School Leadership Review

Volume 13 Issue 1 Article 5

2018

The Relationship Between School Climate and Teacher Self-

Efficacy in a Rural Virginia School System
Paige Lacks
Mecklenburg County Public Schools

Scott B. Watson
Liberty University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr

Part of the Educational Leadership Commons, Elementary and Middle and Secondary Education
Administration Commons, and the Secondary Education Commons
Tell us how this article helped you.

Recommended Citation
Lacks, Paige and Watson, Scott B. (2018) "The Relationship Between School Climate and Teacher Self-
Efficacy in a Rural Virginia School System," School Leadership Review: Vol. 13 : Iss. 1 , Article 5.
Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr/vol13/iss1/5

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted
for inclusion in School Leadership Review by an authorized editor of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information,
please contact [email protected].
 Lacks and Watson: The Relationship Between School Climate and Teacher Self-Efficacy

The Relationship Between School Climate and Teacher Self-Efficacy

in a Rural Virginia School System

Paige Lacks i
Mecklenburg County Public Schools

Scott B. Watson
Liberty University

School climate is one of the most significant factors in solidifying an effective learning
environment. In today’s complex educational system, leaders face daily challenges in the world
of high stakes testing and state accreditation that force them to ensure that they have
implemented reforms that will provide sustained improvement in student achievement. As a
result, school leaders and teachers must possess the ability to change and adapt to their
conditions for continuous organizational improvement despite possible resistance from
stakeholders. Moreover, with diverse teacher experience levels, leaders consistently assess and
evaluate the instructional practices in their building to empower teachers to engage and motivate
their students (Kelley, Thornton, & Daugherty, 2005). Thus, the school’s educational leader and
the climate that he or she helps to establish directly impacts the school’s environment and
teachers’ perception of that environment.

Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for the study was primarily based on Albert Bandura’s Social
Cognitive Theory and Julian Rotter’s Locus of Control Theory. First, Bandura publicly
announced his theory in 1977, while he was a professor at Stanford University, and he continued
to devote his research to the subject throughout his life. He then expanded his research to
distinctively define self-efficacy and what it means to the teaching profession. Second, Rotter’s
Locus of Control Theory is essential to self-efficacy because it focuses on causal beliefs of
actions and outcomes and whether those actions and outcomes have internal or external controls
(Bandura, 1977; Rotter, 1966).

Social cognitive theory. In the 1960s, Alberta Bandura developed the Social Learning Theory,
but after further research and study, in 1986, his theory evolved into what is today known as the
Social Cognitive Theory. Through the Social Cognitive Theory, Bandura emphasized that the
reciprocal interaction of a behavior, person, and environment is where learning occurs in a social
setting (Boston University School of Public Health, 2013). Thus, there is a strong influence on
social factors and the role of internal and external reinforcements that may affect those factors.
What makes the Social Cognitive Theory unique compared to many other social theories is the
way that it looks at how individuals acquire a behavior and their ability to maintain it coupled
with determining the social environment in which one exhibits the behavior (Bandura, 1986).
i
Paige Lacks can be reached at [email protected].

48

Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2018 1

 School Leadership Review, Vol. 13 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 5

Locus of control theory. Julian Rotter’s Locus of Control Theory, developed in 1966, is
essential to self-efficacy. Rotter (1966) defined his theory in terms of one’s general cross-
sectional belief about feelings of internal and external controls that determine outcomes and
actions. Individuals are classified based on a continuum from extremely internal to extremely
external based on their beliefs (Mearns, 2014). The theory states that people who possess an
internal locus of control will conclude that their self-efficacy is measured by factors they
personally control. These people believe that they can control their own lives because
responsibility lies within them. As a result, any success or failure that they encounter is solely
due to their own efforts. In contrast, individuals possessing an external locus of control feel that
outside factors for which they have no control determine outcomes and actions.

