THOMPSON RIVERS UNIVERSITY

Professional Reflection: Its Implementation in Instructional Leadership and
Effect on Collective-Efficacy

by
Benjamin R. Josephson

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
Master of Education
Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada
September 2019
Thesis examining committee:
Dr. Victoria (Tory) Handford, Associate Professor and Thesis Supervisor,
Faculty of Education and Social Work, Thompson Rivers University
Dr. John Churchley, Principal Lecturer and Committee Member, Faculty of
Education and Social Work, Thompson Rivers University.
Mr. Bernie Warren, Faculty Member and Committee Member, Faculty of
Business and Economics, Thompson Rivers University.
Dr. Shelleyann Scott, Professor and External Examiner, Werklund School of
Education, University of Calgary.
…
© Benjamin R. Josephson, 2019

ABSTRACT
This research investigates instructional leadership practices, examining
professional reflection being implemented in high performing private schools
in the Philippines and how those practices contribute to collective-efficacy of
those schools. The first research question is: how are instructional leaders
using professional reflection for teacher growth in their practice? The second
research question is: how do those leadership practices contribute to teacher
collective-efficacy?
Participants in this study were six school leaders from five different
private schools in the Philippines, as well as faculty reporting to those school
leaders. The school leaders were interviewed about their current practices, and
both school leaders and faculty were given a survey to measure collectiveefficacy.
The interviews yielded three overarching themes about what
instructional leaders were doing to influence professional reflection: making
sure there was time and protocols in place at the beginning of the school year;
being intentional about the type, frequency, and relevance of feedback; and
creating collaborative environments of distributed leadership where teachers
were helping teachers, without the presence of school leaders.
While survey results did not meet the threshold of reliability, they do
suggest that faculty who practice peer observation have better trust in
colleagues resulting in higher collective-efficacy.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to acknowledge the support of my wife, Katelin,
through the writing of this thesis and indeed the entire Master’s program
through TRU. Her support and willingness to allow me the time and focus to
complete this study, as well as her belief in my ability to do well has been the
driving force behind my success. Thank you for being the woman you are.
I would also like to acknowledge and thank my committee members. To
Dr. John Churchley, your feedback and advice has been timely, and you have
encouraged me to persevere through difficult times. To Mr. Bernie Warren,
your feedback has certainly aided in strengthening my research, in particular
the statistical analysis of data. To Dr. Shelleyann Scott, your standard for
excellence has pushed me to be a more considerate and diligent researcher and
writer, and your feedback has made this study stronger. And finally, to my
thesis supervisor Dr. Tory Handford, the time, effort and advice you have
provided throughout this entire process was invaluable. I always looked
forward to our meetings, and always left with a head full of questions and the
renewed drive to pursue this study. Your enthusiasm and humour were big
factors in the completion of this study. Thank you for being my guide on this
journey.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ...............................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................iii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................vii
Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................................................................1
My Positionality .................................................................................................................2
Reflective Practitioners’ Reports ................................................................................2
Purpose of the Study.........................................................................................................6
Research Questions ..........................................................................................................6
Conceptual Framework ……………………...………………....…………………………...7
Chapter Two: Literature Review .......................................................................................10
Self and Collective-Efficacy .........................................................................................10
The Measure of Efficacy ...............................................................................................15
Professional Reflection .................................................................................................19
Teacher Evaluation and Supervision .....................................................................21
School Leadership ..........................................................................................................25
Professional Learning Communities ......................................................................31
A System on Evaluation ...............................................................................................33
Chapter Three: Methodology ...............................................................................................35
Research Design and Rational ...................................................................................35
Procedure ...........................................................................................................................35
Participant Selection .....................................................................................................36
iv

