Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

Teacher Self-Efficacy and its Impact on Teacher Retention in Urban School Contexts

Kisha Woods

George Mason University

EDUC 850: Study of Teaching

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

“National studies on teachers in the United States find that nearly 50% of new teachers

quit the profession after the first five years; and of this percentage, 40% of teachers claim they

will never teach again” (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Latham & Vogt, 2007; Perrachione, Rosser, &

Peterson, 2008; Hughes 2012; Bolich, 2001 and Kim, 2009). With 50% of the population leaving

teaching, and 90% of those teachers whothat leave expressing that they will never return to the

teaching profession, demonstrates that there are issues in the school or with the teachers, that

force them to leave. This is alarming because, “Before 1990, new teachers expected to make

education their lifetime careers. Considered a "semi profession," teaching was a job for women,

or a holding pattern for men on their way up to a "real" career” (Moore Johnson and Birkeland,

2003 as cited by Boutelle, 2009, p.2). Teaching was considered a profession that women could

consider retiring fromin, but now they are leaving 20 plus years before they reach the year of

retirement. We are losing both experienced and inexperienced teachers. Hughes (2012) and

Ingersoll (2001) indicates that the, “The loss of inexperienced and experienced teachers results in

a combined turnover rate of approximately 13%-15% per year” (p. 245). This illustrates that each

year, we lose at least 13% of teachers that just entered the profession, and teachers that have at

least been teaching for five or more years.

Reasons for Attrition

According to many researchers, “The shortage of teachers is an issue of grave concern in

education. Researchers across many countries have tried to identify the factors contributing to

the teacher shortage, such as an increasing number of retirees” (e.g. Carroll & Foster, 2009;

Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley, 2006; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004; Hunt &Carroll, 2002;

Ingersoll, 2001, 2003, 2009; White & Smith, 2005). This shows that teacher attrition is not just a

concern in the United States educational system, but in education systems around the globe.

2

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

Ingersoll (2009), Carroll and Foster (2009), and Hong (2010) highlight the reasons for attrition in

schools, “Retirement rates have been growing each year, and a large number of teachers hired in

the 1960s and 1970s are now approaching retirement. However, the number of new teachers

entering each year exceeds the retirement rates.” Attrition was at one point, expected from

retirees, but now the majority of the teachers that are retiring, are new teachers. So along with the

teachers that are retiring, the new teachers are leaving at a rapid pace. Many researchers attest to

this, “The attrition rate is high for young teachers during their early stage of professional life,

low for middle-aged teachers, and high again for older teachers approaching retirement”

(Grissmer & Kirby, 1987; Murnane, Singer, & Willett, 1989; Singer, 1993; Shen, 1997; Adams,

1996; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004; Ingersoll, 2001, 2003; Kirby, Grissmer, & Hudson,

1991; Murnane, Singer, & Willett, 1989; Hughes 2012; Achinstein, 2006; Darling-Hammond,

1999; Fantilli & McDougall, 2009; Guarino et al., 2006; Haberman, 2004; Johnson & Birkeland,

2003; Kersaint, Lewis, Potter, & Meisels, 2007; Quartz, 2003; Ulvik, Smith, & Helleve, 2009;

Weiess, 1999; Hong, 2012). Not only are the new teachers leaving rapidly, but “there are more

teachers exiting than entering the field” (Rubalcava, 2005, National Commission on Teaching

and America's Future, 2003 as cited by Boutelle, 2009, p.2-3). The fact that there are more

teachers leaving the profession of teaching, than there are entering, there must be some serious

concerns and issues that teachers have that force them to leave the profession.

There are many different reasons that teachers decide to leave the profession. From the

analysis of schools and staffing survey and teacher follow-up survey data, Ingersoll (2001, 2003)

and his colleagues identified four major reasons for teacher attrition: “including school staffing

action, family or personal reason, pursuit of another job and dissatisfaction” (as cited by Hong,

2012, p. 418). Teachers leave the profession due to issues in the school building and/or personal

3

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

reasons concerning their family or better opportunities. The issues in the school building can

range from the administration, to the students. Among these, researchers also highlighted that

the, “pursuit of another job and dissatisfaction as the major contributors for teacher attrition.

They further listed reasons for dissatisfaction, which include poor salary, student discipline

problems, poor administrative support, poor student motivation and a lack of faculty influence”

(Ingersoll, 2001, 2003; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003, Hong, 2012, Berliner, 1988; Angelle, 2006;

Moore, Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2003; U.S. Department of Education,

2005). Many teachers leave the profession because they are not satisfied with the ways in which

the administration handles the issues at the job. Also, teachers are not paid according to the

amount of issues (lack of administrative support and teacher influence; lack of student

achievement and discipline issues) that they have to deal with in schools. The more issues that

are prevelant in the school will possibly push the teachers to leave the profession, especially the

working conditions—context of the school.

Attrition in Urban Schools

Attrition is a serious issue in urban schools. Eckert (2012) attests to this, “Retaining

teachers is especially challenging for schools in high poverty/high minority urban schools.” (p.