Self-Efficacy. Bandura (1986, 1997) proposes four sources of teacher’s self-efficacy: mastery
experiences, which he notes as the most significant factor, vicarious experiences, verbal
persuasion, and physiological arousal. First, mastery experiences are defined by a teacher’s
perception of his or her past teaching experiences. Hoy (2003) asserts that if one has a positive
perception (successful mastery), his or her expectations of teaching will be proficient, unless the
amount of work to get the positive perception requires a massive work level that the teacher feels
that he or she cannot sustain. In contrast, if one believes his or her teaching has been a failure,
he or she is apt to think that future teaching performances will provide the same result.

Teacher self-efficacy. Ross (1994) researched teacher efficacy studies in over 88 settings and
determined that teachers with a high sense of efficacy are more likely to “learn and use new
approaches and strategies for teaching, use management techniques that enhance student
autonomy, provide special assistance to low achieving students, build students’ self-perceptions
of their academic skills, set attainable goals, and persist in the face of student failure” (qtd in
Hoy, 2003-2004). All teachers have a sense of self-efficacy; however, there are two specific
types of belief systems that make up this broad term. First, a teacher’s personal teaching
efficacy is defined by a teacher’s own feelings of confidence in terms of his or her teaching skills
and abilities to improve student learning. The other belief, a general teaching efficacy, is based
on a general belief that one has about the power of teachers to reach difficult children (Protheroe,
2008). General teaching efficacy relies heavily on external issues that are out of the teacher’s
control.

School Climate
Several researchers have defined school climate. Hoy and Miskel (2005) explained it as “the set
of internal characteristics that distinguish one school from another and influence the behaviors of
each school’s members” (pg. 185). Van Houtte (2005) emphasized that school climate is
comprised of common beliefs and shared experiences between school authorities and colleagues.
Perhaps one of the most widely accepted definitions written by Haynes, Emmons and Ben-Avie
(1997) stated that it is “the quality and consistency of interpersonal interactions within the school
community that influence children’s cognitive, social, and psychological development” (p. 322).
Thus, due to its connection to attitude and perception, climate plays a significant role in the
overall makeup of a school.

49

https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr/vol13/iss1/5 2
 Lacks and Watson: The Relationship Between School Climate and Teacher Self-Efficacy

School climate and the principal. Perhaps one of the biggest factors in determining teachers’
perception of school climate is the principal, or educational leader. Thus, creating a supportive
school climate is the responsibility of the school leader. They must foster a community where
teachers can share ideas and feel comfortable sharing experiences that positively influence the
atmosphere (Meristo & Eisenschmidt, 2014). The everyday interactions that principals have
with their teachers can affect trust and collegiality and the teachers’ ability to influence
decisions. Moreover, when such relationships exist, they impact student achievement and
performance, as teachers feel supported and mutually respected (Edgerson et al, 2006; Friedkin
& Slater, 1994). They also work together to problem solve and achieve common goals. As a
result, teacher perceptions of support from their principal directly impact teacher commitment,
turnover, and collegiality (Singh & Billingsley, 1998).

School climate and teachers. Collie, Shapka, and Perry (2012) examined the relationship
between teachers’ perceptions of their social-emotional learning and the climate within their
schools. They measured three variables to determine the type and level of relationship that exists
between the three: teachers’ sense of stress, teaching efficacy, and job satisfaction. Sampling
664 elementary and secondary school teachers, each participant completed an online
questionnaire to measure teacher perceptions of their school climate and social-emotional
learning. Of the factors reviewed, teachers’ perceptions of student motivation and behavior had
the most significant impact on school climate. It was also named as a variable that meaningfully
predicted one’s teaching efficacy. Two other specific factors, workload stress and student
behavior stress, were also highly noted as factors that determined one’s sense of teaching
efficacy (Collie, Shapka & Perry, 2012).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between teacher perception of
school climate and teacher self-efficacy and beliefs. The predictor variables of interest were
collegial leadership, professionalism, academic press, and community engagement. The criterion
variable was teacher self-efficacy level. Licensed teachers from two middle schools in rural
southern Virginia were targeted to participate in this study.

