Relationship Between Collective Efficacy, Faculty Trust and School Effectiveness

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
VOLUME 28, NUMBER 2, 2010-2011
LEADING WITH FORCE: THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF COLLECTIVE
EFFICACY AND FACULTY TRUST IN
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Karen Petersen
Northside Independent School District
San Antonio, TX
Page Smith
University of Texas at San Antonio
ABSTRACT
A growing body of research indicates that high levels of teacher
collective efficacy shape a more effective learning environment for
students. Similarly, the literature points to trust as an important social
factor influencing positive school environments, open communication,
and collaborative decision-making processes. To be sure, school leaders
can benefit from understanding how faculty trust influences collective
efficacy and contributes to campus effectiveness. Thus, this study
explores the relationships between collective teacher efficacy and the
three dimensions of faculty trust.
Introduction
S
chools react in a number of ways to pressures placed upon them. They face a
myriad of complicated issues and situations. Factors such as accountability
pressures and unfunded directives continue to challenge schools, thus
intensifying institutional pressures. The ability of educational institutions to
overcome the obstacles they face often depends on the social competence
4

5 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
nested in the organization (Hoy, Smith, & Sweetland, 2002b). The literature
indicates that social factors inherent at the campus level constitute pervasive
forces affecting the press toward school excellence (Bandura, 1993, 1997;
Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2004; Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000;
Hoy & Sabo, 1998; Hoy, Tarter, & Kottkamp, 1991; Smith & Birney, 2005;
Smith, Hoy, & Sweetland, 2001). Two organizational properties have
recently surfaced that represent potential catalysts for improving the climate
of the campus: collective efficacy of the faculty (Bandura, 1993, 1997;
Goddard, Sweetland et al., 2000; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000) and
organizational trust (Hoy & Sabo, 1998; Hoy et al., 1991; Smith & Birney,
2005; Smith et al., 2001). This gives rise to an important question. Do trust
influence levels of faculty efficacy, or does trust have little effect on the
collective efficacy of the campus? This study explores the relationships
between these variables; two social processes that we believe warrant further
investigation.
Collective Efficacy
Over the past two decades, research has established strong
relationships between teacher efficacy and faculty behaviors that prompt
increased performance (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984;
Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). However, much of the literature has targeted
teacher level data. This investigation targets teacher efficacy at the
collective, not individual level.
Bandura’s (1986, 1997) social cognitive theory informs the
discussion. Social cognitive theory is anchored in human agency—how
individuals exert some degree of control over their lives. Vital to this
exercise of control is a sense of self-efficacy, that is, “beliefs in one’s
capabilities to organize and execute a course of action required to produce a
given attainment” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Personal agency, however, operates
within a broad network of social influences; thus, the components of human
agency also explain the use of collective agency, or how individuals’ beliefs
about a group’s conjoint capability can work together to produce desired
effects (Bandura, 1997).
Indeed, Bandura (1993, 1997) was first to point out that one
powerful construct that varies greatly among schools is the collective

Karen Petersen & Page Smith 6
efficacy of teachers within the school. Accordingly, Goddard, Hoy, and
Woolfolk Hoy (2004) define collective efficacy as “the perceptions of
teachers in a specific school that the faculty as a whole can execute courses
of action required to positively affect student achievement “(p. 4). Social
cognitive theory specifies that teachers’ perceptions of self and group
capability sway their actions, and subsequently these actions will be judged
by the group relative to norms such as those set by vigorous beliefs about the
academic pursuits in schools (Bandura, 1986, 1997).
Moreover, Coleman (1985, 1987) purports that norms emerge to
allow group members some control over the actions of others, especially
when such occurrences hold consequences for the group. When the shared
beliefs of the group conflict with individual teacher behaviors, the group will
sanction their behaviors. Therein, Coleman posits that the intensity of the
social sanctions imposed by the group will be proportionate to the effect of
the norm breaking on the group. For example, if most teachers are highly
committed to strict discipline, the normative and behavioral environment will
pressure teachers to adopt classroom management strategies designed to curb
undesirable behaviors. Furthermore, the press to discipline will be
accompanied by social sanctions for those who do not (Goddard, Sweetland
et al., 2000).
Accordingly, a growing body of research identifies collective
efficacy as a critical attribute of high-performing schools (Bandura, 1993;
Goddard, 2002; Goddard, Hoy et al., 2000; Goddard, Sweetland et al., 2000;
Hoy, Hannum, & Tschannen-Moran, 1998; Hoy, Smith, & Sweetland,
2002a; Hoy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002). According to Bandura’s work on
self-efficacy (1986, 1993), not only do teachers shape the organization as
individuals but they also impact the school as a combined group. In fact,
people have a greater sense of efficacy as a group than as individuals, albeit
the capacity of the individual’s sense of efficacy in the organization
contributes to its sense of collective efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
For example, marginal teachers are challenged to meet the efficacy
of the group, regardless of its efficacy level. If the group’s efficacy is high,
the individual’s efficacy may improve; whereas, a lower collective efficacy
will do little to encourage the individual teacher (Goddard, 2003). Though
individuals bring their own dynamics to a group, collective efficacy is not
simply the aggregate of the individuals. Rather it is the organized group’s