78) Attrition is a serious issue in urban schools, because their environment has many issues that

influence teacher’s decisions to leave. Issues in urban schools include but are not limited to,

“high levels of student discipline problems, poor student motivation, inadequate time, and

classroom intrusions” (Eckert, 2012, p. 78). In urban schools there are discipline problems with

the students not abiding by the rules of the school. Also, in some urban schools, there is a lack of

structure from the administration, to address student misbehavior. Along with student’s

misbehavior, the students are not motivated to achieve academically, and there is not enough

4

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

time to adequately address the students that are behind. There also many disruptions that keeps

the teachers from teaching their classes. The disruptions can range from overwhelming

paperwork for new initiatives in the building to address the lack of academic achievement to

student misbehavior in the classrooms and in the hallways. Viadero (2008) and Boutelle (2009)

agrees with the issues that are prevelant in urban schools, especially the working conditions,

“These included lack of support and mentoring, increased numbers of students with disabilities,

increased numbers of non-English speaking students, and the poverty level of the schools,

including the physical condition of the school plan” (p. 5). Not only are the conditions of the

school difficult to teach in but the disabilities that the students may have makes teaching

difficult. Students that are living in poverty may come to school with a host of issues that prevent

them from focusing in school. On top of the student’s disabilities and poverty issues that the

teachers have to address, they lack support in the effort of addressing the issues, or sometimes

any issues that are present in the school. Teachers are in need of mentorship to assist with their

challenges, but the school fails to provide the resources needed for teachers to be successful.

Many other researchers also exemplify the issues that are present in urban schools for students,

“The students in these schools come from neighborhoods burdened with gang violence, have the

highest rates of dropping out and getting pregnant, and have the lowest scores on standardized

tests” (Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010; Lankfordt, Loeb, & Wykcoff, 2002: Milanowski et.

al., 2009; Noguera & Wells, 2011 as cited by Eckert, 2013, p. 76). Not only do the students have

mental and physical disabilities but they all so have issues in their neighborhood, that can distract

them from achieving in school. With the violence that is present in their neighborhood, the

students are exposed to things that can also steer them from academic achievement. Students

sometimes become products of their environment, because they are accustomed to encountering

5

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

people in their families or neighborhoods that don’t value education. The issues in urban schools

expand beyond the students and are complex in nature; however, there are also issues that

teachers have that contribute to attrition too.

Urban schools are difficult and challenging for all parties involved. Shen (1997) states,

“Teachers who work in large urban districts tend to have shorter teaching careers than do

teachers working in smaller suburban districts” (p. 82). Many of the issues that are present in

urban school districts do not occur in suburban districts, and if there are issues in suburban

districts, they are not magnified as urban school issues are. Suburban school districts have more

resources, highly qualified teachers, administrative, parental, and community support, and

functional school buildings. With the assets that suburban schools have, the teachers are less

likely to leave as rapidly, as the teachers in urban schools. The issues that are present in urban

schools are so difficult, that is pushes teachers to leave. The reasons that the teachers leave can

be the working conditions and the students, but sometimes the teachers are not effectively

prepared. Many researchers agree with this notion, “The teachers in these schools in particular,

according to rhetoric, are unprepared, ineffective, and transitory” (Darling-Hammond & Green,

1990; Ingersoll, 2001; Jacob, 2007; Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003 as cited by Eckert, 2013, p.

75). Many of the teachers who enter teaching, are not prepared to teach. Not only are the teachers

not prepared to teach, the are definitely not prepared to teach in an urban school, with the issues

that may arise. Ingersoll (2004) and Eckert (2013) elaborates on this:

In addition to the many challenges associated with education students living in poverty,

the teachers in these schools are generally less experienced and have much higher

attrition. These schools also tend to hire later than wealthy suburban districts, have

6

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

trouble attracting (and keeping) teachers, and have the fewest resources available to

thoroughly evaluate incoming teachers (p. 75).

Many teachers are not interested in teaching in urban schools, because they are aware of the

issues that are prevelant in an urban school. There are some teachers whothat have a passion to

work in urban schools, and address the inequities that are present, but many are not prepared to

work with students in an urban context. The schools struggle to retain these teachers because

they are not prepared, and along with the lack of preparation, the teachers don’t have the

resources they need to be successful in the urban context. The teachers lack of preparation to

teach and especially in the context of urban schools, further complicates the issue of teacher

attrition in urban schools because not only is the environment challenging, there is a lack of

student achievement, and the teachers are not prepared to deal or teach in these conditions. Kim

(2009) and Friedman (1991) highlight the ending result of this revolving cycle, “Unfortunately,

the bombardment of constant change in urban schools leads to high teacher burnout rates.

Ultimately, this burnout then leads to teacher attrition which threatens teacher resiliency” (p. 1).

It is inevitable that teachers will burn out and leave the profession if they are not prepared to deal

with the issues present in urban schools.

Literature Review

Teacher Retention

Teacher attrition is detrimental to the field of education, so we must begin to understand

the importance of teacher retention and how to increase the amount of teachers that stay in the

schools. Teacher retention is defined as, “Teachers who remain in the classroom or at their

school sites” (Kim, 2009, p. 16). The amount of years that a teacher remains in a specific school,

or teaching in general is imperative. Researchers agree with this, “Teacher retention, whether a

7

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

teacher stays in his or her current school (or teaching altogether), is an extremely important

concept in understanding the health of schools based on the positive impact on students of

measures such as length of teaching experience and stability of a school” (Boyd et al., 2010;

Fetler, 1999; Murnane & Philips, 1981; Watlington, Shockely, Guglielimino, & Felsher, 2010 as

cited by Eckert, 2012, p. 78). In order to retain teachers, schools have to improve their school

environment. Improving the school environment, will keep the teachers in the school, and in

turn, their tenure will improve student achievement. Student achievement will improve, because

they will have the same teacher in the building, and not a new teacher every year. Ingersoll and

Smith (2003) attest to this:

Employee turnover has especially serious consequences in workplaces that require

extensive interaction among participants and that depend on commitment, continuity, and

cohesion among employees. From this perspective, the high turnover of teachers in

schools does not simply cause staffing problems but may also harm the school

environment and student performance (p. 31).