Research Design
This study was quantitative in nature, using a correlational research design. A correlational
design is a focused, straightforward study, which seeks to determine if a relationship exists
between variables in a single group of subjects, and if such relationship does exist, it determines
the strength, or lack thereof, of the relationship (Hoy & Miskel, 2005). It was conducted to
determine if a statistical relationship existed between middle schools. The surveys for this study
were distributed to all licensed teachers working at two middle schools in rural southern
Virginia. The research questions were evaluated for a relationship between one or more of the
four School Climate Index subscales (Tschannen-Moran, Parish and DiPaola (2006), and the
Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk and Hoy (2001) using Pearson
Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient statistics.

50

Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2018 3

 School Leadership Review, Vol. 13 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 5

Research Questions
RQ1: Is there a relationship between teacher-perceived school climate (measured by the total
School Climate Index) and teacher self-efficacy (measured by the Teacher Sense of Efficacy
Scale)?
RQ2: Is there a relationship between teacher-perceived collegial leadership (as measured by the
School Climate Index) and teacher self-efficacy (measured by the Teacher Sense of Efficacy
Scale).
RQ3: Is there a relationship between teacher-perceived teacher professionalism (as measured by
the School Climate Index) and teacher self-efficacy (measured by the Teacher Sense of Efficacy
Scale).
RQ4: Is there a relationship between teacher-perceived academic press (as measured by the
School Climate Index) and teacher self-efficacy (measured by the Teacher Sense of Efficacy
Scale).
RQ5: Is there a relationship between teacher-perceived community engagement (as measured by
the School Climate Index) and teacher self-efficacy (measured by the Teacher Sense of Efficacy
Scale).

Sample
The sample for the study was comprised of middle school teachers employed at two different
schools in one school division. The school system is located in Southside Virginia, a rural area
known for its agricultural community. The system provided education services to approximately
4,584 students and employed 350 teachers during the 2014-2015 school year. The school district
contains eight schools: four elementary, two middle, and two high schools. The research was
performed in the two middle schools in the district. Both middle schools house grades 6-8, have
similar demographics, and are located in rural areas. The sample for the proposed study
consisted of all respondents from the total eighty-six licensed teachers.

The combined statistics of teachers from MS 1 and MS 2 produced several results. Sixteen
percent of the teachers were in their first year of teaching, 33% had one to ten years of
experience, 32% had 11 to 20 years of experience, and 19% had more than 20 years of
experience. Sixty-five percent were female, and 35% percent were male. Fifty-eight percent had
a Bachelor Degree as their highest level of education, 42% had a graduate degree. The ethnicity
of the teachers was as follows: 76% white, 20% black, and 4% other. The total number of
surveys returned was 56, which produced a 65% total return rate for both surveys at both school.

Instrumentation
The two instruments used in the study were School Climate Index (SCI), developed by
Tschannen-Moran, Parrish and DiPaola (2006), and the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES),
developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001). Both instruments are commonly used for
measuring data.

In order to capture the teachers’ perception of their school climate, the instrument selected for
the purpose of the study was the School Climate Index (SCI). The SCI consists of 28 questions
ranked on a five-point Likert scale. The questions measured overall school climate by dividing
the items into four subcategories. The model for SCI described major aspects of school climate
through focusing on four specific subscales: collegial leadership, teacher professionalism,

51

https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr/vol13/iss1/5 4
 Lacks and Watson: The Relationship Between School Climate and Teacher Self-Efficacy

academic press, and community engagement. The authors of the School Climate Index,
Tschannen-Moran, Parish, and DiPaola (2006) provided strong reliability data for their study.
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of reliability for the full SCI was 0.96. Each of the four
subscales also had a high reliability: collegial leadership (0.93), teacher professionalism (0.94),
academic press (0.92), and community engagement (0.93).

The second instrument used in the study was the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), also
developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001). This instrument was selected to capture
teacher perceptions of their self-efficacy. The TSES consists of twenty-four questions ranked on
a nine-point Likert scale. For each statement, the possible answers were as follows: A Great
Deal = 9, Quite a Bit = 7, Some Degree = 5, Very Little = 3, and None at All = 1. The higher the
composite score of the responses meant the higher the teachers’ perception of his or her sense of
self-efficacy. The authors of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy
(2001), provided Cronbach’s alpha reliability ratings of 0.94.