efforts and shared beliefs formed as a cohesive and symbiotic alliance
(Bandura, 1997, 2000a; Goddard, Hoy et al., 2000). Under Bandura’s
precepts of self-efficacy (1986, 1993), the group’s efficacy is developed
through sources such as mastery and vicarious experiences, verbal
persuasion, and affective arousal.
Organizational Trust
Although there are many definitions of trust, some common
denominators of the construct emerge from the literature. In fact, the bulk of
the literature points to five common features of trust. These facets include
benevolence, the act of one party caring for another; competence, the
demonstrated skill level of a person regularly evidenced; reliability, one
party’s ability to consistently accommodate another; openness, the ability to
share information with another party in an unrestricted manner; and honesty,
the adherence to openly truthful and unreserved ethical behavior. In this
investigation, Hoy and Tschannen-Moran’s (1999) definition of trust is
employed since their description has been applied to the study of educational
organizations (Smith & Birney, 2005; Smith et al., 2001). Hence, trust is
conceptualized as “a person’s or group’s willingness to make themselves
vulnerable to another person or group, relying on the confidence that the
other party exhibits the following characteristics or facets: benevolence,
reliability, competence, honesty, and openness” (p. 189).
As pressures for student and teacher performance mount, increasing
tensions impede attempts by leaders to develop openness, and relationships
at the campus level often suffer. Heightened public scrutiny also fuels
suspicion, and organizational trust is challenged (Smith et al., 2001). The
resulting effects of such situations both moderate the best of school social
conditions and tax the abilities of campus leaders. However, the literature
points to trust as a key element in establishing and maintaining important
school partnerships and organizational effectiveness (Smith & Birney, 2005;
Smith et al., 2001; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Conceptually, trust represents
an intriguing concept that is common to high-performing organizations.
Although a relatively complicated construct, it is widely considered to be the
catalyst for healthy and open schools (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 2003). To
be sure, trust plays an important role in affecting organizational interactions

and the degree to which these exchanges influence the institution (Rotter,
1967, 1980).
Early trust research stemmed from post war tensions between the
United States and the Soviet Union, concentrated on the interactions of
individuals unfamiliar to each other, and targeted perceived loss or gain
negotiations between relevant participants (Deutsch, 1958; Luce & Raiffia,
1957; Osgood, 1959). Shortly thereafter, the investigation of trust and its
development probed the collective experiences of the individual (Rotter,
1967, 1971, 1980). Later, researchers filtered trust through the collective
properties of institutions, and a substantial volume of work emerged
identifying the construct as critical to organizational efficiency (Dirks, 1999,
Kramer, 1999). Further, the research on effective schools identifies trust as a
critical component in improving school effectiveness (Goddard, Tschannen-
Moran, & Hoy, 2001; Hoffman, Sabo, Bliss, & Hoy, 1994; Hoy &
Kupersmith, 1985), building collegiality (Hoy, Tarter, & Witkoskie, 1992;
Tarter, Sabo, & Hoy, 1995; Smith, 2000), and promoting socially healthy
campus milieus (Hoy et al., 1992; Smith et al., 2001).
In brief, trust is acknowledged as a critical aspect of well-functioning
schools (Smith & Birney, 2005; Smith et al., 2001). This study explores
teacher perceptions of faculty trust in three prominent school constituencies:
colleagues, clients (students and parents) and the principal. In sum, the work
presented here attempts to both deepen the trust research and add to the
extant literature on collective efficacy in middle schools (Goddard, Logerfo,
& Hoy, 2004; Hoy, Barnes, & Sabo, 1996; Hoy, Hannum et al., 1998; Hoy,
Sweetland et al., 2002; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999, 2003; Tschannen-
Moran & Hoy, 1998).
Hypotheses
The question of whether organizational trust is related to collective
efficacy is both timely and important. Indeed, because schools are pressed to
accommodate daily changes, social factors such as trust and efficacy become
salient commodities in influencing campus environments. The general
hypothesis of this study is that aspects of organizational trust are positively
related to the collective efficacy of teachers. But what aspects of
organizational trust are the best predictors of collective efficacy?