Working in urban schools, require extensive interaction amongst the teachers and the students

because they have to operate in a context that may not have all the resources one needs to

address the needs of students who may have familial and environmental issues that impact their

achievement in school. If there is a lack of administrative support in addressing these issues, then

not only will the teacher’s effectiveness be faulty, but the school environment will also be

negatively impacted. Schools have to discover ways to address the teacher attrition in schools,

and formulate a way to retain teachers or the school environment, and most importantly the

students, will continue to be negatively impacted.

8

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

There are many important factors that contribute to teacher retention. Hughes (2012)

highlights one, “Thus, the preponderance of evidence to date suggests that gender is an important

factor in teacher retention with males exhibiting greater longevity” (p. 246). Although the

majority of the population of teachers are women, men tend to stay longer in the profession. This

is ironic because the population of teachers, is full of women. If this is so, one way that schools

could address this issue would be to improve and increase the recruitment of male teachers in

schools. Along with gender, Hughes (2012) and Borman & Dowling (2006) also highlights the

importance of race in improving teacher retention, “Teacher ethnicity is also related to retention;

White teachers are 1.36 times more likely to leave teaching than non-White teachers” (p. 246).

The majority of the population of teachers is of the white descent. This also illustrates that if

schools want to retain more teachers, they should improve their recruitment efforts and increase

the amount of teachers of color, who work in the schools.

Along with biological factors, the school structure is also important in understanding

teacher retention. Some researchers indicate X argued that, “Retention rates also differ among

grade levels and content area. Elementary teachers are more likely to remain than secondary

teachers. Middle school teachers also leave at higher rates due to the problems associated with

adolescence” (Guarino et al., 2006; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009: Murnane et al., 1989, Brill &

McCartney, 2008 as cited by Hughes 2012, p. 246). This demonstrates that teaching different

grade levels can impact teacher retention, because of the stages of development of students.

Elementary school students are at a stage where the teachers easily influence them. Middle

schools students are at the stage of pre-adolescence; many days they want to embrace their

maturity, and other days they want to take on the actions of an elementary student. They struggle

to understand their role, along with dealing with puberty. This could definitely be a difficult time

9

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

for teachers because the student’s behaviors fluctuate daily, and the management of their

behavior could be difficult to maintain. This is important for schools to understand and take into

consideration, so that they are mindful of who they hire and choose to teach each grade level.

The teachers who teach the most difficult grade levels, have to have experience and expertise

working with students at different developmental stages, and true passion for the students in

general. Along with student’s stages of development and grade level content, Shen (1997) also

suggests that in order to understand retention, schools must understand the presage variables of

teachers, “mature women stay and younger women leave” (p. 82). Shen is suggesting that older

teachers stay longer than younger teachers, which closely aligns with the current data concerning

attrition of new teachers. However, teachers must be mature to remain in the area of teaching,

which is a characteristic that they must develop on their own, regardless of age. These important

factors of retention become even more complicated in urban schools.

Retention in Urban Schools

Retaining teachers in urban schools is indeed difficult and complicated. Eckert (2012)

explains the seriousness of leaving an urban school prematurely, “If teachers in high

poverty/high minority urban schools leave before their 3rd year of teaching, not only are they

unlikely to have fulfilled their full potential, but the schools also have to consistently replace

teachers—often with teachers who have not yet reached their critical 3-year mark” (p. 78).

Staying at an urban school, or any school, for at least three years is imperative in order for

teachers to reach their full potential. Leaving any time before the three-year mark could

jeopardize the learning experience a teacher has; really understanding their content and the

dynamics of the school. Some researchers have highlighted the characteristics of teachers who

are able to stay beyond the three-year limit. Shen (1997), Dworkin (1980), Bloland & Shelby

10

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

(1980) illustrates the race of teachers who stay in urban schools, “majority teachers in urban

areas are more likely to leave than are minority teachers and that Black teachers are less likely to

leave teaching than are White teachers” (p. 82). This finding could be justified because most of

the students in urban schools are students of color, and the teachers of color possess cultural

competence; the ability to connect with the students academically, personally, and socially.

Although this reason for attrition is justifiable, many researchers believe that teacher retention in

urban schools, is more complicated than just race.

Many researchers believe that the reasons teachers stay is correlated with a teacher’s self-

confidence and beliefs—teacher-self efficacy. According to Hong (2012), Evans &and Tribble

(1986), and Tait (2008), teacher self-efficacy is extremely important when understanding teacher

retention in an urban school:

It seems that teachers who have a stronger sense of efficacy perceive difficulties as

challenges rather than threats, and thus invest their effort in the face of adversities and

direct their efforts in resolving problems. Whereas those who have a low sense of

efficacy believe there is little they can do to change the problems they perceive, and thus

put forth less effort and do not strongly persevere when difficulties arise. Consequently,

teachers who cannot persevere in the face of obstacles may not remain in the profession

(p. 420).

