By Dr. Kirstina Ordetx

 

Collective Teacher Efficacy: What is It? 

 

The term collective efficacy is not new to the field of education. In fact, Alfred Bandura observed this concept in the 1970s and found that groups of people are more effective when they collectively believe in their ability to impact outcomes. While this is true for various social situations, in the educational world, Bandura noticed a correlation between collective teacher efficacy and student success (1993). Since that time, other researchers have reported findings on this positive impact, recognizing the collective teacher efficacy as one of the strongest influences on student achievement (Eells, 2011; Hattie, 2016). With a deep interest in measurement models, performance indicators, and the evaluation of teaching and learning behaviors, education researcher John Hattie reviewed over 2,000 meta-analyses (including more than 130,000 studies involving over 400 million students) to research conditions that contribute to successful learning in schools. Of the 300 influences he studied, including test anxiety, motivation, parent involvement, socio-economic status, curricula, learning strategies, and more, he ranked collective teacher efficacy as the most significant of all, calling it the “new number one.” To see a visual of the effect size for each influence, check out Hattie’s “barometer of influence.”

 

How does Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE) develop?

 

CTE develops through shared experiences and social persuasions that are present in our collaborative norms, such as peer observation, mentoring, reflection, and formal meetings. It is in these moments that teachers learn from each other, examine evidence of learning, engage in decision-making, and expand their commitment and capabilities as a group. Supportive leadership is a key ingredient to cultivating CTE. CTE thrives in an educational environment where the administration shows a commitment to learning by providing teachers with quality professional development that is rooted in evidence. Teachers are held to high expectations, while being given the time and platform to share and celebrate their effectiveness. 

 

What does CTE look like?

 

Research indicates that classroom teaching that utilizes research-based approaches and practices can prevent and mitigate reading difficulties (Moats, 2020). In her publication, Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science, Louisa Moats reminds us that learning to read is not a skill that children develop naturally or easily, yet teaching it is a school’s most important responsibility. While multidisciplinary research confirms that 95% of students can learn to read when provided with evidence-aligned instruction, recent reports of our nation’s student scores do not reflect this. Year after year, the NAEP reports poor reading scores, leaving many teachers unconvinced about their ability to change the trajectory of reading success (Moats, 2020).  

I have seen it before on the first day of Orton-Gillingham training. Teachers are skeptical, and why shouldn’t they be? Given the history of curriculum turnover in our schools, teachers have every right to think, “This is just another curriculum” or “It’s going to change again in a few years.” For many teachers, their prior experiences with literacy curricula culminate in a mindset that repeatedly prompts lowered expectations, increased frustration, and division across the faculty. Limited training and support leave them feeling isolated, left to gather their own resources and lesson ideas. 

The teachers at Summit Charter School had some of those same concerns. I assured them that this was different. This professional development experience was going to equip them to deliver an instructional approach that is explicit, evidence-based, data-driven, and can target the needs of students across all three tiers. Learning about language structure and the specific instructional methods that support effective literacy learning requires extensive knowledge, skills, and commitment, but these teachers were curious, hopeful, and up for the challenge. Together, the K–5 faculty received intensive training in Orton-Gillingham, remarking throughout the week, “Why haven’t I ever learned this before?” It all started making sense: the systematic, sequential, diagnostic elements of Structured Literacy were taking hold.  

In addition, the leadership at Summit Charter School checked all of the boxes for Marzano’s model (2018), while complementing Hattie’s findings about instructional leadership (Waters & Cameron, 2007):

  • Data-driven focus on school improvement
  • System of clear teaching objectives
  • Evidence-based approach to curriculum
  • Support of professional development
  • Community of care and collaboration
  • Representative of core values
  • Management of resources 

In the months following their launch, it became more evident that the collective energy was building, and the passion for teaching intensified. Through their Structured Literacy approach, they had developed an instructional “we.” With the new knowledge, tools, and resources from IMSE’s Comprehensive OG+, the faculty team was fueled by the concept of “we.”

We were evaluating.

We were collaborating.

We were giving students what they needed.

We were discussing, sharing, learning, problem-solving, growing, and celebrating . . . together.