First, we hypothesized that the elements of organizational trust
would combine to provide a significant set of predictors of collective
efficacy. We investigated whether faculty trust in colleagues, clients, and the
principal influence the perceptions of teachers that they can affect student
success as a group. The rationale is that trust plays an essential role in
influencing organizational interactions.
Secondly, we theorized that faculty trust in clients would emerge as
a statistically significant indicator of collective teacher efficacy. Trust in
students and parents were expected to predict a greater sense of collective
efficacy due to the supportive nature of teacher/student relationships. The
fundamental purpose of student success acts as a dynamic connection
between teachers and clients and a probable shared objective among
teachers; thus, it is expected to influence collective teacher efficacy.
Lastly, we hypothesized that faculty trust in colleagues would also
emerge as a statistically significant predictor of the collective efficacy of
teachers. In theory, during the course of their working relationship, teachers
share competencies and have opportunities to support each other, likely
building a sense of trust among the group.
Sample and Method
The sample of 31 Texas middle schools employed in this
investigation represents urban, suburban, and rural schools from the south
central area of the state. Although procedures were not used to ensure a
random sample from a specified population of schools, care was taken to
solicit schools from diverse areas and populations. Only schools with 25 or
more faculty members were considered for the study. Schools in the sample
represented a broad range of socioeconomic status. To that end, the
percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunches was employed as a
surrogate measure for socioeconomic status. Middle schools were identified
through their grade configurations. Grade span levels included grades 6-8
and grades 7-9.

Teachers
In each of the 31 middle schools, the teacher sample consisted of
professional staff members who regularly attend scheduled faculty meetings
called by the principal. The researchers obtained approval to conduct
campus-level research from both central office school districts’
administrative personnel and campus principals before administering the
surveys. With the exception of faculty members who were involved in
extracurricular duties or were absent from school, the entire certificated full-
time teaching staff of each campus responded to the survey. In brief, the
sample represented a group of certified teachers diverse in age, race, gender,
experience, and educational level.
Measures
In order to test the hypotheses, measures of faculty trust and
collective efficacy were required. The Collective Efficacy Scale (CE) was
used to gauge faculty perceptions of the collective efficacy of the teachers
(Goddard, 2002; Goddard, Hoy et al., 2000). Likewise, the Omnibus T-Scale
(Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 2003) was employed to measure faculty
perceptions of trust in the principal, colleagues, and clients (parents and
students).
Collective Efficacy Scale
The Collective Efficacy Scale (Goddard, 2002) is composed of 12
Likert-type items along a 6-point scale ranging from “strongly agree” to
“strongly disagree.” In this investigation, the Cronbach alpha coefficient of
reliability for the Collective Efficacy Scale is .98. The alpha in this study is
comparable to those found in previous research (Goddard, 2002), thus
supporting the predictive and construct validity of the scale.
Omnibus T-Scale
To investigate trust, the Omnibus T-Scale was applied. Developed
by Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (2003), the Omnibus T-Scale is designed to
measure teachers’ collective perceptions of trust in the context of school. The
26-item questionnaire gauges three dimensions of faculty trust including
trust in the principal, trust in colleagues, and trust in clients along a six-point

Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Using
the current sample of 31 middle schools, alpha coefficients of reliability were
computed for each of the three subscales and found to be acceptable: trust in
principal (alpha = .98), trust in colleagues (alpha = .93), and trust in clients
(alpha = .94).
Each of the trust subscales contains items that measure the five
facets of trust identified by Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (2003) and they
belong to an overall coherent conception of trust. In fact in this research, the
alpha coefficients of reliability for the three subscales are higher than those
found in prior work. Thus, the Omnibus T-Scale represents a valid and
reliable measure of trust for use in middle schools.
Data Collection Procedures
Data were collected from the faculty of each school at a regularly
scheduled faculty meeting. A trained researcher initially coordinated with
school administrators the location, time, and conditions under which the
surveys were administered. The subjects responded to the surveys during
faculty meetings taking place during the mornings before school or in the
afternoons after school. Prior to distributing the surveys, the researcher read
a statement describing the study and asking the participants for their frank
perceptions. During this time, the researcher emphasized that faculty
members did not need to respond to any items that made them feel
uncomfortable. The researcher also requested that the teachers not include
their names on the questionnaires to assure anonymity. The faculty was also
assured that the data would be coded to assure confidentiality. The
explanation, distribution, and administration of the instruments took
approximately 20 minutes.
Independent Variables Dependent Variable
Trust in Clients
Trust in Principal EFFECTS Collective Efficacy
Trust in Teachers
Figure 1. The independent and dependent variables of the study.

