# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Collective Teacher Efficacy is the collective belief of teachers in their ability to positively affect students. With an effect size of d=1.57 Collective Teacher Efficacy is strongly correlated with student achievement. Here is a quick overview of John Hattie's "new number one" influence.

John Hattie and his team have presented Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE) as the "new number one" influence related to student achievement several times, e.g. at the Annual Visible Learning Conference (2016) or the Collaborative Impact Conference 2017. Although Hattie's latest published list of 195 effects in The Applicability of Visible Learning to Higher Education (2015) puts CTE only in second place, its effect size of d=1.57 is still huge: it is more than two times bigger than that of feedback ( d=0.72), and almost three times bigger than the effect of classroom management ( d=0.52). The message seems to be clear: together teachers can achieve more, especially if they collectively believe that they can do so!

Hattie's new factor is based on Rachel Jean Eells' "Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Collective Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement" ( PDF). For her Ph.D. thesis at the Loyola University Chicago, she has conducted a meta-analysis of 26 studies on Collective Teacher Efficacy and found that "the weighted average effect size of r-mean (outlier removed) was 0.617″. This number can easily be converted into Cohen's d=1.568, the number Hattie reports.

The concept of Collective Teacher Efficacy itself is much older. It was introduced in the 1990s by Albert Bandura and is rooted in his concept of self-efficacy, Bandura (1993, 1997). He defines collective efficacy as "a group's shared belief in the conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment." Bandura found that the positive effects of CTE on student academic performance more than outweigh the negative effects of low socioeconomic status.

His findings were later confirmed by Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000). In their studies, they could demonstrate that between-school differences of collective teacher efficacy were more important in explaining student achievement than socioeconomic status. Moreover, Hoy, Sweetland, and Smith (2002) found that the strength of CTE helps the positive effects of individual teacher efficacy and vice versa. A stronger collective teacher efficacy seems to encourage individual teachers to make a more effective use of the skills they already have.

According to Hattie's presentation at the Collaborative Impact Conference 2017 "Collective Teacher Efficacy" is not about making teachers feel good about themselves. It is more complicated than just believing you can make a difference collectively. One of the authors that come closest to Hattie's definition "collaborative conversation based on evidence" is Jenni Donohoo with her book " Collective Efficacy: How Educators' Beliefs Impact Student Learning ".

For further reading and a practical guide about how to build Collective Teacher Efficacy in your school, you should read the short and excellent Issue Brief " Building Collective Efficacy " by Dana Brinson and Lucy Steiner.

Update

In recent a video John Hattie explains what Collective Teacher Efficacy is, and what it isn't. Have a look.

References:

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

BANDURA, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY, US: W H Freeman. (Book)

BRINSON & STEINER (2007): Building Collective Efficacy: How Leaders Inspire Teachers to Achieve. Issue Brief. The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. ( PDF)

EELLS, R. J. (2011): Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Collective Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement, (Abstract / Full text)

GODDARD, HOY, WOOLFOLK HOY (2000): Collective Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning, Measure, and Impact on Student Achievement. In: American Educational Research Journal Vol 37, Issue 2, pp. 479 - 507 (Abstract)

HATTIE, J. (2015): The Applicability of Visible Learning to Higher Education. In: Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1 (1), 79-91. (Abstract)

HATTIE, J. (2016). Third Visible Learning Annual Conference: Mindframes and Maximizers, Washington, DC, July 11, 2016. (Programme)

HOY, SWEETLAND, SMITH (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38 (1), 77-93. (Abstract)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE) according to John Hattie - VISIBLE LEARNING

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Collective Teacher Efficacy is the collective belief of teachers in their ability to positively affect students. With an effect size of d=1.57 Collective Teacher Efficacy is strongly correlated with student achievement. Here is a quick overview of John Hattie's "new...Read more ›

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is Teacher Clarity?
When teachers are clear in the expectations and instruction, students learn more.
Teacher clarity is both a method and a mindset, and it has an effect size of 0.75 (Hattie, 2009).