Procedures
Data collected through the two survey instruments, School Climate Index (SCI) and the
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), were analyzed to determine if there was a
relationship between school climate and teacher self-efficacy and beliefs. The researchers
compiled the data in Excel and used a summary sheet to score each respondent’s survey. Each
survey was given a unique identification code to pair it with a scoring sheet so that it may be
matched in the event of a discrepancy. The SCI scoring sheet was separated to provide a total
score as well as a score for each of the four subcategories. The TSES scoring sheet included the
total overall sum of each participant’s score. The presentation of the data is shown for the SCI,
TSES, and the various categorical means for the subgroups of the SCI survey.

Findings
The means and standard deviations for each of the criterion and predictor variables are listed in
Table 1. The criterion variable was the total score from the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale
(TSES). The predictor variables were the total scores from the School Climate Index (SCI) and
the four subcategories of the SCI (collegial leadership, teacher professionalism, academic press,
and community engagement).
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for All Variables
Variable N Mean S.D.
TSES Total 55 169.9 17.72
SCI Total 55 94.49 12.83
Collegial Leadership 55 23.71 5.29
Teacher Professionalism 55 30.18 4.01
Academic Press 55 19.67 3.48
Community Engagement 55 20.93 3.35

52

Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2018 5

 School Leadership Review, Vol. 13 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 5

Statistical Results
A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient analysis was conducted to test each
question. Table 2 provides the Pearson correlation for each dependent variable.
Table 2
Pearson Correlations between Perceived School Climate and Teacher Sense of Efficacy
TSES Total p=
SCI Total .190 .165
Collegial Leadership .009 .948
Teacher Professionalism .112 .416
Academic Press .179 .190
Community Engagement .393** .003
n=55
**Highly Significant Correlation

Question one
Question one was as follows: Is there a relationship between teacher-perceived school climate
(measured by the total School Climate Index) and teacher self-efficacy (measured by the Teacher
Sense of Efficacy Scale)? The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated
between the SCI (M=94.49, SD= 12.83) and the TSES (M=169.9, SD = 17.72), which revealed a
lack of significant correlation, r (53) = .190, p = .165. Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy was not
significantly correlated to teachers’ beliefs about school climate.

Question two
Question two asked: Is there a relationship between teacher-perceived collegial leadership (as
measured by the School Climate Index) and teacher self-efficacy (measured by the Teacher
Sense of Efficacy Scale). The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated
to determine any relationship between collegial leadership (M=23.71, SD= 5.29) and teacher
sense of efficacy (M=169.9, SD=17.72). The results of the test, r (53) = .009, p = .948, revealed
that there was no significant correlation between collegial leadership and teacher self-efficacy.

Question three
Question three asked: Is there a relationship between teacher-perceived teacher professionalism
(as measured by the School Climate Index) and teacher self-efficacy (measured by the Teacher
Sense of Efficacy Scale). The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated
between teacher professionalism (M = 30.18, SD = 4.01) and teacher sense of efficacy
(M=169.9, SD=17.72). A lack of significant correlation was shown as a result of r (53) = .112, p
= .416. Teacher professionalism was not significantly correlated to teacher sense of efficacy.

Question four
Question four stated: Is there a relationship between teacher-perceived academic press (as
measured by the School Climate Index) and teacher self-efficacy (measured by the Teacher
Sense of Efficacy Scale). The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated
to determine if a relationship existed between academic press (M = 19.67, SD = 3.48) and
teacher sense of efficacy (M = 169.9, SD = 17.72), and the results, r (53) = .179, p = .190,
revealed a lack of significant correlation.