Descriptive Statistics
First, descriptive statistics for each variable were calculated. The
independent variables of faculty trust included Trust in Colleagues, Trust in
the Principal, and Trust in Clients. The dependent variable was Collective
Efficacy. Both the independent and dependent variables were analyzed. In
addition, the control variables selected for the study (socioeconomic status of
the community [SES] and School Size) were also considered. Means,
standard deviations, and ranges are summarized in Table 1. No irregularities
were discovered that would prohibit further statistical analyses.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Research Variables
Variable Mean Standard
Deviation
Minimum Maximum
Collective Efficacy 3.92 .54 3.12 4.81
Trust in Clients 3.22 .55 4.33 4.20
Trust in Colleagues 4.30 .45 3.50 5.00
Trust in Principal 4.30 .90 2.30 5.70
Statistical Analyses
This study focused on the aggregate – the faculty perceptions of
collective efficacy and trust. The unit of analysis is the school, not the
individual members of the faculty. Therefore, individual responses were
aggregated for each instrument to the school level. Descriptive statistics
including means, standard deviations, and range were calculated for all
variables entered. In order to test the hypotheses, Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficients were computed for each aspect of collective efficacy
with each referent of faculty trust. A correlation matrix of Pearson product-
moment correlation coefficients was constructed to determine whether
patterns emerged among the pairs in the set of variables.
Factor analysis was also employed to examine the factor structure of
the Collective Efficacy Scale and the Omnibus T-Scale. The factor structure
of the 31 schools investigated in this study was essentially the same as those

found in earlier investigations by Goddard (2002) and Goddard, Hoy, and
Woolfolk Hoy (2004). Finally, multiple regression analysis was employed to
examine the relationships between collective efficacy and each trust referent.
All variables were entered using the method of simultaneous entry.
Results
Correlations of Collective Efficacy and Faculty Trust
In this study, the linear relationships between collective teacher
efficacy and aspects of faculty trust were computed using Pearson Product-
Moment Coefficients. It was predicted that collective teacher efficacy would
be positively related to the three elements of faculty trust including trust in
clients, colleagues, and the principal. Two demographic variables,
socioeconomic status (SES) and school size, were also included in the
correlational analysis. The demographic variables were chosen because the
SES levels of the community and school size have been previously identified
as pervasive influences in educational research.
Collective teacher efficacy was shown to be statistically and
significantly related to trust in clients, trust in colleagues, and trust in the
principal. In addition, collective efficacy was positively related to school
size; however the relationship between collective efficacy and SES was
negative. Finally, trust in clients and school size was positively correlated,
while SES was negatively related. Table 2 presents these results.

Table 2
Correlational Analysis
Trust in
Clients
Trust in
Teachers
Trust in
Principal
SES School
Size
Collective
Efficacy
.872** .683** .628** -.599** .443*
Trust in Clients .747** .598** -.588** .439*
Trust in
Teachers
.560** -.461** .411*
Trust in
Principal
-.283 .219
SES -.770**
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Multiple Regression Analyses
Accordingly, all three hypotheses were addressed by regressing
collective efficacy on trust in clients, trust in teachers, and trust in the
principal. Not surprisingly, both SES and school size have contributed to the
organizational study of schools (Bandura, 1993; Goddard and Skrla, 2006;
Goddard, Sweetland, et al., 2000; Hoy, Sweetland et al., 2002); therefore,
they were also entered with the trust variables as controls. In order to test the
empirical hypotheses of the study, collective teacher efficacy was regressed
on the three dimensions of faculty trust (trust in clients, trust in colleagues,
and trust in the principal), SES, and school size using the method of
simultaneous entry.
Specifically, it was hypothesized (Hypothesis 1) that the elements of
trust would combine to form a significant set of predictors of collective
efficacy, and indeed, the dimensions of trust along with the demographic
variables formed a linear combination that explained a significant portion of
the variance in collective efficacy. Thus, the three aspects of trust, SES, and
school size explained 75% of the variance in collective efficacy. It was also
hypothesized (Hypothesis 2) that faculty trust in clients (students and
parents) would emerge as a statistically significant predictor of collective
teacher efficacy and indeed that was the case.

