TeacherRon Zambo &

Education Debby Zambo

Quarterly, Winter 2008

The Impact of Professional

Development in Mathematics
on Teachers’ Individual
and Collective Efficacy:
The Stigma of Underperforming

By Ron Zambo & Debby Zambo

Professional development is an ongoing need for teachers especially in the area
of mathematics, a domain that is the focus of state testing programs. Professional
development for teachers of mathematics has been shown to have potential positive
effects for both changing teachers’ beliefs about mathematics instruction and the
instruction they provide (Harwell, D’Amico, Stein, & Gatti, 2000; Loucks-Horsly
& Matsumoto, 1999; Nelson, 1998; Vacc, Bright, & Bowman, 1998). In particular,
professional development has the potential to change teachers’ beliefs about their
individual and collective efficacy. Both types of efficacy are important to teachers’
persistence, drive, and success (Zimmerman, 1995).
Individual efficacy is highly associated with teacher
motivation, which in turn affects student achievement
Ron Zambo and Debby (Bandura, 1993, 1997). Teachers with a strong sense of
Zambo are professors individual efficacy tend to spend more time planning,
in the College of designing, and organizing what they teach. They are
Teacher Education and open to new ideas, willing to try new strategies, set
Leadership at Arizona high goals, and persist through setbacks and times of
State University, Phoenix, change (Goddard, Hoy & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). In other
Arizona. words, teachers with a strong sense of individual efficacy

159
 Professional Development in Mathematics

believe they can and do make a difference in the lives of their students and that
their students can and will achieve. Research into individual efficacy shows that
it is a complex construct composed of two distinguishable components: personal
competence and personal level of influence (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993).
Personal competence is a teacher’s perception of his or her ability to oper-
ate at a high level of proficiency in a specific domain. Researchers like Hoy and
Woolfolk (1993) found that the personal competence of prospective teachers tends
to get stronger after they complete their final internship, especially if it contained
mastery experiences. We extend this idea to inservice teachers and the professional
development they receive. If teachers attend workshops that provide them with
mastery experiences or direct experiences that lead them to believe they can master
a domain, their personal competence level will rise (Bandura, 1997; Pintrich &
Schunk, 2002). The second component of individual efficacy is personal level of
influence, or a teacher’s beliefs regarding the level of influence of his or her actions
on student learning. Teachers with a high personal level of influence believe that
their efforts can and will affect learning in their students in a positive way.
Due to the fact that teachers work in a complex setting, they also have another
type of efficacy called collective efficacy. Like individual efficacy, collective efficacy
affects achievement but in a broader sense. Collective efficacy, or a teacher’s belief
about his or her colleagues’ effectiveness, goes beyond the individual teacher to
focus on the faculty as a whole (Bandura, 1993, 1997). Just as individual efficacy
has two components, so does collective efficacy. The first is group competence,
which is a teacher’s belief that his or her colleagues can operate at a high level of
competence and achieve goals. The other component is contextual influence or a
teacher’s perception of the difficulty of teaching at his or her particular school,
taking into account the nature of the students, availability of supplies, and so forth
(Goddard, Hoy & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). Both individual and collective efficacy and
their two components are summarized in Figure 1.

Rationale for the Study

The No Child Left Behind legislation requires states to classify schools based
on students meeting the state’s academic standards. A combination of factors,
including scores on state specific tests and nationally normed tests, can result in
a school being awarded a low classification or a high classification. In our state,
schools in the low classification are labeled underperforming, and schools that are
persistently classified as underperforming can eventually be taken over by the state.
Although No Child Left Behind was only recently passed, many states have been
using both state-specific and nationally standardized tests for years. Teachers have
been aware of their students’ achievement levels based on those scores, but now
that access to information is quick and public via the Internet and other media,
that information is rapidly and widely disseminated. However, the implications of

160
 Ron Zambo & Debby Zambo

Figure 1. The Two Forms of Efficacy Teachers Have and Components of Each.
Individual efficacy—belief that one is capoable of executing certain behaviors or reaching
certain goals in a particular domain, like teaching.

Has two components:

1. Personal competence or perception 2. Personal level of influence or

that one has the ability to operate one’s beliefs regarding the level of
at a high level of competence in a influence of his or her actions
specific domain. on student learning.