53

https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr/vol13/iss1/5 6
 Lacks and Watson: The Relationship Between School Climate and Teacher Self-Efficacy

Question five
Question five stated: Is there a relationship between teacher-perceived community engagement
(as measured by the School Climate Index) and teacher self-efficacy (measured by the Teacher
Sense of Efficacy Scale). The Pearson Product- Moment Correlation Coefficient was calculated
to conclude if a relationship existed between community engagement (M = 20.93, SD 3.35) and
teacher sense of efficacy (M = 169.9, SD = 17.72). The test revealed a positive significant
correlation between community engagement and teacher sense of efficacy, as indicated by the
results, r (53) = .393, p = .003. Thus, community engagement was significantly and positively
correlated to teacher sense of self-efficacy.

Discussion and Conclusions

The preponderance of research supports the link between positive school climate and a sense of
belonging to stakeholders through a supportive atmosphere promoting shared values and beliefs
(Manning & Saddlemire, 1996). According to Taylor and Tashakkori (1995), teachers who work
in schools with a positive school climate report higher job satisfaction compared to those
working in schools with perceived negative climate. In addition, Bandura’s Social Cognitive
Theory analyzes cognitive, behavioral, and environmental factors of self-efficacy in conjunction
with personal and social change (Bandura, 1986). Rotter’s Locus of Control Theory (1966)
relates to self-efficacy because it focuses on causal beliefs of actions and outcomes and whether
or not those actions and outcomes have internal or external controls. Hoy (2003-2004) further
stated that teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy typically have an easier time producing
cognitive growth in their students and motivating them. Teachers who exhibit such
characteristics recover quickly from setbacks and have an optimistic approach to trying new
concepts or techniques.

The findings of the present study do not align well with results from other studies with the
exception of relationship between teacher-perceived community engagement and teacher self-
efficacy. Other researchers have found a connection from collegial leadership to teacher self-
efficacy. Hipp (1996) discovered that principals who modeled leadership behaviors such as risk
taking and cooperation had teachers with high levels of efficacy in their buildings. Lee, Dedrick,
and Smith (1991) concluded that principals who modeled professional behavior and provided
performance-based rewards had teachers with a high sense of efficacy. In addition, Goddard
(2001) found that schools with principals who promoted shared decision making on school issues
produced stronger teacher collective efficacy to help students to prosper compared to those who
school leaders who did not share decision making with their teachers.

Chan, Chan, Cheung, Mgan and Yeung (1992) found that teachers’ perception of self and of their
pedagogical self were significant factors of teacher behavior, which was a predictor of student
achievement. Moreover, Devos, Dupriez, and Paquay (2012) concluded that collaboration with
colleagues helped to improve teacher self-efficacy. Angelle and Teague (2014) observed a
strong relationship exists between collective efficacy and teacher leadership. Moreover, teachers
who perceive that they have a leadership role in their school display higher levels of collective
efficacy. Conner (2014) found that teacher relationships are essential for a successful school
climate and that camaraderie is essential for building relations. When teachers have a
relationship among themselves that fosters collaboration and communication, they produce

54

Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2018 7

 School Leadership Review, Vol. 13 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 5

strong teacher-teacher and teacher-student relationships to optimize student learning and

achievement.

Lee and Smith (1996) found that schools where teachers take collective responsibility for their
students’ academic success or failure instead of making excuses by blaming students for their
own failure produced significantly higher student achievement gains. They also discovered that
such schools produced smaller achievement gaps over time due to the strong collective efficacy
of teachers who pushed their disadvantaged students to keep on pace with their peers.

Moreover, Goddard, LoGerfo, and Hoy (2004) studied ninety-six rural, suburban, and urban high
schools and found the strongest predictor of student achievement in reading, writing, and social
studies was a school’s collective efficacy, which outranked variables including school size,
minority enrollment, students’ socioeconomic status, and students’ prior achievement.

Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk, Hoy and Hoy (1998) concluded community factors impact local
schools: “conflict, violence, or substance abuse at home or in the community; the value placed
on education at home; the social and economic realities of class, race, and gender; and the
physiological, emotional, and cognitive needs of a particular child all have a very real impact on
a student’s motivation and performance in school” (p. 204). In addition, Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy
(2000) discovered that a negative socioeconomic status of community can be offset when a
positive relationship exists between collective efficacy of stakeholders and student achievement.
Belfi, Gielen, DeFraine, Verschveren and Meredith (2015) discovered that a relationship
between collective teacher efficacy and school socioeconomic status existed between the two
factors but that teachers’ perceptions of their school’s social capital was the main factor in their
relationship.