Having a strong sense of self-efficacy is imperative in urban schools, because of the difficulties

teachers have to encounter daily. When a teacher has strong self-efficacy, they believe that the

challenges are an opportunity to make change and difference in the school or with their students,

not a threat to their position as a teacher. Hong (2012), Bandura (1977), Pajares (1996) expands

on this idea further:

11

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

As efficacy beliefs work to determine how much effort people will expend on an

endeavour and how long they will persevere when confronting obstacles, those who have

weak self-efficacy beliefs will put forth less effort and will not strongly persevere when

difficulties arise. Teachers who put less effort into their work do not seek to improve their

own knowledge and expertise, and those who cannot persevere in the face of obstacles

may not remain in the profession (p. 428).

Having strong teacher self-efficacy also demonstrates the effort teachers put forth in their

classroom and school. If a teacher does not have a strong self-efficacy, they will not put forth the

effort to face their challenges, or improve their craft in working with students in urban

environments. Self –efficacy encompasses not only your beliefs, but your efforts also. Teachers

with a low self-efficacy will be consumed by the challenges, and give up as oppose using the

challenges as opportunity to address the issues and advocate for change in their schools. Hughes

(2012), Ingersoll & Smith (2003), and Stockard & Lehman (2004) indicate that, “Teachers’

decisions to remain in teaching are also impacted by their perceptions of effectiveness with their

students, with 6% of new teachers leaving due to lack of influence” (p. 247). Teachers who have

a negative perception about the students that they teach, will not be able to effect change with the

students. They will have to utilize the challenges and issues that the students encounter as an

opportunity to influence students to break the cycle of failure for students of color. Yost (2006)

and Boutelle (2009) argues this further:

Philosophical differences in how a teacher views teaching and the school culture can also

have an effect on the rate of teacher attrition or retention at a particular school. A poor

match between a teacher candidate and a school environment encourages high efficacy

teachers to transfer to other schools rather than leave the profession. [I]t seems logical to

12

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

conclude that if a teacher's philosophy is not in line with a school's shared vision then a

teacher must make a choice to join the collective group stance, align him or herself to

minority opposing views, or leave either the school or teaching profession entirely (p. 7).

If a teacher has high self-efficacy, and a passion for teaching in general, she/hethey will not

allow the conditions of any urban school, or the behavior of students, deter them from their

passion of teaching. If they have a passion for teaching, and the school that they are teaching in,

is not compatible, they will find another school to educate students. Regardless of the school, if

teachers believe that they can make a difference and have the influence to change the lives of the

students, then they will stay in the profession.

Background Information: Presage Variables & Teacher Self-Efficacy

There have been researchers that have studied presage variables that teachers possess that

influence them to stay in the teaching profession. Mitzel (1960) “introduced the concept of

presage variables. The term denotes dimensions of teacher personality and teachers’ experience

in teacher education programs that are considered to be potential predictors, or ‘presages,’ of

teaching effectiveness” (as cited by Gage, 2009, p. 43). Presage variables are dimensions of a

teacher’s personality that the teacher possesses prior to entering the teaching profession, or it is

developed over time, while in their teaching career. According to Mitzel (1984), there are at least

four types of presage variables, “…(a) teacher personality attributes, (b) characteristics of

teachers in training, (c) teacher knowledge and achievement, and (d) in-service teacher status

characteristics” (as cited by Gage, 2009, p. 43). The types of presage variables, illustrate the

complexity of a teacher’s personality. For example, the teacher’s personality that he/she

developed prior to teaching, what is added to or subtracted from their personality while in

teacher training, the knowledge that the teacher acquires or possess about their content

13

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

knowledge, and the characteristics that a teacher develops once they start teaching in their

classroom. Gage (2009) elaborates on this further, “The presage category also includes the

teacher’s stable affective characteristics: intentions, beliefs, attitudes, values, appreciations, and

the like, as traits that the teacher has acquired from experience, including experience in a teacher

education program” (p. 48). Gage highlights the intrinsic traits that teachers have that can impact

the way they teach, which can be developed prior to teaching, during teacher training, or while

they are teaching. Teacher’s traits impact the perceptions they have about the students and

environment in which they teach.

Since a presage variable is a dimension of a teacher’s personality, it is closely related to

teacher self-efficacy. As one dimension of a teacher’s personality, teacher self-efficacy qualifies

as a presage variable worth studying further. Bandura (1977) identified teacher efficacy as a

“type of self-efficacy—a cognitive process in which people construct beliefs about their capacity

to perform at a given level of attainment. These beliefs influence how much effort put forth, how

long they will persist in the face of obstacles, how resilient they are in dealing with failure, and

how much stress or depression they experience in coping with demanding situations” (as cited by

Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998, p. 203). Teacher self-efficacy is under the umbrella of a

psychological lens, because it focuses on the way in which a teacher thinks about his or her own

abilities. A teacher’s confidence level impacts the effort they put forth and how they deal with

challenging situations. Teacher self-efficacy measures a teacher’s perceptions of their abilities

and preparedness to be effective teachers. Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) highlights the

dimensions of teacher efficacy:

Teacher efficacy consists of two distinct, but related, sets of beliefs: personal teacher

efficacy (PTE) and general teacher efficacy. PTE measures how prepared a teacher feels

14

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

to engage in and construct learning for his or her students. GTE, on the other hand,

represents a type of outcome expectancy—a teacher’s confidence in his or her ability to

encourage tangible success from his or her teaching regardless of the situation or context

(as cited by Eckert, 2013, p. 77).

Personal teacher efficacy illustrates a teacher’s feelings about his/her ability to construct learning

in the classroom for students. General teacher efficacy is the teacher’s expectancy of the

outcome of the teacher’s instruction—student achievement, or lack their of.