Collective efficacy—one’s belief about the effectiveness of one’s colleagues.

Has two components:

1. Group competence or one’s belief 2. Contextual influence or one’s

that one’s colleagues can operate perception of the difficulty of
at a high level of competence and teaching at one’s particular
achieve goals. school.

this public and open display of student achievement on teacher efficacy have not
been investigated. The purpose of this study was to investigate the components of
individual and collective efficacy within and between two groups of teachers at-
tending a summer workshop who came from two different types of school districts.
One group, which we call low, came from a district where many of the schools had
been labeled as underperforming and the other group, which we call high, came
from a district with few underperforming schools.
Given the public nature of school classification, the threat of being taken
over by the state, and the potential impact of professional development on
teacher efficacy, we set out to investigate the individual and collective efficacy
of teachers working in these two different settings. Our hypotheses were: (1)
For both groups, scores for personal competence and personal level of influence
would increase from pre-to posttest, whereas, scores for group competence and
contextual influence would not. We reasoned that the workshops would directly
influence teachers’ skills and knowledge related to mathematics teaching, which
would change their perceptions of both their effectiveness and their influence
on students. Conversely, we thought that the professional development would

161
 Professional Development in Mathematics

have no direct influence on teachers’ views of their colleagues or the difficulty

of teaching at their school. (2) Teachers in both groups would score higher on
personal competence than on group competence. We reasoned that teachers who
had the initiative to participate in the workshops related to mathematics instruc-
tion would already have an affinity towards mathematics. We speculated that this
affinity would influence their perceptions of themselves as being more effective
in teaching mathematics when compared to their colleagues. (3) Teachers in the
high group would have higher scores for group competence than teachers in the
low group. We suggest this hypothesis because teachers in both groups were
aware of the labels put on schools in their districts and, because of this, we believe
that teachers in the high group would feel more positive about their colleagues’
effectiveness than teachers in the low group. Our rationale for this hypothesis
was that teachers in the low group would feel less positive because they were
influenced negatively by the stigma of having schools in their district labeled as
underperforming.

Methodology
Participants
The participants were 63 4th through 10th grade teachers who voluntarily partici-
pated in two-week, summer professional development workshops on mathematics
problem solving. The workshops focused on helping teachers increase their own
problem solving ability as well as improve their classroom problem-solving instruc-
tion. Thirty-two of the teachers were from a school district with a low incidence (5.3
percent) of schools labeled underperforming. The other 31 participants came from
a district with a high incidence (37.5 percent) of schools labeled underperforming.

Instruments and Analysis

Group competence and contextual influence, subscales of collective teacher efficacy,
were measured before and after the workshops using the 21-item Likert scale Collec-
tive Efficacy Questionnaire designed by Goddard, Hoy, and Woolfolk-Hoy (2000).
The questionnaire was adapted for mathematics by adding the word “mathematics”
where appropriate. For example, one original item related to group competence
was, “Teachers in this school have what it takes to get children to learn.’ The item
was modified to, “Teachers in this school have what it takes to get children to learn
mathematics.” An item related to contextual influence was modified to, “Teachers in
this school really believe that every child can learn mathematics.” This questionnaire
used a 6-point scale, where a 6 indicated the highest efficacy and a 1 the lowest.
Personal competence and personal level of influence, subscales of individual
efficacy, were measured with the 25-item, Likert scale Enoch & Riggs Elementary
Science Efficacy Questionnaire (1990). The questionnaire was adapted for math-
ematics instruction by replacing the word “science” with the word “mathematics.”

162
 Ron Zambo & Debby Zambo

A modified item related to personal competence was, “I understand mathematics

concepts well enough to be effective in teaching mathematics.” A modified item
related to personal level of influence was, “Increased effort in mathematics teaching
produces little change in some students’ mathematics achievement.” An additional
modification to this questionnaire was that the original 5-point scale was changed
to a 6-point scale, where a 6 indicated the highest efficacy. This change was made
in order to facilitate better the direct comparisons of scores between collective and
individual efficacy. Analysis of the questionnaires was completed using SPSS.
In addition to having the teachers complete the questionnaires, we interviewed
them using the following five questions:
What is the incentive that motivates you to participate in professional
development?
What makes an inservice program good for you?
What makes an inservice program bad for you?
Why don’t other teachers you know attend as many professional develop-
ment activities as you do?
Comments to these questions were recorded on audiotape and transcribed.
We, the two researchers, read through the interview transcripts to locate patterns in
words, phrases, and events. We formed initial categories and went on to formulate
themes. As researchers, we constantly shared our interpretations and discussed any
differences until agreement was reached. We met bimonthly as critical friends to
confirm and disconfirm our findings.