Study Participants ..........................................................................................................37
Data Collection Instruments ......................................................................................39
Chapter Four: Findings and Discussion .........................................................................45
Quantitative Findings: Efficacy Surveys ...............................................................46
Qualitative Findings .......................................................................................................55
Theme 1—Protocols ......................................................................................................55
Theme 2—Feedback ......................................................................................................61
Theme 3—Distributed Leadership .........................................................................67
Summary ............................................................................................................................69
Chapter Five: Limitations and Future Considerations ..........................................71
Chapter Six: Conclusion ..........................................................................................................76
References ......................................................................................................................................78
Appendices .....................................................................................................................................86
Appendix A: Interview Protocols ................................................................................86
Appendix B: Consent Form ............................................................................................87
Appendix C: Collective Efficacy Survey ....................................................................88
Appendix D: Transcriber Confidentiality Agreement ........................................90

v

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. RPR Building Blocks ……………………………………………………………………….6
Figure 2. A Model of Collective Teacher Efficacy .............................................................13
Figure 3. Contributions to Measures of Efficacy ..............................................................17
Figure 4. Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching............................................22
Figure 5. A Framework for School Leader Influence .....................................................27
Figure 6. Collective Teacher Efficacy Instrument ...........................................................41
Figure 7. Forces Affecting Collective Efficacy ..................................................................42
Figure 8. Factor Loading for a One-Factor Solution .......................................................43
Figure 9. Reliabilities and Correlations for Collective Teacher Efficacy Scale ....44
Figure 10. Emerging Themes ...................................................................................................46
Figure 11. Average Group Competence and Task Analysis Across School ...........52
Figure 12. Average Group Competence and Task Analysis Within a School .......53
Figure 13. Ten Questions for Better Feedback for Teachers.......................................64

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Participant Demographics ........................................................................................38
Table 2 Median GC Efficacy of Faculty compared to School Leaders ......................47
Table 3 Median TA Efficacy of Faculty compared to School Leaders .....................48
Table 4 Median Efficacy Scores per School ........................................................................49
Table 5 School Median by Question Category ...................................................................51

vii

Chapter One: Introduction
Any school leader would say that their ultimate goal is to improve student
achievement in their schools. The number one factor contributing to student
achievement, beyond conditions in the home, is classroom teachers (Aldeman,
2017). Classroom teachers come with a variety of skills and experience levels in
every school. Improving the quality of teaching among committed teaching
professionals who are already in our schools, and ultimately make gains in student
well-being and achievement, is the key (Wiliam, 2014). A school leader must help
motivate faculty to become ever-better, more effective, professionals. Much like we
teach our students to be better critical and reflective thinkers, school leaders need
to work with teachers to do the same.
Donald Schon (1983) has done extensive research into how professionals
use reflection in action in their work. He writes about how it is crucial to reframe
problems in order to solve them. Professionals will encounter specific situations
that are new to them, and they can use previous experience or subject knowledge
to look at their problem in a new, more familiar way to find creative solutions. This
often occurs with the help of a mentor or collaborative partner. This is one process
of professional improvement individual teachers can use in order to improve
themselves professionally. Many school leaders are encouraging this process of
professional development in their schools currently (Awkard, 2017; Boud, 2001;
Danielson, 2016; Derrington, & Campbell, 2015; Sergiovanni, 2009).
The more effective professional teachers feel they are in the classroom, the
more confident and likely they will be to try new ways of solving problems they
face (Bandura, 1997). This is their sense of self-efficacy; their perceived ability to
impact student achievement. This concept of efficacy extends to how teachers
collectively see their school as being able to produce high student achievement.
This collective sense of efficacy is equally as important as self–efficacy in
motivating teachers to become more effective educators. School leaders should
help teachers foster a sense of positive collective-efficacy. This study looks at ways
school leaders have done this in five International Schools in the Philippines.
1

This study will be interesting for school leaders attentive to instructional
leadership behaviours and the collective-efficacy in their school. While the study
takes place in private International schools in the Philippines, the findings are
likely relevant to many international contexts, particularly in South East Asia.
Above all, this study aims to provide practical, actionable information to school
leaders.
My Positionality
To begin, I would like to provide some positioning information about
myself. I am a Canadian born and educated teacher. I worked in Canada for three
years before becoming an international teacher in the Philippines. I have been
working in the Philippines for a total of five years and have been a practicing
school principal for the past two years. Our school is located in the northern
Philippine mountainous region called the Cordilleras, though the language of
instruction is all in English.
My school operates in a similar context to the other school used in this
study; and although the work I did in my own school helped a great deal in
inspiring my interest in this research, none of the data used in this study came
from my own school, or any school in which I have any administrative influence.
The schools used in the research are Private International schools in the
Philippines. These schools have their own board of directors, and are granted
permission to operate outside of the Philippines Department of Education—
meaning they have developed their own curriculum and are externally accredited.
Families at these schools pay full tuition, and perspective students must meet
certain academic selection criteria. This means that the most common
demographic are students in the upper-middle/upper social class who are high in
academic achievement. They come from a home background that highly values
education, where one or both parents hold a university degree.
Reflective Practitioners’ Reports
The Reflective Practitioners Reports (RPR) were created in the school
wherein I took on the role of School Principal (PreK-12) after having taught for
2