Recent Research Studies

There have been recent studies that have sought to find a correlation between teacher’s

presage variables and/or teacher self-efficacy that contributes to attrition or retention. Hughes

(2012) conducted a quantitative study to discover how teacher characteristics (years teaching

experience, gender, educational level, ethnicity, grade level, and subject or content area), school

characteristics (size, socioeconomic status {SES}, standardized test performance, and student

ethnicity), organizational characteristics (salary and workload, facilities and resources, parent

and student cooperation, and principal support), and teacher efficacy (instructional, student

motivation, classroom management, and technology) relate to teacher retention (p. 248). This

study was conducted utilizing a 60-item response survey that was disseminated to over 1100700

people and only 78945 people responded. Hughes sought to understand the complexity of

teaching, teacher’s personal characteristics, student achievement, and school’s environment, and

its impact on teacher retention. Hughes’s findings were similar to Ingersoll’s (2001) national

average teacher retention findings of 13.2%--15%. Hughes (2012) also found that, “the reasons

for leaving teaching, the most cited reason was advancement within education, rather than

leaving the profession. Thus a total of 90% reported plans to continue in education either in the

15

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

classroom or in another capacity”(p.252-253). Most of the teachers in Hughes’s study left

teaching because they were given an opportunity to advance their career within the field of

education. So although they left teaching, they did not leave the realm of education. The data

suggested that, “characteristics of schools and teachers’ beliefs in their own abilities have a

negligible impact on teacher retention beyond the characteristics of teachers themselves” (p.

253). This study demonstrates that teacher self-efficacy and the school environment does not

play a major role in the retention of teachers. The data also suggests that, “schools can expect to

retain teachers who have remained for 10 years or more regardless of whether the teachers’

decision to remain is from joy for teaching or from an investment in the profession” (Hughes,

2012, p. 253). This illustrates that it doesn’t matter what challenges teachers encounter, if they

last beyond 10 years, they will remain in the profession. The limitations of this study are that it

was conducted in only one state, so it does not demonstrate the responses of the entire education

population. Also, teachers whothat left the field were not surveyed.

Another study that seeks to discover the correlation relationship between a teacher’s

presage variables and teacher retention is Eckert’s (2012) mixed method study. Eckert (2012)

sought to explore how “readily available surface measures of incoming teacher qualifications

predict teacher confidence and teacher retention in high poverty/high minority urban schools” (p.

76). This study discovered that thehow teacher preparation that teachers receive predicts

teacher’s confidence and retention in urban schools. The study began with a collection and

analysis of quantitative data from the National Center for Education Statistics, and then a

qualitative study interviewing novice teachers who left or areis currently teaching, to capture an

in depth analysis of the quantitative data, that illustrated teacher efficacy. Eckert (2012) found

that, “Teachers who completed more coursework and had lengthier student teaching experiences

16

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

are likely to have high self-confidence. They can also encourage student success.” This study

demonstrates teacher’s self-efficacy is enhanced through a teacher preparation program that

provides more time for teacher’s to develop and learn about teaching in their coursework, and to

practice their instructional and management strategies acquired during their student teaching

experience. The limitations to this study is that teacher retention was defined as completing one

year, and “Teacher efficacy is dependent upon an individual’s perception and teacher retention

can be influenced by any number of elements beyond preparation for teaching” (Eckert, 2012, p.

77). Unlike Hughes’s (2012) study, this study illustrates that there is a correlation relationship

between teacher self-efficacy and teacher retention; however, there are other elements that also

impact teacher retention. The limitation of this study is the amount of years that are considered

retention, which are too low; especially in urban schools where the attrition rates are

significantly high.

One other study that seeks to highlight the relationshipcorrelation between teachers’s

presage variables and teacher retention is Kim’s (2009) mixed method study. Kim conducted this

study to discover the ways in which six identified school factors: collegiality/collaboration,

shared power, leadership, teacher efficacy, commitment and values, and professional

development, synthesized from research predict teacher resiliencey in public, urban elementary

schools. This study is similar to Eckert’s (2012) because illustrates the complexity of

understanding teacher retention. Kim (2009) first conducted a survey to aggregate data that

illustrated the correlation interrelationships of the six factors described above, and teacher

resiliency and/or retention in a school. Once the survey was conducted, she interviewed the

participants to ensure that the information on the survey was accurate, and to also give the

participants the opportunity to provide additional information about teacher resiliency and

17

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

retention, outside of the six categories provided. Kim found that “Commitment and values,

shared power, urban school dynamics, intrinsic motivation, and community are significant school

factors which promote teacher resiliency as identified in this study. If schools want to stop

nationwide teacher attrition rates plaguing schools (Bolich, 2001), schools need to view reform

through a resiliency model” (p.111). Kim (2009), and Howard & Johnson (2004) describes

teacher resiliency as:

Confident they can overcome problems, and therefore, they do not feel overwhelmed by

problems. Second, resilient teachers do not agonize over their problems even if they

believe they could have made better decisions. Rather, they move on quickly and learn

from their experiences. Finally, resilient teachers talk themselves through unpleasant

circumstances by determining the cause of their problems. Resilient teachers are

reflective of their circumstances in order to build greater compassion for others; this

prevents resilient teachers from harboring discouragement and bitterness towards the

situation or people involved” (p. 33).

The way in which the researchers define resiliency is closely related to how teachers are retained

in difficult schools, such as urban schools. They suggest that in order to understand attrition and

retention, especially in urban schools, one must pay close attention to the resiliency model.