Results
Within Groups Comparisons
In regard to the first hypothesis, paired-sample t tests indicated that the teach-
ers in the low group showed a significant increase from pre-to posttest on personal
competence, with means and standard deviations of 4.96 (.66) and 5.40 (.51)
respectively (t (30)=4.88, p < .01). Teachers in the high group also had significant
gains for personal competence from pre-to posttest with means and standard de-
viations of 5.18 (.62) and 5.50 (.37) respectively (t (31)=3.24, p < .01). However,
only teachers in the low group had significant gains pre-to posttest on group
competence, with means and standard deviations of 3.91 (.80) and 4.23 (.70)
respectively (t (30)=2.76, p < .01). There were no significant pre-to posttest dif-
ferences by groups for any other variables. (Means and standard deviations of
all four variables by group pre-and posttest are shown in Table 1.)
In regard to the second hypothesis: teachers in the low group scored significantly
higher on personal competence than on group competence on both pretest [4.96(.66)

163
 Professional Development in Mathematics

compared to 3.91(.80): t (30)=6.32, p < .01] and posttest [5.40(.51) compared to

4.23(.70): t (30)=8.03, p < .01]. Teachers in the high group also scored significantly
higher on personal competence than on group competence on both pretest [5.18(.62)
compared to 4.56(.60): t (31)=4.71, p < .01] and posttest [5.50(.37) compared to
4.68(.60): t (31)=8.6.47, p < .01].

Between Groups Comparisons

In regard to the third hypothesis: analysis of variance was used to determine
the effect of group (low or high) on the four variables. There was a significant ef-
fect for group on group competence both pretest and posttest. Means and standard
deviations preworkshop for the low and high group respectively were: 3.91(.80)
and 4.56 (.60); F (1, 61)=3.32, p < .01. Scores postworkshop were 4.23 (.70) and
4.68 (.60); (F (1, 61)=7.466, p < .01. There was no significant effect for group on
any of the other three variables.

Responses to the Interview Questions

While surveys can supply much insight into teachers’ perceptions, surveys
are also subject to bias and distortion. Therefore, to enhance the reliability and
credibility of this study, interview questions were also asked. Due to space limita-
tions not all interview questions will be discussed. However, the answers to two
questions; What is the incentive that motivates you to participate in professional
development? and Why don’t other teachers you know attend as many professional
development activities as you do? were of particular interest. The results of the
analysis of those questions follow.
Teachers in general stated that they attended professional development op-

Table 1. Within Group Means and Standard Deviations of all Components

for Individual and Collective Efficacy, Pre and Post.
­ ­ Pre­ Post­
Individual Efficacy­ ­
­ ­ ­
Personal Competence­ low­ 4.96 (.66)­ 5.40 (.51)­*­
high 5.18 (.62)­ 5.50 (.37)­ *­
Personal Level of Influence­ low­ 4.26 (.47)­ 4.46 (.53)­ ­
high 4.31 (.48)­ 4.33 (.58)­
Collective Efficacy­
­ ­ ­ ­
Group Competence­ low­ 3.91 (.80)­ 4.23 (.70)­ *­
high 4.56 (.60)­ 4.68 (.60)­
Contextual Influence ­ low­ 3.55 (.99)­ 3.70 (.90)­ ­
high 4.04 (.96)­ 3.91 (1.06)­
* Significant at the .01 level.