three years. This was a private International school in the Philippines with a mix of
Filipino and non-Filipino faculty and students. The RPR program began as an
initiative to respond to a recommendation from our school’s accrediting body,
which indicated that we needed to do more as a whole school to support our
English Language Learners. Being an international school, many of our students
had learned English as another language, and all of our classes were conducted in
English. There was certainly a need for us to improve our professional practices in
this area. After a series of meetings, our Language Pastoral Committee created a set
of protocols we called Differentiation Strategy Groups (DSG).
Being a small, private school, we were uniquely positioned to accommodate
a fair amount of professional development time. Teachers met in collaborative
learning communities once each week for one hour before students arrived to
discuss the English Language Learners and their academic progress. The goal was
to identify learning issues these students were experiencing and create
differentiation strategies that addressed specific individual needs. All teachers
then used these strategies with the student in their own subject area.
Initially the meetings were less formal, with detailed outcomes sometimes
missing. Over time, more specific protocols were set in place to assist teachers with
focusing on the task. Big questions were posted during the meetings to ensure
comments were pointed and relevant. Time frames were created to ensure that the
meeting goals were addressed. The process was continually refined throughout the
first year. At the end of that time, we asked for feedback about the DSG
effectiveness in assisting teachers with meaningful adaptations to the instructional
program. It was very positive. Teachers identified that the meetings were relevant
and practical, and they reported significant improvements among many of the
English Language Learners in their classrooms. In addition, they also reported
valuing working with colleagues and collaborating professionally in this way.
One major adjustment made, as administrators did not take part in the
meetings, was the need for teachers to document the discussions they were having
and the strategies they were using in order to be accountable for the work done
3

through the DSG meetings. Templates for ‘agendas’ and ‘meeting notes’ were
created. We consolidated data about the students, and began building a
Differentiation Strategy Toolbox, where the various teaching and learning
strategies used and researched were stored. Meetings continued into the second
semester to provide opportunities to check on progress made by the students since
semester one, and to identify further instructional refinements to the strategies
that might be helpful.
In time, the focus expanded. Instead of considering only English Language
Learners, the DSG began considering all learners who were perceived as having
difficulties in their classes, be they in Learning Support with learning disabilities,
or those with gaps in basic skills due to being displaced mid-term—usually due to
parents being re-assigned to a different country. More detailed feedback was now
being collected from teachers’ reflections about their classes and the program as a
whole.
As is common in schools, other new initiatives started to need attention,
and the time once dedicated to DSG started to diminish. In an effort to maintain the
program, the Reflective Practitioners Reports were born. It was widely held that,
time consuming as it was, the DSG were a valuable set of protocols, and efforts to
continue this type of work was worth the investment as the benefits were well
noted.
The teachers enjoyed the collaborative nature of the DSG. These
professional learning communities were taken seriously, and practical discussions
and solutions came from the protocols set for the meetings. Teachers were solving
problems together, and collectively assembling a body of knowledge with practical
use in their classrooms. In addition, they were reporting marked improvements in
their students, and hearing about the same problems and growth from the various
classroom teachers who shared the same student.
From an administrative perspective, it was noticed that teachers were
engaged in self-directed professional development that was resulting in higher
student achievement. Herein was a system through which it was possible to
4