One last study that seeks to demonstrate the correlation relationship between teachers’s

presage variables and teacher retention is Hong’s (2012) qualitative study. Hong’s study sought

to understand “both leavers and stayers, and how they are similar or different in negotiating and

interpreting external environments. In particular, this study foregrounds the role of psychological

factors such as self-efficacy, beliefs, values and emotions as the lens to understand the protective

process of resilience” (p. 419-420). This study is similar to Kim’s (2009) study in understanding

18

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

teacher attrition and retention and its relation to teacher self-efficacy. Hong believes that in order

to understand resiliency, one must understand how self-efficacy is related to retention and

attrition. The study focuses on teacher self-efficacy that is developed while teaching. Kim

conducted in depth semi-structured interviews to discover teachers innate beliefs, emotions, and

values—self-efficacy (p.422). Hong (2009) found that Leavers: left due to personal and familial

issues, dissatisfaction with work, moving on to another job. Some would have stayed if issues of

dissatisfaction were addressed and handled. There was a lack of efficacy that the teachers

possessed to manage their classroom and behavior. They focused on the teacher’s role, and not

the student’s responsibility. They also believed that their personality was not fit for the job. They

carried emotional feelings home with them concerning the issues that occurred at school and they

also took negative emotional issues personally (pp.425-430). This demonstrates that most of the

reasons teachers leave are due to the conditions of the school, and their lack of self-efficacy to

believe that they can make a difference in the school or the students. The leavers also struggle

with separating their career from their personal lives. Hong (2012) also found that the stayers:

had a strong self-efficacy. They had the ability to manage their classes, and a strong support from

the administration. They believed that students are owners of their own learning and they know

how to manage emotional stress (pp. 425-430). This demonstrates that if teachers have a strong

self-efficacy, they will be successful in their classroom because they have the confidence that

they will do well, and they have the support of the administration in their endeavors. The

limitations of this study are that the participants were only teachers that completed a secondary

science certification; teachers from other disciplines were not interviewed. The teachers had only

completed five years or less of teaching, which narrowed the years of retention. All of the studies

have great components that illustrate the research I would like to conduct but their limitations are

19

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

ideas I would like to omit or expand upon to understand how teacher self-efficacy is related to

teacher retention in urban schools.

Purpose StatementUrban schools have a negative reputation and are the highlight of the reasoning for the

achievement gap in the United States because of the students who are a major part of the

population, students of color. Henderson & Milstein (2003) states, “American culture today

focuses on negative labels and diagnoses, and this disparaging ideology permeates the school

belief systems… Unfortunately, this “damage model” has implications for school systems which

focus on analyzing schools and students based on labels of weaknesses, deficits, illnesses,

diseases, and negatives” (as cited by Kim, 2009, p. 9). Even with the researchers that have

attempted to address this issue, the research that is most cited are a negative view of urban

schools, and the teachers who do not stay. Levine (2006) and Eckert (2013) attests to this, “The

research community has been unable to determine not only how best to prepare teachers for the

tasks of teaching and staying in these high-needs urban schools but also how to measure and

evaluate incoming teacher qualifications” (p. 75). Not only does urban schools have a negative

reputation, but there is a lack of research on how to improve urban schools. Darling-Hammond

(1998) has a point when she states, “Urban school teachers are plagued with high rates of

stress...Yet, it is these same teachers experiencing burnout that are expected to motivate students

to move from the risk of drop out to the hope of resiliency; and this ability to motivate students

to change seems dismal when teachers are burnt-out” (as cited by Kim, 2009, p. 111). This is

even more reason to research the teachers that are staying in urban environments to improve the

schools and increase student achievement. This research study will address the detrimental

language of urban schools and highlight teachers who have a passion for this environment. This

study will illustrate how teacher’s self efficacy, impacts their decision to continue to teach at an

20

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

urban school.

Research Question Based on the research that illustrates teacher self-efficacy and retention in urban schools,

and the lack of research that highlights the positive aspects of urban schools, this study proposes

to address the following research question: How does teacher self-efficacy contribute to teacher

retention in urban schools? This is the next best study because it will not focus on teacher self-

efficacy that is developed or enhanced in a teacher education program, but efficacy that they

have prior to entering the program.

Methodology

The present study will employ a qualitative design. The nature of this study demands a

qualitative study because the voices of the teachers are very imperativeimportant to understand,

as opposed to allowing numbers to speak for the teachers. The teachers will be given the

opportunity to express their ideas through interviews, because “The open-ended nature of the

qualitative approach allows teachers to provide intricate details of their perceptions and

experiences in their own words without being limited by predetermined questions” (Bogdan &

Biklen, 1982; Patton, 2002). This study will provide the opportunity for in-depth interview

questions, so that teachers can openly discuss their emotions, beliefs, and confidence as a teacher

that developed prior to becoming a teacher that possibly contributes to their successful

performance and retention in an urban school.

Context, Participants, and Data Collection

The study will be conducted in urban school contexts, located in the District of Columbia,

Maryland, and Virginia. Teachers from all of these states will be interviewed, so the data areis

not limited to just one state. The participants will be teachers whothat have been teaching for ten

plus years. Unlike the studies described above, the years of retention will be longer, because as

21

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

Eckert (2012) states, “If teachers in high poverty/high minority urban schools leave before their

3rd year of teaching, not only are they unlikely to have fulfilled their full potential but the schools

also have to consistently replace teachers—often with teacher who have not yet reached their

critical 3-year mark” (p. 78). Interviewing teachers that have been teaching for at least ten years,

in some cases guarantees that the teachers will remain in the profession, as Hughes’s (2012)

study indicated.