In fact, trust in clients was the only trust variable that made a
statistically significant and independent contribution to collective teacher
efficacy. The other two trust dimensions, colleagues and principal, were not
statistically and significantly related to collective efficacy. In other words,
though statistically significant correlations existed among the variables,
neither faculty trust in other teachers nor trust in the principal predicted
teachers’ sense of collective efficacy. (See table 3.) Likewise, neither SES
nor school size predicted collective efficacy among teachers. The results of
the regression analyses are depicted in Table 3.
Table 3
Multiple Regression of Collective Teacher Efficacy/ Faculty Trust/ SES and
School Size
Standardized
Coefficients (Beta)
Collective Teacher Efficacy
r beta
Faculty Trust in Clients .87** .66**
Faculty Trust in
Colleagues
.68** .02
Faculty Trust in
Principal
.62** .18
Socioeconomic
Status (SES)
-.60** -.17
School Size .44* -.02
R=.89
Adjusted R Square =.75
*p<.05 **p<.01
In sum, it was hypothesized that trust in clients and trust in
colleagues would each make statistically significant and independent
contributions to the variance in collective efficacy, but the results did not
support these expectations. Therefore, with regard to the influence of the
trust referents in this study, only faculty trust in clients predicts teacher

collective efficacy. In fact, the influence of faculty trust in clients
overwhelmed all of the other variables in predicting collective efficacy.
Discussion
Collective Efficacy and Faculty Trust
The general hypothesis of this study, that the elements of
organizational trust would combine to provide a significant set of predictors
of collective efficacy, was supported. However, only one trust factor was
found to be a statistically significant independent predictor of collective
efficacy.
It is interesting to note that earlier studies have shown statistically
significant relationships between collective efficacy and trust (Geist & Hoy,
2003; Hoffman et al., 1994; Hoy, Smith et al., 2002b; Hoy & Tschannen-
Moran, 1999, 2003; Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy,
1998). Research also has revealed that for schools to be more effective, trust
must play an important part in the relationships between teachers and the
campus principal (Geist & Hoy, 2003; Hoy et al., 1992; Hoy et al., 2002b;
Hoy & Sweetland, 2000; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998), colleagues
(Dirks, 1999; Geist & Hoy, 2003; Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran,
2007; Hoffman et al., 1994; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Smith &
Shoho, 2007; Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998),
and clients (Goddard, 2003; Hoy, 2002; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999,
2003; Smith et al., 2001).
Human agency at the collective level is a combination of all the
individuals of the organization lending voice to a common, intentional
direction (Goddard, 2003). When utilizing collective agency, the group uses
its power and influence to engender a strong work ethic and foster personal
accountability (Bandura, 1997, 2000b, 2001; Hoy, 2002). Thus, trust abets
openness and, in turn, openness produces honest and efficient cooperation
among stakeholders, which enhances collective efficacy of the faculty. This
results in greater instructional effort and persistence from teachers (Goddard,
Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk Hoy, 2000).
Trust in Clients

Previous research addresses the impact of efficacy on the effective
operations of schools (Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000; Goddard, Hoy, &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). Moreover, a strong connection between student
achievement and the collective efficacy of the faculty has been identified
(Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000). The results of this study indicate that
trust in clients emerged as a strong predictor of the collective efficacy of the
faculty (ß = .66, p < .01). Clearly, this substantiates the concept of mastery
experiences, which build confidence within a group (Bandura, 1997, 2000a;
Goddard, Hoy et al., 2000). It is possible that high student achievement
facilitates reciprocal reinforcement between collective efficacy and faculty
trust in clients.
Students who achieve at high levels send messages to the faculty that
they are doing their jobs well. In turn, the teachers both see and believe the
results of their efforts. Based on the confidence that high levels of student
achievement produces, they are more receptive and open to trying innovative
strategies to keep achievement at a high level. In essence, they trust the
students are committed to high achievement and feel more open to
introducing new strategies to reinforce that belief. Hence, trust emerges as
an integral part of the activities and exchanges among school stakeholders
(Goddard 1998, 2003; Hoy 2002).
Trust in Colleagues
Faculty trust in colleagues (Hypothesis 3) was also expected to
predict collective teacher efficacy. In fact, prior studies have demonstrated
statistically significant relationships between trust and teacher
professionalism, collegiality, and collaboration (Goddard et al., 2007;
Goddard, LoGerfo et al., 2004; Hoffman et al., 1994; Hoy & Tschannen-
Moran, 1999, 2003; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Newmann, Rutter, & Smith,
1989; Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). But what
about collegial trust and collective efficacy? In general, collective efficacy
involves common beliefs and actions among teachers and other school
stakeholders as they share goals and responsibilities and seek excellence.
Through their familiar interests and willingness to be open with each
other, we assumed that teachers trusting their colleagues would reinforce an
efficacious learning environment where the faculty is dedicated to achieving