observe and measure teacher growth, and wherein teachers were engaging in
efforts to improve themselves professionally. It was decided to merge the DSG
protocols with the teacher evaluation process. The result of this merger is the
Reflective Practitioner Report.
After piloting the program with a small group of teachers—nine in total—
some adjustments were made. The adjusted program was implemented across the
whole school the following year. Teachers continued meeting in their Professional
Learning Communities and helped each other construct an action plan to bring
back to their individual classrooms. Over a six-week period, teachers collected
data, recoded observations, and got feedback from supervisors. At the end of the
six weeks, teachers met again to reflect on the impact of their action plan and
wrote a report, which was submitted to their supervisor. This process was then
used as their annual evaluation. This whole process evolved over the course of five
years, based on the context and needs of the school. Through the context of the
RPR program, I became interested in researching instructional leadership
behaviours and their affect on collective efficacy within my school. In this
research, I was interested in looking beyond my own context at what other schools
and school leaders are doing to promote professional reflection and efficacy.
The following Figure 1 shows how some key concepts explored later in the
literature review come together in building the RPR program.

5

Figure 1. RPR Building Blocks

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research is to examine how programs encouraging
professional reflection and teacher growth have evolved and are practiced in
private schools in the Philippines, how school leaders are using this in their
supervision/evaluation of faculty, and how teacher efficacy is affected by the
practice of these programs.
Research Questions
This research seeks to answer the following questions:
1. How are instructional leaders using professional reflection for teacher
growth in their practice?
2. How do those leadership practices contribute to teacher collective-efficacy?

6

Conceptual Framework
The following sections provides a framework for the organization of the
literature review. It will briefly outline what each section is about and why it is
important to this study.
Self and Collective-efficacy
Efficacy refers to the degree that an individual or a collective of individuals
interprets the ability of their actions to affect an outcome. Those with a high level
of self-efficacy believe their actions have a great result on an outcome, while those
with low efficacy do not believe their actions have much effect on an outcome. This
concept extends to a collection of individuals and their beliefs about the efficacy of
the collective to influence an outcome.
This section will look at literature related to the study of both self and
collective-efficacy, as well as provide an overview of some research relating to the
measurement of efficacy. The tool used to measure collective-efficacy for this study
was developed using this research.
Collective-efficacy is important to this research, as one of the outcomes
noticed in participating in the RPR program was an increased sense of collectiveefficacy among the teaching faculty who collaborated on their RPR report.
Professional Reflection
Professional reflection is the critical examination of actions or decisions
taken by a professional in order to inform and improve future practice. (Bandura,
1997). Professionals, though often experienced and educated, will often encounter
new problems or dynamic situations. Professional reflection involves taking these
unique situations and reframing them into a more familiar context in order to
make better decisions.
This section will look at research related to professional reflection and its
potential impact on both efficacy and leadership.
As the RPR program suggests, reflection is a large component of the process
teachers engaged in. It was the organizing principle behind the collaboration

7

involved in the professional learning communities. It is, therefore, an important
concept to review for the purposes of this research.
Teacher Evaluation and Supervision
This section reviews the research related to teacher evaluation and its
impact of schools and faculties, as well as research related to teacher supervision
and how school leaders must be cognisant of how the two roles affect each other.
Teacher evaluation is a major responsibility for school leaders. These
evaluations are sometimes formal processes and reports that can carry significant
professional consequences for teachers.
Teacher supervision is not the same as teacher evaluation. Teacher
supervision refers to the school leader’s role of helping and supporting teachers in
their school.
Often times, both of these roles are occurring simultaneously as school
leaders are in classrooms, and behaviours that promote one can harm the other.
School leaders must find a balance between these two roles.
Whether engaged in teacher evaluation or teacher supervision, school
leaders are visiting classrooms where teachers are actively teaching students. The
two roles often become merged, something school leaders may need to separate
again, if issues of underperformance emerge. School leaders must be aware of
these two concepts and actively make decisions in order to effectively practice
both.
School Leadership
School leadership, in particular instructional leadership, takes a closer look
at the responsibilities required of school leaders to practice teacher supervision.
This section focuses on research relating to behaviours of school leaders which
have a positive impact on schools, as well as factors that influence school
leadership.
As the intended audience of this study are school leaders, some research
about this concept is necessary in order to give some context to the discussions
held during the interviews.
8