164
 Ron Zambo & Debby Zambo

portunities so that they could be better teachers and, as a result, that students could
learn more. For example, one 6th-grade teacher said,
I take these [workshops] for my benefit so I can learn more information to improve
teaching. It is important to improve my teaching because I’m not someone who
could do the same thing a year after year . . . . I try to make it better for them
[students] to learn the concept . . . we are working on or new ideas.
Similarly, a 2nd-grade teacher said, “I like to be a little ahead of the ball game in
my building, and if I take these classes I will learn more and I’m going to learn
things that I can use with my students to improve their achievement.” A 7th-grade
teacher said, “I want to give the kids the best education I can!” Whereas a 1st-grade
teacher said,
Everything I do and every class I take, I get one new idea that kind of gets me
enthused again about something that I’ve taught over and over. It gives me a
chance to see other approaches that hopefully I can use to catch some kids that
aren’t getting it.

Teachers in this group also generally believed that their colleagues were not
involved in professional development because of other obligations. Along these same
lines, they believed that that their colleagues probably felt that they already did a
good enough job teaching mathematics and so attending the workshops would be an
inefficient use of their free time. For example one 4th-grade teacher said, “Maybe they
[teachers not attending] have different commitments, more family commitments.” A
3rd-grade teacher noted, “It’s because of family obligation and time also other com-
mitments because some teachers have to work in the summer and they just can’t do
it.” Likewise, a 4th-grade teacher said, “For a lot of people it is probably time, kids or
a second job. Some people feel they are doing an OK job [teaching mathematics] so
they don’t care to commit themselves to more development.”

Discussion
A strong sense of efficacy influences teachers’ expectations, attributions, and
goals. It makes a difference in teacher motivation, which in turn affects how well
their students achieve (Bandura, 1997; Goddard, Hoy & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000).
This study was conducted with teachers attending two-week summer professional
development workshops on mathematics. Additional comparative research using
larger samples sizes, different groups, various settings, and a longitudinal approach
is needed to definitively answer the initial hypothesis posed. However, with these
cautions in mind, we offer some general insights that may be helpful to others
interested in teacher efficacy.
Regarding our first hypothesis, pretest scores were relatively high on personal
competence for both the low and high group and they improved significantly for
each of the groups. Similar to Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) we found that the per-

165
 Professional Development in Mathematics

sonal competence of teachers tends to get stronger as they gain experience and
learn more about a domain. Interview data substantiate that the intent of teachers
in participating in the workshops was to learn more about mathematics teaching.
Teachers who attended these workshops had a mastery orientation. They wanted to
improve their mathematics teaching for the benefit of their students and believed
that they could. They perceived themselves as capable teachers of mathematics
and were interested in learning new ideas, skills, and strategies. Several of the
quotes in the response to interview questions address this issue along with this
one from a 5th-grade teacher:
I’m a pretty good math teacher, but I’m always looking for new ways of teach-
ing and ways to get things across better. There are always children you can’t
reach, but the more I learn, the more ideas I have, and the more opportunities or
ways I have to help children.
Another interesting finding regarding group competence was that there was a sig-
nificant difference pre-to posttest but only for teachers in the low group. The low group’s
significant increase may be due to the fact that these teachers had the opportunity to
work with their colleagues and that this shared time increased their perception of each
other’s competence. The stigma of working at an underperforming school seemed to be
temporarily overcome when teachers worked with colleagues collectively.
There were no significant increases for personal level of influence or contextual
influence. This indicates that teachers tended to believe that even though they had
become better teachers through participation in professional development, there
were still students who they would not be able to affect. The workshops increased
teachers’ beliefs regarding their actions on student learning but not significantly.
Perhaps teachers at the adequately performing school felt their influence or some
other factor was already affecting their students, whereas teachers in the low group
felt that their personal influence would have little affect on students’ learning. This
finding leads to insight into teacher expectations. The workshops helped teachers
learn new strategies and gain personal efficacy, but they did little to raise teach-
ers’ beliefs that their students would achieve. Future professional development in
mathematics should not only offer strategies to improve teaching but it should raise
teacher expectations as well.
Regarding contextual influence or one’s perception of the difficulty of teaching
at a particular school, there was no significant difference, and surprisingly scores
fell slightly for the high group. It is reasonable that attendance at a workshop would
not affect teachers’ perceptions related to environment factors related to the school
and community in which they teach.
Regarding our second hypothesis, teachers in both groups indicated higher levels
of personal competence compared to collective competence. Comments during inter-
views support the view that high levels of participation in professional development
programs increased their Personal Competence for teaching mathematics. However,