the group’s collective goals. However, our results indicate that teacher trust
in colleagues did not emerge as a statistically significant predictor of
collective efficacy. In fact, we find the results of our investigation surprising,
given the pervasive effects of trust in previous investigations (Goddard et al.,
2007; Goddard, LoGerfo et al., 2004; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999, 2003;
Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). It could be that teacher interaction with students
and their parent’s impact pupil motivation and learning, while relationships
with colleagues have far less impact on classroom interactions and outcomes.
Truly, additional research into the possible linkage between faculty trust in
colleagues and collective efficacy is merited.
Trust in the Principal
Previous research related to principal behaviors indicates that
leadership behaviors affect factors such as faculty trust in the principal and
collective efficacy (Hoffman et al., 1994; Hoy, Smith et al., 2002b; Hoy &
Tschannen-Moran, 1999, 2003; Smith et al., 2001; Tschannen-Moran, 2001;
Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998). However, in this study, faculty trust in the
principal did not emerge as a statistically significant and independent
predictor of collective teacher efficacy. One possible reason for this could be
that leadership behaviors exhibited by principals are not necessarily the daily
foci of teachers. As evidenced by the results in this case, the teachers
concentrated their efforts on students and parents. It is also possible that the
teachers believe their collective efforts have a greater influence than the
principals’ efforts. As such, it is likely that teachers put greater trust in their
clients than in their principals’ efforts to bring about student success. Perhaps
trust in the principal had a more indirect effect on the milieu of the school
compared with that of trust in the students and parents. Only further research
into this area will tell.
Implications
Although the results of this study indicate that teachers trusting in
their clients predicts collective efficacy, the findings did not produce similar
markers between collective teacher efficacy and the other dimensions of
faculty trust. In fact, we were surprised to find only one trust variable
emerged as a statistically significant, independent predictor of teachers’
sense of collective efficacy. However, this investigation adds to the school

trust and efficacy literature in that it reaffirms that the collective efficacy of
the faculty is positively influenced by trusting relationships between teachers
and their clients (parents and students). Indeed, this relationship among
teachers and clients identifies an area that can be readily tapped and utilized
by practitioners.
Practical Implications
The research instruments utilized in collecting the data for this study
were found to be valid, reliable, and quite suitable for use in middle schools.
In brief, construct validity of the measures has been supported in previous
studies and this was the case in our research (Goddard, 2002; Hoy &
Tschannen-Moran, 1999, 2003; Smith, 2000). We believe these instruments
can be utilized to support school leaders in assessing organizational aspects
of their campuses. However, one caveat is in order. Although the instruments
can produce a snapshot of the effects of two salient social factors present in
schools, the data collected from these measures cannot actually solve the
problems identified by the analysis. Put simply, using the data collected from
the Omnibus T-Scale and the Collective Efficacy scale can provide
opportunities for school leaders to examine their faculty’s perceptions of the
campus environment and take subsequent actions to build a climate of trust
and collective efficacy among their teachers, thus improving the social
milieu of the campus.
Dealing with campus problems is the responsibility of the campus
leadership team. To be successful, all parties must be open and honest for
progress to occur. Hoy and Tarter (1997) recommended the group take time
to build trust prior to opportunities for collaboration. This is essential when
working with students in the classroom, and also a valid argument when
working with parents of whom one has little-to-no relationship previous to
the collaborative undertaking. Building trust in schools requires moving
away from the traditional managerial practices that support disconnected
goals toward a more inclusive decision-making model. Decisions shared by
parents, students, teachers and administrators cultivate trusting, productive
relationships.
To that end, it is important that schools create this community in
their site-based teams, student-centered teaching strategies, and educational
opportunities for at-risk students (Goddard et al., 2001). School leaders

should make an effort to be intentional about reaching out to parents to build
relationships beyond cultural and economic differences. Unfortunately,
some parents who are intimidated by school are less likely to be involved
with their child’s education. School personnel are in a position to offer
assistance to families for academics and inspire parents to take an active role
in their child’s other activities. In doing this, the invitation for parents to
become school partners should express sincerity and kindness rather than a
judgmental or adversarial stance. Even when met with resistance from
clients, teachers and administrators can build a more positive relationship
with parents and students when there is authentic concern for the child
(Goddard et al., 2001; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999).
Research Implications
This study employs a non-experimental, quantitative design, which
addresses two research questions. The first research question targeting
teacher perceptions of the three dimensions of trust and their sense of
collective efficacy resulted in expected outcomes. The aspects of trust were
positively and significantly related to collective efficacy, with some aspects
being more strongly related than others. In addition, although the regression
analyses failed to identify statistically significant links between two of the
trust variables (colleagues and the principal) and collective teacher efficacy,
trust in clients was found to predict the collective efficacy of the faculty.
This speaks to research question two, whereby trust in clients emerged as the
best predictor of collective efficacy. In other words, when teachers trust their
students and parents, they feel a stronger sense of collective group
effectiveness by knowing that all members of the school team are pulling
together.
In this study, neither trust in colleagues nor in the principal were
identified as statistically significant predictors of the collective efficacy of
teachers. One explanation for the results of these findings could be that
teachers’ foci become unidirectional given their current press to raise student
scores; therefore the faculty affords less time developing collegial
relationships. Yet, the literature is clear, collective efficacy is commonly
identified as a salient component of improving student success. This fact
strengthens the claim that faculty trust in clients, which entails rational
attributes such as benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty, and
openness, will likely increase a teacher’s willingness to work together in a