Professional Learning Communities
Professional learning communities are groups of peers within a school who
take a collaborative approach to shared learning. Teachers who belong to
successful professional learning communities are committed to their own
professional advancement, as well as that of their colleagues. Teachers are seeking
best practices with a focus on student achievement. Peer coaching, observation,
and discussion all contribute to a building of trust in colleagues. School leaders
should not seek to manage these groups, but rather to cultivate them
(Wenger & Snyder, 2000).
Professional Learning Communities are the main component around which
the RPR has been organized. They are recognized as an excellent source of
professional development and are an important foundational concept to be
explored in the literature review.
A System of Evaluation
Much as the ‘school leadership’ section looks more closely at research
related to the practice of teacher supervision behaviours, this section looks more
closely at research related to teacher evaluation behaviours. This research
considers how a system can be created within a school where school leaders are
able to effectively fulfill the roles of both evaluator and supervisor.
This concept is foundational to the RPR process and provides good
groundwork for the discussion of systems, or programs, that other school leaders
have in place and how they interact with their faculties.

9

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter will review the related literature on the topics discussed in the
conceptual framework of the previous chapter. Each topic will be discussed in the
same order in which they appeared in the previous section, which is: a) Self and
Collective-efficacy, b) Professional Reflection, c) Teacher Evaluation and
Supervision, d) School Leadership, e) Professional Learning Communities, and f) A
System of Evaluation.
Self and Collective-Efficacy
The theory of collective teacher efficacy, the perception of teachers within a
school that their behaviour has the ability to affect student achievement, is based
on Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory; a unified theory of behavioural
change. Initially, the research was based on the concept of self-efficacy, which
focuses on how people exercise control over their lives. The exercise of control is a
sense of self-efficacy; the “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute a
course of action required to produce a given attainment” (p. 197). Self-efficacy is
important for teachers because, if they believe their actions have the capacity to
influence student achievement, they will be far more likely to take actions that do
influence student achievement. It also aims to explain how, even though selfefficacy is a belief that does not necessarily reflect actual capability, positive selfefficacy does eventually produce actual capacities (Leithwood & Beatty, 2008).
Bandura (1997) asserts that teacher efficacy is a type of self-efficacy, and that it
governs many aspects of human functions and mediates how teachers think, feel,
behave, and are motivated.
In order to better understand collective teacher efficacy, it is important first
to examine what is known about individual teacher efficacy (Goddard, Hoy, &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). Bandura (1977) identifies four major sources of information
that influence an individual’s sense of personal efficacy: mastery experiences,
vicarious experiences, social persuasion and emotional state. For teachers, “these
four sources contribute to both the analysis of the teaching task and to self10

perceptions of teaching competences” (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy,
1998, p. 228).
Mastery experiences. This is the most influential source of information for
self-efficacy because is it based on personal mastery experiences (Bandura, 1977).
When an individual successfully accomplishes a task, they raise their mastery
expectations; by contrast, failure lowers those expectations. It is only in situations
of actual teaching that teachers can assess their true capability to perform their
task and experience the consequences of those capabilities (Tschannen-Moran et
al., 1998). It is important that teachers experience and overcome challenges with
little assistance, as too much assistance in their mastery experience will result in
little to no increase in self-efficacy. It is also important that teachers attribute the
success of their students to their actions as teachers; attributing failure to a lack of
effort or outside factors will result in lowering self-efficacy as these factors are
beyond the teacher’s control (Goddard et al., 2000).
In addition, Bandura (1993) describes the source of perceived ability to
perform tasks as crucial to self-efficacy. There can be a belief in inherent capacity
or acquired skill. Those who believe that teachers have an inherent capacity to
accomplish a teaching task, are more likely to experience an eroding sense of selfefficacy, as oppose to those who believe they have the capacity to acquire the
necessary skills through experience, who will be more likely to set challenging
goals for themselves and to engage in problem solving behaviour (Leithwood &
Beatty, 2008).
Emotional state. This relates to the level of emotional, and physiological
arousal a teacher experiences while engaged in a teaching situation. Positive
emotions, such as relaxation or self-assurance, raise the expectation of future
success (Tschannen-Moran et al, 1998). However, negative emotions may
overwhelm teachers and lead to high levels of stress and anxiety, which can be
debilitating in a teaching situation. Bandura (1977) notes that where deficits exist,
individuals will experience fear and avoidance in the face of them. They must