To conduct this study, a survey will be disseminated to urban schools in the District of

Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia to identify teachers who have been teaching for 10 years or

more. The urban schools will not only be schools that are low performing schools, but schools

that are high performing, with students of color, who live in poverty. To obtain this information,

I will view different school’s report cards to verify their performance. Interviewing teachers that

stay in both contexts will provide the opportunity to address the detrimental language that is

present about urban schools, and analyze the data from different perspectives. Purposeful

sampling (Glesne 2011; & Maxwell 2013) will be utilized to select the participants for the study.

Teachers will be selected for the study if they have been teaching for ten or more years.

Data Collection

Each participant will engage in two 45-minute semi-structured interviews (Glesne 2011;

& Maxwell 2013). Semi-structured interviews will be conducted to provide the opportunity for

the participants and the researcher, flexibility to elaborate and probe for details that were not

preplanned in the original questions, or to clarify content discussed. Follow up emails will also

be sent to provide another opportunity for teachers to clarify anything that they may forget to

mention or want to elaborate on, that we did not cover in the interview. The interviews will be

audio taped with the participants consent, and transcribed and used for data analysis. Constant

22

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

comparison method (Butler-Kisber 2010) will be utilized to analyze the data. This method will

allow the researcher to condense the data into common themes.

Limitations and Validity

Completing this research project will inevitably have some limitations, due to my

researcher bias, lack of interviews, and interview participants reactivity. The limitations and

validity of this research study are common in conducting research in an area where you work—

your backyard. As a teacher in the Maryland area, there is a strong possibility that participants

will be recruited from schools were I am familiar with the teachers. Reactivity and reflexivity

(Maxwell, 2013) between the participants and I could exist because of existing knowledge of one

of the school systems in the Maryland area. Researcher bias (Maxwell, 2010) will also be

present, because I have a bias towards researchers who only illustrate urban schools in a negative

manner. I could possibly be blinded by the enormous data and issues that are present in urban

schools, by attempting to find schools that are urban and high achieving. When creating the

research questions and conducting interviews, I will have to force myself to step outside of my

bias to learn more about each teacher’s self-efficacy and retention regardless of the performance

of their school, and stereotypical views of urban students. I will also have to make sure that I do

not probe the participants during the interview to get the answers I desire for the research study,

Another limitation present in this study will be the amount of times participants are

interviewed. I will only complete two interviews with each participant, so the breadth of the

study, could be questionable. However, triangulation (Maxwell, 2013) will be present; I will

utilize the sources, interviews, emails, memos, transcriptions, and notes to formulate themes that

were present in the data. Critical friends (Samaras, 2010) will be consulted to review the

23

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

transcripts to ensure those themes were present, and transcripts are reviewed at least three times

to ensure validity.

This study would be the perfect opportunity for other researchers to expand by studying

the qualitative findings, to discover the correlation between teacher self-efficacy and teacher

retention, and develop a quantitative or mixed-method study. Both a qualitative and quantitative

study can reach different audiences. As Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk, & Hoy (1998) also

suggest, the study could be expanded if it is studied from the cultural meaning of efficacy in

terms of the roles, expectations, and social relations that are important in the construction of

those teacher beliefs. This angle of research is imperative to study because of the importance of

understanding culture with students of color.

Kisha, I fully realize that you’ve never done anything like this before. As a first try, you did well. Many of my concerns are with your use of APA, quoting, and use of language, but I understand that you are still forming yourself in these areas and have not had much opportunity to learn methods yet. In general, your argument flowed well. As you move through the program, we can work on these important writing features so that by the time to get to writing your dissertation proposal, you’ll have developed a better sense of how to construct the argument and have it culminate in research questions and appropriate methods. A

24

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

References

Achinstein, B. (2006). New teacher and mentor political literacy: Reading, navigating and

transforming induction contexts. Teachers and Teaching, 12(2), 123–138.

Adams, G. (1996). Using a Cox regression model to examine voluntary teacher turnover. Journal

of Experimental Education, 64, 267-285.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bloland, P.A., & Shelby, T.J. (1980). Factors associated with career change among secondary

school teachers: A review of the literature. Educational Research Quarterly, 5,. 13-24.

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to

theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Bolich, A. (2001). Reduce your losses: Help new teachers become veteran teachers. Atlanta, GA:

Southern Regional Education Board.

Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2006). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and

narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 28(no?), 25–48.

Boutelle, J.C. (2009). Factors influencing teacher retention in an urban secondary school

district (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

database.

Boyd, D., Grlowssman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wykcoff, J. (2010. The influence

of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research

Journal, (2047)(10), 1-31.

Brill, S., & McCartney, A. (2008). Stopping the revolving door: Increasing teacher retention.

Politics & Policy, 36, 750-774.

25

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

Carroll, T.G., & Foster, E. (2009, April). Learning teams: creating what’s next. Washington,

DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Retrieved from

http://www.nctaf.org/resources/research_and_reports/nctaf_research_reports/index.htm.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and standards:

How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for every child. New

York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Green, J. (1990). Teacher quality and equality. In J. Goodlad & P.

Keatings (Eds), Access to knowledge: An agenda for our nation’s schools (pp. 237-259).

New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

Dworkin, A.G. (1980). The changing demography of public school teachers: Some implications

for faculty turnover in urban areas. Sociology of Education, 53, 65-73.