collective mindset to accomplish group goals. Overall, the findings of this
study are clear. Trust in clients is the best predictor of collective teacher
efficacy.
Conclusion
The results of the regression analyses in this study indicate that trust in
clients is a statistically significant predictor of collective teacher efficacy. As
such, the finding reinforces the importance of developing trusting
relationships between teachers, students and parents. At present, teachers are
inundated with mandates and procedural requirements in an effort to improve
student achievement. The connection between trust and collective efficacy
has much to contribute to the field. Indeed, this study represents a modest
attempt at examining two salient social factors that have been shown to
influence the climate of schools.
There is no research study without limitations and this one is no
exception. Therefore, these results should be interpreted cautiously.
Although the results of this study indicate that teachers trusting in their
clients predicts collective efficacy, the findings did not produce the common
markers between collective teacher efficacy and the other dimensions of
faculty trust garnered in earlier research (Geist and Hoy, 2003; Hoffman et
al., 1994; Hoy et al., 1992; Hoy, Smith et al., 2002b; Hoy & Sweetland,
2000; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999, 2003; Shoho & Smith, 2004;
Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Surprisingly, teacher trust in clients was the only
finding common to prior studies. Furthermore, neither of the demographic
variables significantly predicted teachers’ sense of collective efficacy.
Despite these results, this investigation reaffirms the fact that the
collective efficacy of the faculty is positively influenced by trusting
relationships between teachers, parents, and students. Certainly, the sole
commonality of this relationship among teachers and clients implies an area
that can be tapped and utilized by practitioners. In sum, the information
gleaned from this investigation will add to the extant literature on schools
and provide valuable information about school social processes. It is hoped
that this study will contribute to the organizational perspective of schools
and improve current educational applications.

REFERENCES
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense
of efficacy and student achievement. New York, NY: Longman.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000a). Self-efficacy: The foundation of agency. In W.J. Perrig
(Ed.), Control of human behavior, mental processes, and
consciousness (pp.17-33). Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (2000b). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Coleman, J. S. (1985). Schools and the communities they serve. Phi Delta
Kappan, 66(8), 527-532.
Coleman, J. S. (1987). Norms as social capital. In G. Radnitzky & P.
Bernholz (Eds.), Economic imperialism: The economic approach
applied outside the field of economics (pp. 135-155). New York,
NY: Paragon House.
Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution,
2(4), 265-279.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445-455.
Geist, J. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2003). Cultivating a culture of trust: Enabling
school structure, teacher professionalism, and academic press
(Unpublished manuscript). The Ohio State University.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct
validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.
Goddard, R. D. (1998). Effects of collective efficacy on student achievement
in urban public elementary schools (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). The Ohio State University, Ohio.
Goddard, R. D. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the
measurement of collective efficacy: The development of a
short form. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 62(1), 97-
111.

Goddard, R. D. (2003). The impact of schools on teacher beliefs, influence,
and student achievement: the role of collective efficacy beliefs. In
J. Raths and A. C. McAninch (Eds.), Teacher beliefs and classroom
performance: The impact of teacher education (pp. 183-202). United
States: Information Age Publishing.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher
efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and effect on student
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2),
479-507.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Collective
efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and
future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-13.
Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). High school
accountability: The role of perceived collective efficacy.
Educational Policy, 1, 1-23.
Goddard, R. D., & Skrla, L. (2006). The influence of school social
composition on teachers’ collective efficacy beliefs. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 216-235.
Goddard, R. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). Academic emphasis
of elementary schools and student achievement in reading and
mathematics. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 683-702.
Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A multilevel
examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in
students and parents in urban elementary schools. The Elementary
School Journal, 102(1), 1-17.
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A
theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for
school improvement and student achievement in public elementary
schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877-896.
Hoffman, J., Sabo, D., Bliss, J., & Hoy, W. K. (1994). Building a culture of
trust. Journal of School Leadership, 4, 484-501.
Hoy, W. K. (2002). Faculty trust: A key to student achievement. Journal of
School Public Relations, 23(2), 88-103.
Hoy, W. K., Barnes, K., & Sabo, D. (1996, Spring). Organizational health
and faculty trust: a view from the middle level. Research in Middle
Level Education Quarterly, 19-38.
Hoy, W. K., Hannum, J., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998). Organizational
climate and student achievement: A parsimonious and longitudinal
view. Journal of School Leadership, 8(4), 336-359.