From my perspective, “we” became symbolic of their unity. The collective teacher efficacy was alive and visible. In fact, there was evidence all around, driving informed decisions and ensuring that every child can become a reader. It was found in standardized test scores, ongoing formative assessment, student samples, student and teacher confidence, and increased engagement in literacy learning (aka fun). By midyear, teachers were collaborative in their review of student data, viewing assessments as valuable feedback about their impact (one of Hattie’s top effects). They were frequently discussing data, “Look here, do you see this pattern in the data?” or “Let’s set aside some additional time to review this concept before moving on.” Color-coded data made it easy to identify needs for the entire class or an individual student. In the first year, the data visibly demonstrated a decrease in at-risk readers across Grades K–5. Teachers were starting to believe. As instructional agents, they believed in the collective impact. In Hattie’s book, Visible Learning, he discusses the effect that good teachers can have on student learning. He defines a good teacher as an “activator,” a person who seeks out and analyzes the evidence of their impact on students. Not only was this key trait of good teaching noticeable across the faculty, but they were also exhibiting other contributions that Hattie noted as having a strong effect: direct instruction, professional development, clarity, instructional quality, expectations, mastery learning, and frequent assessment stemming from the launch of their IMSE training. Regarding literacy instruction, a deep, pedagogical belief guided this team, influencing their instructional practices, shaping their literacy learning environment, and driving their dedication to instructional fidelity. A clear, multi-tiered system of support was developed to help identify struggling students early and intervene quickly. This instructional ecosystem offers:

 

Tier 1: Direct, explicit, systematic instruction provided to all students in Grades K–5.

 

Tier 2: Formative and summative assessment to support differentiation of content, process, and groupings.

 

Tier 3: Intensive, individual, and expert instruction provided in small groups or 1:1. 

 

Currently in year two, the teachers are eager to collect and review the data. They know what to look for and are supported by opportunities for coaching, mentoring, and frequent, formal collaboration. Each year will be better than the last as the collective teacher efficacy continues to grow and impact the school in many ways. Empowered by IMSE’s Structured Literacy training and proven curriculum, it is evident that the faculty and administration at Summit Charter School truly believe in their ability to be change agents. Fifteen-year teaching veteran Emily Taylor noticed a change after implementing her IMSE training with her third-grade class. “My students showed the growth I knew they were capable of. Our school reported a 9-point overall increase in test scores from the previous year, and I attribute that to the addition of Orton-Gillingham and the consistency of phonics instruction across K–5. OG instruction strengthened students’ word attack skills, improving their reading comprehension and filling learning gaps. I am excited to see our growth this year.” 

Hattie’s work reminds us to become evaluators of our own teaching practices. It places significant value on the power of teamwork and mindset. It challenges us to examine how we use evidence to drive our daily decisions and to move forward with purpose. The influence of our collective teacher efficacy gives us an enhanced lens through which to view literacy assessment, teaching, learning, and success for all. 

 

About the Author

 

Dr. Kirstina Ordetx is a Level 5 Master Instructor with The Institute for Multi-Sensory Education (IMSE). She holds a doctorate in Counseling Psychology with a concentration in pediatric neurology.  Dr. Ordetx is an educational specialist with over 25 years of clinical experience, research, and consultation. She is a certified Structured Literacy Dyslexia Interventionist through the Center for Effective Reading Instruction and provides literacy consultation services to various public and private school programs.

 

 

References

 

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.

Carbaugh, B. G., & Marzano, R. J. (2018). School leadership for results: A focused model.

Eells, R. (2011). Meta-analysis of the relationship between collective efficacy and student achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Loyola University of Chicago.

Hattie, J. A. C., & Zierer, K. (2018). Ten Mindframes for Visible Learning: Teaching for Success. Routledge.

Moats, Louisa C. Teaching Reading “Is” Rocket Science: What Expert Teachers of Reading Should Know and Be Able to Do. American Educator, v44 n2 p4-9, 39 Sum 2020.

Waters, T., & Cameron, G. (2007). The Balanced Leadership framework: Connecting vision with action. Aurora, CO: McREL.

 


Like what you read?