11

develop coping skills and willingly confront fears in order for positive emotion to
be gained and self-efficacy to be increased.
Vicarious experiences. This is when teachers acquire information about
the mastery experiences of other teachers. Hearing about these experiences
enables teachers to “persuade themselves that if others can do it, they should be
able to achieve at least some improvement in performance” (Bandura, 1977, p.
197). While the influence of vicarious experience is less prominent than mastery
experiences, it is nevertheless a good source of information in understanding
which students can learn, how much a student can lean, and who is responsible for
making a difference in their learning (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). In schools,
this often takes the form of collaborative teams to meetings intended to allow
teachers to talk with each other about their practice.
However, a major factor in preventing collaboration in schools is time
management (Beltman, Mansfield, & Price, 2011), as teaching schedules are
generally developed in relation to time students spend in the classroom, not in
relation to allowing teachers time to meet and work together. Working in isolation
has a greater capacity to lower teacher efficacy, while collaborative environments
work to increase confidence and belief in one’s self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
Social persuasion. Social persuasion can take several forms, from advice,
experiential information, and even feedback. The most influential social persuasion
occurs when teachers are encouraged in their abilities to productively address
situations that have overwhelmed them in the past; but it can also be effective to
increase personal efficacy through communication of corrective performance
(Bandura, 1977). Much like vicarious experiences, information about others’
experiences, coursework, or professional development workshops, can persuade
teachers to try new approaches with positive expectations.
Collective-efficacy is an extension of the concept of self-efficacy applied to a
group. As an individual’s self-efficacy is a good predictor of the way an individual
behaves, this can be extended to the notion of collective-efficacy (Goddard et al.,
12

2000). Bandura (1993) found that a teacher’s perceptions about how their school
could affect students’ learning is just as predictive as a teacher’s perception of their
own ability to affect student learning. Bandura (1997) uses “the term reciprocal
causality, a two-way relationship, while interpreting the relationship between
collective teacher efficacy and teachers’ self-efficacy” (Çalik, Sezgin, Kavgaci, &
Kilinç, 2012). Self-efficacy and collective-efficacy form a positive feedback loop,
each enhancing the level of the other. Goddard et al. (2000) describes it as the
sum—collective-efficacy—being greater than its parts—teacher efficacy.
Figure 2 provides a visual model, developed by Goddard et al. of the cycle of
collective-efficacy development.

Figure 2. A Model of Collective Teacher Efficacy. Source: Goddard et al. (2000).

In this figure, the researchers note that data accumulated through the sources of
collective-efficacy are then analysed and interpreted in two categories, the analysis
13

of the teaching task and the assessment of teaching competence. The analysis of
the teaching task takes place at both the individual and whole school level. This
analysis produces inferences about what is involved for the teacher, or teachers at
the school, to be successful. Influences on this analysis could be the ability and
motivation of students, instructional materials used by the school, the influences of
the community, and the school’s physical plant. These factors also influence the
teacher’s expectation of student ability and motivation. The assessment of teaching
competence occurs when teachers make specific judgements about their (personal,
and faculty-wide) teaching skills, methods, training, and expertise. As Figure 1
shows, these two domains are not processed independent of each other, but
interact as collective-efficacy emerges (Goddard et al., 2000).
Schools whose teachers have a high level of collective-efficacy are better
able to manage change and are more resilient in the face of challenges (Kunnari,
Ilomaki, & Toom, 2018). Teacher efficacy has been found to have an impact on
teacher effectiveness (Sehgal, Nambudiri, & Mishra, 2017), as well as student
performance (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Çalik et al., 2012; Gibson & Dembo, 1984).
Goddard et al. (2000) note schools that aim to develop collective teacher efficacy
also experience continuous growth in student achievement, as an expectation of
successful students becomes the normative environment within the school.
Collective teacher efficacy fosters creativity, effort, and persistence that supports
student learning, by fostering high achievement overall, and also through
contributions to the reduction of achievement gaps (Goddard, Skrla, & Salloum,
2017). Leadership behaviours can also have an effect on determining teachers’
perceptions of self and collective-efficacy (Çalik et al., 2012).
Teachers who work in collaborative environments have more potential to
increase collective-efficacy (Sehgal et al., 2017). Kunnari et al. (2018) conducted a
study that looked at teams of teachers who were assigned to work collaboratively
to overcome obstacles, and found that their joint ability to contribute to solutions
and ultimately solve problems improved the way the teachers interacted with

