
van den Berg, R., Sleegers, P., Geijsel, F, & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Implementation of an innovation: Meeting the concerns of teachers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26(4), 331-350.
Χαραλάμπους, X. (2003). Επίλυση μαθηματικών προβλημάτων με βάση τη Θεωρία Σχήματος: Εμβαθύνοντας στην εφαρμογή μιας καινοτομίας. Ανέκδοτη μεταπτυχιακή διατριβή. Λευκωσία: Πανεπιστήμιο Κύπρου.
Most read articles by the same author(s)