Hoy, W. K., & Kupersmith, W. J. (1985). The meaning and measure of
faculty trust. Educational and Psychological Research, 5(1), 1-10.
Hoy, W. K., & Sabo, D. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hoy, W. K., Smith, P. A., & Sweetland, S. R. (2002a). A test of a model of
school achievement in rural schools: The significance of collective
efficacy. In W. Hoy & Miskel (Eds.), Theory and research in
educational administration. Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Hoy, W. K., Smith, P. A., & Sweetland, S. R. (2002b). The development of
the organizational climate index for high schools: Its measure and
relationship to faculty trust. The High School Journal, 86(2), 38-49.
Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2000). School bureaucracies that work:
Enabling not coercive. Journal of School Leadership, 10, 525-
541.
Hoy, W. K., 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. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A
handbook for change. (Elementary and secondary school edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools/healthy
schools: Measuring organizational climate. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Witkoskie, L. (1992). Faculty trust in
colleagues: Linking the principal with school effectiveness. Journal
of Research and Development in Education, 26(1), 38-45.
Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An
empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of
School Leadership, 9(3), 184-208.
Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The conceptualization and
measurement of faculty trust in schools: The omnibus T-Scale. In
W. K. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Studies in leading and organizing
school, (pp. 181-208). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hoy, W. K., & C. Miskel (Eds.), Studies in leading and organizing school,
(pp. 181-208). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the
organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal,
93, 355-372.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging
perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Reviews: Psychology,
50(1), 569-598.
Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and
critical survey. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Newmann, F. M., Rutter, R. A., & Smith, M. S. (1989). Organizational
factors that affect school sense of efficacy, community, and
expectations. Sociology of Education, 62(4), 221-238.
Osgood, C. E. (1959). Suggestions for winning the real war with
communism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3, 295-325.
Petersen, K.S. (2008). Collective efficacy and faculty trust: A study of social
processes in schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The
University of Texas at San Antonio, Texas.
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust.
Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651-665.
Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust.
American Psychologist, 26, 443-452.
Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness and gullibility.
American Psychologist, 26, 1-7.
Smith, P. A. (2000). The organizational health of high schools: In
dimensions of faculty trust (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The
Ohio State University, Columbus.
Smith, P. A., & Birney, L. L. (2005). The organizational trust of elementary
schools and dimensions of student bullying. The International
Journal of Educational Management, 19(6), 469-485.
Smith, P. A., Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Organizational health
of high schools and dimensions of faculty trust. Journal of
School Leadership, 11(2), 135-151.
Smith, P. A., & Shoho, A. R., (2007). Higher education trust, rank, and race:
A conceptual and empirical analysis. Innovative Higher Education,
32 (30), 125-138.
Tarter, C. J., Sabo, D., & Hoy, W. K. (1995). Middle school climate, faculty
trust, and effectiveness: A path analysis. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 29(1), 41-49.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal
of Educational Administration, 39(4), 308-331.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful
schools (pp. 334-352). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
AUTHORS
Karen Petersen is the Principal at Alternative MS South in the Northside
Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas. Petersen obtained her
Ed.D. in Educational Leadership at the University of Texas as San Antonio.
She is consistently recognized for her work as a school administrator and
continues her mission to influence learning for at-risk students. Her areas of
inquiry target organizational studies with an emphasis on individual and
collective efficacy.
Page Smith is the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies and Professor of
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Texas at San
Antonio. Smith obtained his Ph.D. in Educational Policy and Leadership
from Ohio State University. His research interests include organizational
climate and health, institutional trust, collective efficacy, student aggression
and bullying, institutional change and influence.

Relationship Between Collective Efficacy, Faculty Trust and School Effectiveness

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (16)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Relationship Between Collective Efficacy, Faculty Trust and School Effectiveness

Semelhante a Relationship Between Collective Efficacy, Faculty Trust and School Effectiveness (20)

Último

Último (20)

Relationship Between Collective Efficacy, Faculty Trust and School Effectiveness