It's teaching that is organized and intentional. It brings a forthrightness and fairness to the classroom because student learning is based on transparent expectations. And when we are clear, our students can better plan and predict, set goals, and acquire a stronger sense of how to judge their own progress.

What does Teacher Clarity look like?

Build Teacher Clarity in Your School
See Professional Learning Options

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When teachers are clear in the expectations and instruction, students learn more. Teacher clarity is both a method and a mindset, and it has an effect size of 0.75 (Hattie, 2009). It's teaching that is organized and intentional. It brings a forthrightness and fairness to the classroom because student learning is based on transparent expectations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Commentary

Late last month, the U.S. Department of Education announced the first winners in its Race to the Top grants competition, sending shock waves through statehouses across the country. Only Delaware and Tennessee won awards, leaving 39 other applicants-14 of them finalists-out of the first-round money.

Commentators pored over the results, searching for the secret to winning. They latched on to one of the most accessible explanations: The winning states had convinced nearly all of their local school districts and teachers' unions to support their applications.

The need for broad buy-in-and its implication that states must water down their proposals to get it-quickly became conventional wisdom. The Wall Street Journal wrote that the results "sent a message to state capitals that winners must garner broad support from teachers' unions and local school boards." The Associated Press concluded that strong local support in Delaware and Tennessee "helped them stand out from the other 14 finalists." Education Week's headline read, "Local Buy-In Helps Two States Win Race to Top" (March 29, 2010).

There's just one problem: It's not true.

Several states secured as much buy-in as the winners but still finished far behind them. Some of those states, like Utah and Kansas, didn't even qualify for the finals. Idaho secured support from every single union in the state, but managed only a 28th-place finish. Buy-in was not enough to make up for major weaknesses in these states' applications.

At the same time, states with relatively low buy-in still came very close to winning. Florida finished in fourth place even though only 8 percent of local unions signed on to its plan. Louisiana earned the highest score in the contest's most heavily weighted category-"great teachers and leaders"-despite earning support from fewer than half its districts. Both states could have scored even higher by correcting specific deficiencies in their applications that had nothing to do with stakeholder support. Louisiana, for example, lost just 6 points on local buy-in, but 15 points for inadequately addressing the application section on math and science education.

Clearly, buy-in is not the golden ticket it has been made out to be. But if it's not the key to winning, what is?

In short: vision and leadership. Tennessee and Delaware distinguished themselves by committing to bold, comprehensive reforms, such as creating rigorous teacher evaluations tied to student learning and making big changes in failing schools. They built their plans around changes to state laws, ensuring that all districts would faithfully implement the policies that were passed. They recognized that incorporating feedback from teachers and other stakeholders would strengthen their applications, but they made participation in the dialogue contingent on a commitment to sensible reforms.

What neither of these states did was water down its application to earn the blessing of unions and school boards. Unfortunately, that's exactly what the buy-in myth encourages states to do. It wrongly suggests that Florida, Louisiana, and other states that put forward strong proposals lost because they went too far, when the truth is that they could have won by going just a little bit farther.

Being bold, after all, is what the Race to the Top is all about. It's why education leaders believe it's an opportunity to transform public education and give generations of children a brighter future. That goal is still within reach-but only if states can separate myth from fact.

Vol. 29, Issue 31

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Commentary Late last month, the U.S. Department of Education announced the first winners in its Race to the Top grants competition, sending shock waves through statehouses across the country. Only Delaware and Tennessee won awards, leaving 39 other applicants-14 of them finalists-out of the first-round money.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Building the capacity of learners to learn, teachers to teach, leaders to lead and systems to improve

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Javascript must be enabled for the correct page display

Skip to Content

To enhance your experience on our site, SAGE stores cookies on your computer. By continuing you consent to receive cookies. Learn More.

Back to top