In conclusion, all stakeholders within a school and community help to form the school’s climate.
Because a teacher has the most day-to-day interactions with students while he or she is at school,
the teacher has an opportunity to shape the school into a positive, effective learning environment
or a negative, ineffective one. Thus, the ability of a teacher to be effective in his or her
classroom is paramount for a school’s success. Even though there are many factors that
influence a school’s climate, research has pointed to teacher self-efficacy as one of the most
conclusive. Teachers who believe that they have the ability to make a positive impact on their
students by helping them make advances in their learning and growth embody a strong sense of
self-efficacy. Research supports that a positive correlation exists between teacher self-efficacy
and student achievement (Protheroe, 2008; Hoy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002). Thus, it is
imperative that school leaders take note of the research that identifies teacher self-efficacy and its
association with school climate.

This research data for this study did not reflect and support prior research studies that show that a
relationship exists between overall school climate and teacher self-efficacy. Instead, this study
showed that there was no correlation to school climate and teacher self-efficacy as well as
teacher self-efficacy and collegial leadership, teacher self-efficacy and teacher professionalism,
and teacher self-efficacy and academic press. None of these factors, therefore, aligned with the
research presented that shows that a positive relationship does exist between school climate and
teacher self-efficacy. The present research did not show that a relationship exists between
teacher school climate and self-efficacy except for the area of teacher self-efficacy and

55

https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr/vol13/iss1/5 8
 Lacks and Watson: The Relationship Between School Climate and Teacher Self-Efficacy

community engagement. The relationship was a strong, positive correlation demonstrating that
when one variable (either the teacher self-efficacy or community engagement) increases, the
other increases as well.

Implications
Results from this research indicated that a statistical significance only existed in the correlation
between teacher self-efficacy and community engagement. The statistical tests included
indicated a positive correlation between the two factors. This finding may mean that schools that
are located in communities where stakeholders become involved in their school’s activities and
outreach projects have teachers with higher self-efficacy compared to communities that have
stakeholders that do not become engaged in their local school. Perhaps a focus on how a
community engages in a school is more of an indicator of teacher self-efficacy versus just the
overall fact of if stakeholders in the community are engaging or not.

Teachers notice that when their community supports the work that they are doing in the
classroom to grow the future leaders of their community (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy,
2001). Communities with stakeholders who have a vested interest in student growth and
learning may positively affect teacher self-efficacy. Moreover, an implication of this study may
be that there is more of an effect of community engagement on teacher self-efficacy compared to
the attitudes and behaviors specifically controlled by stakeholders such as principals, teachers,
and students within the school building.

Limitations
This research study was limited to two middle schools located in rural southern Virginia. Out of
eighty-six possible participants, fifty-six participants participated by completing both the
Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) and the School Climate Index (SCI). Based on the
location in which the study was conducted, results from this research may not be used to make
several generalizations. First, since data were gathered from teachers in the middle school
setting, the results may not be applicable to elementary school and high school populations.
Moreover, the research was conducted at schools located in a rural setting, so generalizations
may not be made by schools located in urban or suburban regions. Therefore, principals and
teachers in the elementary school and high school settings as well as in urban and suburban areas
should use caution when generalizing the study’s findings.

Recommendations for Future Research

Based on the research findings, more research is recommended to further the understanding of
the relationship between school climate, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher beliefs. The following
recommendations should be considered for further study:
1. A qualitative study would help to bring a deeper understanding of the thoughts,
feelings, and attitudes of participants about their perceptions of school climate and its
impact on teacher self-efficacy.
2. This study could benefit from having a larger sample size to include middle schools
from other school districts. Also, this study should be replicated in multiple states in
multiple school districts to determine possible geographic similarities and differences.