Eckert, S.A. (2012). What do teaching qualifications mean in urban schools? A mixed methods

study of teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(no?), 75-89.

Evans, E.D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and commitment

to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 81–85.

Fantilli, R., & McDougall, D. (2009). A study of novice teachers: Challenges and supports in the

first years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343–356.

Fetler, M. (1999). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test results. Education

Policy Analysis Archives, 7(9), Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/544.

Friedman, I. A. (1991). High and low burnout schools: School culture aspects of teacher burnout.

The Journal of Educational Research, 84(6), 323-333.

Gage, N.L. (1963). Paradigms for research on teaching. In N.L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of

research on teaching (pp.94-141). Chicago: Rand-McNally.

26

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

Gage, N.L. (2009). A conception of teaching. NY: Springer.

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson

Education.

Gregory, A., Skiba, R.J., & Noguera, P. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap:

Two sides of the same coin. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59-68.

Grissmer, D.W., & Kirby, S.N. (1987). Teacher attrition; The uphill climb to staff the nation’s

schools. Santa Monica, CA.: Rand Corporation.

Guarino, C.M., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G.A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A

review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 173-208.

Haberman, M. (1987). Recruiting and selecting teachers for urban schools. New York: ERIC

Clearing House on Urban Education

Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of

Human Resources, 39, 326-354.

Hong, J.Y. (2012). Why do some beginning teachers leave the school, and others stay?

Understanding teacher resilience through psychological lenses. Teachers and Teachings:

Teacher Theory, (18)4, 417-440.

Hughes, G.D. (2012). Teacher retention: Teacher characteristics, school characteristics,

organizational characteristics, and teacher efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research,

105, 245-255.

Hunt, J., & Carroll, T. (2002). Unraveling the ‘Teacher shortage’ problem: Teacher retention is

the key. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Retrieved from

http://www.nctaf.org/resources/research_and_reports/nctaf_research_reports/index.htm.

27

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

Ingersoll, R.M. (2009, April). The aging teaching workforce: A snapshot. Retrieved from the

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future:

http://www.nctaf.org/documents/NCTAFAgeDistribution408REG_000.pdf.

Ingersoll, R.M., & Smith, T.M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational

Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.

Ingersoll, R.M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.

American Education Research Journal, 38, 499-534.

Jacob, B.A. (2007). The challenge of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. Future of

Children, 17(1), 129-153.

Johnson, S., & Birkeland, S. (2003). Pursuing a ‘sense of success’: New teachers explain their

career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581–617.

Kersaint, G., Lewis, J., Potter, R., & Meisels, G. (2007). Why teachers leave: Factors that

influence retention and resignation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 775–794.

Kim, J.Y. (2009). If at first you don’t succeed. A study of teacher resiliency in sixteen public

urban elementary schools (Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses database.

Kirby, S., Grissmer, D., & Hudson, L. (1991). Sources of teacher supply: Some new evidence

from Indiana. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 256-268.

Kukla-Acevedo, S. (2009). Leavers, movers, and stayers: The role of workplace conditions in

teacher mobility decisions. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 443–452.

Latham, N. I., & Vogt, W. P. (2007). Do professional development schools reduce teacher

attrition? Evidence from a longitudinal study of 1,000 graduates. Journal of Teacher

Education, 58, 153–167.

28

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.

Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mitzel, H.E. (1960). Teacher effectiveness. In C.W. Harris. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational

research. (3rd ed., pp. 1481-1486), New York: Macmillan.

Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., & Wilett, J. B. (1989). The influences of salaries and “opportunity

costs” on teachers’ career choices: Evidence from North Carolina. Harvard Educational

Review, 59, 325-346.

Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., Wilett, J.B., Kemple, J.J., Olsen, R.J. (1991). Who will teach?

Policies that matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Noguera, P., & Wells, L. (2011). The politics of school reform: A broader and bolder approach

for Newark. Berkley Review of EducaitonEducation, 2(1), 1-21.

Pajares, M.F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational

Research, 66(4), 543–578.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perrachione, B.A., Rosser, V.J., & Peterson, G.J. (2008). Why do they stay? Elementary teachers

perceptions of job satisfaction and retention. The Professional Educator, 32(2), 25-41.

Quartz, K.H. (2003). ‘Too angry to leave’: Supporting new teachers’ commitment to transform

urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 99–111.

Singer, J.D. (1993). Are special educators’ career paths special? Results from a 13 year

longitudinal study. Exceptional Children, 59, 262-279.

Shen, J. (1997). Teacher retention and attrition in public schools: Evidence from SASS91. The

Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 81-88.

29

Running head: TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY

Stockard, J., & Lehman, M. (2004). Influences on the satisfaction and retention of 1st-year

teachers: The importance of effective school management. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 40, 742–771.

Tait, M. (2008). Resilience as a contributor to novice teacher success, commitment, and

retention. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(4), 57–75.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A.W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review

of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.

Ulvik, M., Smith, K., & Helleve, I. (2009). Novice in secondary school – the coin has two sides.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 835–842.

Watlington, E.M., Shockley, R., Guglielmino, P., & Felsher, R. (2010). The high cost of leaving:

An analysis of the cost of teacher turnover. Journal of Education Finance, 36(1), 22-37.

Weiss, E.M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale, career

choice commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 15(8), 861–879.

White, P., & Smith, E. (2005). What can PISA tell us about teacher shortage? European Journal

of Education, 40(1), 93–112.

30