Teacher’s Perceived Efficacy and the Inclusion of a Pupil with Dyslexia or Mild Mental Retardation: Findings from Sweden

This study compared general educators’ (175) perceptions regarding the envisioned inclusion of a pupil with either dyslexia or mild mental retardation. Educators filled out three questionnaires, Teacher Efficacy Scale, Teachers Response to Inclusion and a School Climate Scale. Fifty-three percent filled out the surveys based on having a pupil with dyslexia, and 47% based on having a pupil with mild mental retardation. A factor analysis conducted on the Teacher Efficacy Scale revealed two factors: personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy. Results indicated that educators were more negative regarding the inclusion of a pupil with mild mental retardation than with dyslexia. In addition, personal teacher efficacy was associated with teaching a pupil with mild mental retardation, while general teaching efficacy was associated with teaching a pupil with dyslexia. Findings revealed that high personal teacher efficacy was positively related to the number of credits in post graduate special education course work and active parental participation but not to experience. High personal teacher efficacy was negatively related to support from school administration. Based on social cognitive theory, Bandura (1997) postulated that “human agency” operates within a transactional causal framework that consists of a triad of interdependent factors: (1) behavioral; (2) cognitive-biological and affective-biological; and (3) environmental factors. These factors operate bi-directionally: people are both the products and producers of their environments and social systems. According to Bandura, people have the capacity to reflect on their actions, which influences how a person evaluates his/her actions, knowledge or skills. A major focus in Bandura’s social cognitive theory is self-efficacy, a domain-specific expectancy-belief construct in which an individual judges whether he/she has the abilities to organize and execute the courses of action that are necessary to attain a specific task. Other belief constructs may also be domain-specific, such as self-esteem, and self-assurance, but according to Bandura tend to be general self-perceptions that spread into other areas of competence. Because self-efficacy is domain-specific, high levels in one domain do not necessarily ensure a development of high levels of competency in another domain. Bandura proposed that a teacher’s sense of efficacy influences their perception on whether his/her teaching has an impact on a difficult student’s learning. Teachers with high efficacy perceive themselves as capable through exerting effort and by introducing innovative methods to teach most pupils (op cit). By contrast, teachers with a low perceived sense of efficacy tend to be inclined to judge a pupil’s difficulties as the explanation for why the child cannot be taught. Studies of efficacy and domain specificity have been conducted in subject areas such as mathematics, science, chemistry, and classroom management (see Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy & Hoy, 1998), as well as media, and technology (Bandura, 1997). Indicating that teacher’s sense of efficacy influences student outcomes. Tscheannen-Moran (et. al) summarizes the magnitude of teacher efficacy: [teacher efficacy] has been related to teachers’ classroom behaviors, their openness to new ideas, and their attitudes toward teachThis research was supported by a grant from The Stockholm Institute of Education in Sweden. The author owes a special thanks to Anders Skarlind for his help with the statistical analyses reported in this paper. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lise Roll-Pettersson, Department of Special Education, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, SWEDEN. Email: [email protected] Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2008, 43(2), 174-185 © Division on Developmental Disabilities 174 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-June 2008 ing. In addition, teacher efficacy appears to influence student achievement, attitude, and affective growth (p. 215) Also teacher efficacy tends to be cyclical, according to Taschannen-Moran et al: . . . one of the things that makes teacher efficacy so powerful is its cyclical nature. . . . Greater efficacy leads to greater effort and persistence, which leads to better performance which in turn leads to greater efficacy. The reverse is also true . . . Thus, a teacher performance that was accomplished with a level of effort and persistence influenced by the performers sense of efficacy, when completed, becomes the past and a source of future efficacy beliefs. Over time this process stabilizes into a relatively enduring set of efficacy beliefs. (p. 234) Research has also found that teachers’ sense of efficacy is related to burnout, commitment to teaching (Milner, 2002) and the amount of time spent on subject matter (Bandura 1997). Guskey and Passaro (1994) described teacher efficacy as “teachers’ belief or conviction that they can influence how well students learn, even those who may be difficult or unmotivated.” (p. 4). According to Bandura (1997) a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy is likely to influence the beliefs young children have about themselves and their abilities, especially among low-achieving pupils. Soodak and Podell (1994) hypothesized that an educator who has been taught to work with children who do not have special education needs may be efficacious working within that particular domain, but perceive themselves as inefficacious when confronted with children who have severe learning difficulties. Also, the professional skills teachers acquire through education affect teacher’s beliefs that they can affect student learning (Soodak & Podell, 1993). Myrberg (2004) noted, when documenting basic teacher-preparation course work in reading, writing, and mathematics in major universities and colleges in Sweden, a noteworthy decline in compulsory courses in these core areas since the early 1990s. His review illustrated that an elementary educator can graduate with a degree in teaching, with no basic preparation in these areas. Though there has been no thorough study of course content in regard to preparing future teachers to educate pupils with mental retardation the Swedish Agency for Higher Education (2006) postulated that at present there is no guarantee that pre-service teacher degrees or the special education programme (which leads to a degree of “special educator”) actually consist of course matter that addresses the needs of pupils with learning disabilities. Diverse instruments have attempted to capture and measure teachers’ sense of efficacy. In 1984, Gibson and Dembo designed the first widely used