56

Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2018 9

 School Leadership Review, Vol. 13 [2018], Iss. 1, Art. 5

References
Angelle, P., & Teague, G. M. (2014). Teacher leadership and collective efficacy: teacher
perceptions in three US school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(6),
738-753.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Belfi, B., Gielen, S., De Fraine, B., Verschueren, K., & Meredith, C. (2015). School-based social
capital: The missing link between schools' socioeconomic composition and collective
teacher efficacy. Teaching & Teacher Education, 45, 33-44.
Boston University School of Public Health. (2013). Behavioral Change Models. Retrieved from
http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/SB721-Models/SB721-Models5.html
Chan, C.C., Chan, K.Y., Cheung, W.M., Ngan, M. & Yeung, V.M. (1992). Primary school
teacher self concept: Its relationship with teacher behaviors and students’ educational
outcomes. Primary Education, 3(1), 9-28.
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social-emotional learning:
predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104(4), 1189-1204. doi:10.1037/a0029356
Devos, C., Dupriez, V., & Paquay, L. (2012). Does the social working environment predict
beginning teachers’ self-efficacy and feelings of depression? Teaching & Teacher
Education, 28(2), 206-217. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.008
Edgerson, D., & Kritsonis, W., & Herrington, D. (2006). The critical role of the teacher-principal
relationship in the improvement of student achievement in public schools of the United
States. The Lamar University Electronic Journal of Student Research, 3.
Friedkin, N.E., & Slater, M.R. (1994). School leadership and performance: A social network
approach. Sociology of Education, 67, 139-157.
Goddard, R.D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and
student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 403-425.
Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K., & Hoy, A.W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact of student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
37(2), 479-507.
Haynes, N. M., Emmons, C., & Ben-Avie, M. (1997). School climate as a factor in
student adjustment and achievement. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 8(3), 321-329.
Hipp, K. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Influence of principal leadership behavior. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Hoy, W. K. (2003). An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: Some theoretical,
research, and practical consideration. Journal of Educational Administration, 41, 87-108.
Hoy, A. W. (2003-2004). Self-efficacy in college teaching: Essays on teaching excellence
toward the best in the academy. 15(7).
Hoy, W., 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., & Miskel, C. (2005). Education administration: Theory, research, and practice (7th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

57

https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr/vol13/iss1/5 10
 Lacks and Watson: The Relationship Between School Climate and Teacher Self-Efficacy

Kelley, R. C., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, R. (2005). Relationships between measures of
leadership and school climate. Education, 126(1), 17-25.
Lee, V., Dedrick, R., & Smith, T. (1991). The effect of the social organization of schools on
teachers’ efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190-208.
Manning, M.L. & Saddlemire, R. (1996). Developing a sense of community in secondary
schools. NASSP Bulletin, 80(584), 41-48.
Mearns, J. (2015). The social learning theory of Julian B. Rotter. Retrieved from
http://psych.fullerton.edu/jmearns/rotter.htm
Meristo, M., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2014). Novice teachers' perceptions of school climate and self-
efficacy. International Journal Of Educational Research, 671-10.
doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2014.04.003
Protheroe, N. (2008). Teacher efficacy: What is it and does it matter? Principal, 87(5). 42-45.
Ross, J.A. (1994). Beliefs that make a difference: The origins and impacts of teacher efficacy.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for Curriculum
Studies.
Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28.
Singh, K., & Billingsley, B.S. (1998). Professional support for its effects on teachers’
commitment. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 229-239.
Taylor, D.L., & Tashakkori, A. (1995). Decision participation and school climate as predictors of
job satisfaction and teachers; sense of efficacy. Journal of Experimental Education, 63
(3), 217-231.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teaching efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Parish, J., & DiPaola. M. F. (2006). School climate and state standards:
How interpersonal relationships influence student achievement. Journal of School
Leadership, 16, 386 - 415.
Van Houtte, M. (2005). Climate or culture? A plea for conceptual clarity in school effectiveness
research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 71-89.

58

Published by SFA ScholarWorks, 2018 11