166
 Ron Zambo & Debby Zambo

a rise in personal competence did little to affect their beliefs of their colleague’s com-
petence to operate at a high level and achieve goals. This self-centered perception is
interesting and might stem from the fact that they were giving up precious summer
free time. The words of one of the participants, an 8th-grade teacher, reinforce this
idea, “It takes effort to stretch yourself and it takes sacrifice. It’s much easier not
to bother to attend summer workshops and continue to do the same old things.”
In regard to the third hypothesis we found that teachers in the high group had
significantly higher ratings for group competence compared to teachers in the
low group. We believe that this effect could indeed by an artifact of the stigma of
underperforming. Teachers in the low group were well aware that more than one-
third of the schools in their districts had been labeled underperforming, and this
knowledge could affect their responses to items such as, “Teachers in my school
have what it takes to get children to learn mathematics.” The high group was aware
that their district was virtually free of underperforming schools. For them, the logi-
cal assumption was that teachers are doing a good job.
The workshops attended by the teachers in this study increased their per-
sonal competence, presumably by increasing their knowledge of mathematics and
mathematics instruction, but they did little to increase teachers’ perceptions that
they could affect their students’ achievement. Data collected in this study are not
adequate to answer that question.
Many factors influence the effectiveness of schools as measured by student test
scores, which are the basis for classifying schools for the No Child Left Behind
legislation. Those factors include (but are not limited to) the community environ-
ment, SES of students, accessibility of resources, school level and district level
leadership, and quality of teaching. Professional development opportunities can
help individual teachers to improve their teaching skills and result in gains in their
beliefs of individual efficacy. However, having several teachers from the same school
participate in the same professional development may result in “group thinking”
that can heighten collective efficacy as well. This conclusion is reiterated in a 7th-
grade teacher’s words,
It’s important to be with a group you can learn with. It’s important to be with
other teachers at my school who can help me learn some of the harder concepts.
It’s best when we see who is strong in what area. That gives us confidence even
though our school was underperforming.

Professional development in mathematics has the potential to affect teachers’

personal competence whether they work at a low or high performing school. It also
has the potential to raise the group competence of teachers in underperforming dis-
tricts when they come together and work as a team. Raising teachers’ beliefs about
personal competence and group competence could have a positive effect on student
performance. However, they are only part of the answer because personal level of
influence and contextual influence also play an important role. Teachers need to

167
 Professional Development in Mathematics

believe in their students and hold high expectations for each and every one. Addition-
ally, unless the negative effects of other related factors, for example, the stigma of
underperforming, resources, leadership, and so forth are alleviated, underperforming
schools will be hard pressed to improve to acceptable levels. Professional development
has the potential to affect teacher efficacy and it does so for some groups of teachers
more than others. To raise teachers’ efficacy it is important to understand the complexity
of teacher efficacy and keep these ideas in mind.

References
Bandura, (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Enochs, L., & Riggs, I. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief
instrument: A pre-service elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 694-706.
Fullan, M., & Miles, M. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi
Delta Kappan, 13, 745-752.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its
meaning, measure, and impact of student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(2), 479-507.
Harwell, M., D’Amico, L., Stein, M. K., & Gatti, G. (2000, April). The effects of teachers’
professional development on student achievement in Community School District #2.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
tion, New Orleans, LA.
Hoy, W.K., & Woolfolk, A.E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational
health of schools. Elementary School Journal, 93, 355-372.
Loucks-Horsley, S. & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on Professional Development for
Teachers of Mathematics and Science: The State of the Scene. School Science and
Mathematics, 99(5), 258-71.
Miller, E. (1995). The old model of staff development survives in a world where everything
else has changed. The Harvard Educational Letter, 11(1), 1-3.
Nelson, B. S. (1998). Lenses on Learning: Administrators’ Views on Reform and the Professional
Development of Teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1(2), 191-215.
Owen, J., Loucks-Horsley, S., & Horsley, D. (1991). Three roles of staff development in
restructuring schools. Journal of Staff Development, 12(3), 10-14.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
application (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Schwahn, C., & Spady, W. (1998). Why change doesn’t happen and how to make sure it
does. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 45-47.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vacc, N. N., Bright, G. W., & Bowman, A. H. (1998, April). Changing teacher’s beliefs
through professional development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1995). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.
Educational Psychologist, 21, 3-8.

168