Teacher Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998); it consisted of thirty items. Since then numerous studies have used the original scale or modified versions. Several factor analyses on the scale have revealed two dominant factors: one is often referred to as personal teacher efficacy (PTE), the second as general teaching efficacy (GTE). According to Tschannen-Morab et al., alphas for PTE have ranged from .75-.81. PTE is specific and individual: teachers with strong personal teacher efficacy are confident that they can prevail over external factors that might impede a student’s learning: Reflecting confidence that they have adequate training or experience to develop strategies for overcoming obstacles to student learning. These teachers may well have experienced in the past success in boosting students’ achievement. (p. 205) The GTE factor, is reported to have alphas ranging from .64-.77, and is an assessment of teachers’ beliefs beyond their own competence: it measures the optimism/pessimism of teachers in general to cope with adverse circumstances such as unsupportive home environments or students who are difficult to motivate. Teachers with low GTE may believe that negative external influences have a stronger influence over a pupil than teaching can overcome. By contrast, teachers with high levels of GTE would feel confident that teachers’ skills can prevail over the effects of negative external influences (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Together, PTE and GTE make up teachers’ sense of efficacy. There is a general consensus on the relevance of the PTE factor; Teacher’s Perceived Efficacy / 175 however, several researchers question the relevance of the GTE factor, and suggest that other concepts may be more useful, for example, “external influences” and “outcome expectancy” (Tschannen-Moran et al., p. 223). Though teachers’ perceived sense of efficacy is considered a critical variable for the success of education, it is difficult to distinguish from other traits and, there is considerable doubt about the accuracy of teacher efficacy scales and the explanatory content concerning the factors that emerge from it, and what they actually measure (Brouwers & Tomic, 2003). Variables such as teaching experience, age, and postbaccalaureate courses in education have been found to contribute positively with teacher efficacy (Campbell, 1996). In a study investigating the referral of students from regular to special education, Soodak and Podell (1993) found that teacher’s personal efficacy was linked to their decision to refer difficult-to-teach students to special education. The authors suggested that personal teacher efficacy (but not general teacher efficacy) affects teachers’ decisions regarding educational solutions for difficult-toteach pupils, and that teachers with low personal efficacy tended to suggest solutions that involve other environments. In a later study, Soodak, Podell and Lehman (1998) compared teachers’ perceived sense of efficacy with teachers’ perception regarding the inclusion of pupils with different disabilities, i.e. a hearing impairment, a learning disability, mental retardation, behaviour disorder, or a physical handicap requiring a wheelchair. The authors found that low levels of personal efficacy were related to high feelings of anxiety regarding the inclusion of a pupil with a disability. The same study found that teachers were more anxious regarding the inclusion of pupils with mental retardation or physical disabilities than toward the inclusion of pupils with a learning disability or behaviour disorder. In addition experienced teachers were more hostile toward the inclusion of pupils with mental retardation or a learning disability than teachers with less experience. Though their purpose was not to measure the perceived efficacy of educators, several studies have found that teachers of pupils with special education needs rate not having received needed in-service and pre-service training (Roll-Pettersson, 2001, Werts, Wolery, Caldwell & Salisbury, l996). Also, as Abidin and Robinson (2002) stated, “Teachers who are stressed by a particular child may become unrealistically biased in their judgments, and this may result in negative outcomes for the child” (p. 205). The organization in which a teacher works has been found to be related both to teachers’ perceived efficacy and student outcome. According to Bandura (1994): Teachers operate collectively within an interactive social system rather than as isolates. The belief systems of staffs create school cultures that can have vitalizing or demoralizing effects on how well schools function as a social system. Schools in which the staff collectively judge themselves as powerless to get students to achieve academic success convey a group sense of academic futility that can pervade the entire life of the school. Schools in which staff members collectively judge themselves capable of promoting academic success imbue their schools with a positive atmosphere for development that promotes academic attainments regardless of whether they serve predominantly advantaged or disadvantaged students. (p. 78) According to Goddard, Hoy, and WoolfolkHoy (2004) there are close linkages between student achievement, student efficacy beliefs, teacher beliefs regarding their instructional efficacy and teachers’ beliefs concerning the collective efficacy of the school. Goddard et al. found that teachers’ collective efficacy beliefs had a stronger impact on pupils’ academic achievement than social economic class, gender, race or ethnicity. On a similar train of thought, Kelley, Thorton, and Daugherty (2005) maintained that effective schools are characterized by effective school leadership, a good school climate and quality instruction. Grosin’s (2004) analysis of effective schools involving 720 pupils from 41 schools in Sweden noted significant relationships between both academic and social climate aspects to pupil performance. Other hallmarks of effective schools described by Grosin (2002) are high expectations within the school based on the perception that all children are capable of 176 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-June 2008 learning and that learning is contingent on the quality of teaching and school leadership, not on the pupil’s social and ethnic backgrounds. The following questions were addressed in the present study. Will a factor analysis of the Teacher Efficacy Scale reveal similar itemloadings and factors as other studies (i.e. a PTE and a GTE factor)? Are there relations between teachers’ perceived efficacy, school climate, teaching experience, and courses taken in special education? Also, how do general education teachers perceive the inclusion of a pupil with a disability? And, how do teachers’ perceptions of inclusion differ regarding type of disability (i.e. mild mental retardation and dyslexia)?