14

students and colleagues. It also had important influences on how teachers
regulated themselves and their work.
It is worth noting next the research that has contributed to the
measurement of efficacy.
Measuring Efficacy
Measuring efficacy has undergone extensive research, which is reviewed in
some detail in the work of Tschannen-Moran, (1998), and her colleagues. They
considered a variety of contributions towards the understanding and measure of
teacher efficacy starting with the RAND group (Armor, Conroy-Oseguera, Cox, King,
McDonell, Pascal, Pauly, & Zellman, 1976) who studied the effects of external and
internal influences on teachers’ perceptions and behaviours towards students. The
Responsibility for Student Achievement survey (Guskey, 1981), extended the
RAND study to a 30-item instrument of external and internal factors, and offered
four types of causes for success or failure: specific teacher abilities, the effort put
into teaching, the task difficulty, and luck (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). The
Webb Efficacy Scale (Ashton, Olejnik, Crocker, & McAuliffe, 1982) also sought to
expand on the RAND study by reducing the problem of social desirability bias.
They did this by using a forced-choice format —participants had to choose
between two statements, which statement did they agreed with most strongly—
with items that matched for social desirability. The Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson
& Dembo, 1984) was a more extensive and reliable measure of efficacy. It reflected
the two expectancies of Bandura’s social cognitive theory: self-efficacy, teachers’
perception of their own skills and abilities; and outcome efficacy, teachers’ belief
that the environment could be controlled (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).
They identified the factors of personal teaching efficacy, which reflected selfefficacy; and general teaching efficacy, which reflected outcome efficacy. Most
significantly, this study also found evidence for the relationship between teacher
efficacy and student achievement, noting that fifth grade students who had a
teacher that scored highly in personal teaching efficacy and general teaching
15

efficacy outperformed their peers who had teachers that scored lower in those two
factors (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Finally, Bandura’s (1997) Teacher Efficacy Scale
sought to increase the level of specificity for the instrument, as he felt the current
measures were too general. He incorporated the element of teaching context into
his instrument by measuring seven subscales: influence on decision-making,
influence on school resources, instructional efficacy, disciplinary efficacy, enlisting
parental involvement, enlisting community involvement, and creating positive
school climate (Bandura, 1997).
Figure 3 below shows the major researchers, their contributions to the
measuring of efficacy, and the structure and item type of their instruments.

16

Figure 3. Contributions to Measures of Efficacy. Source: Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998, p. 208-209)

17

18

These studies all contributed to the efficacy measure that Goddard (2000)
and his colleagues developed. In this instrument they shift their questions from the
individual’s orientation to the group’s orientation, as this better represents the
collective experience of a faculty.
Teachers must feel that they have the ability to improve themselves and
their students in order to grow in efficacy. One way that teachers can grow in this
way in through professional reflection. The following section will look at literature
related to professional reflection and its application to efficacy.
Professional Reflection
Self-reflection contributes to teacher self-efficacy (Bandura, 1993).
Kayapinar (2016), in his research on introducing a reflective practitioner’s model
to in-service teacher development, notes that good personal reflection skills
improve self-efficacy. Though the link is under-researched, it certainly warrants
closer study as definite links have been drawn. Calkins and Harris (2017) found, in
a study of long-term impacts of critical reflection in faculty development, that
critical reflection armed participants with “a sense of enhanced teaching ability,
the skills required to implement the changes, and an improved sense of
transparency and the ability to communicate expectations clearly to students” (p.
34).
Reflection is making something new out of the old. In the case of
professional reflection, reflection takes experiences and observations of the past,
applies critical thinking, and creates new understandings and worldviews from
them. “All learning builds on existing perceptions and frameworks of
understanding; therefore, links must be made between what is new and what
already exists if learners are to make sense of what is happening to them” (Boud,
2001, p. 12). In education, reflection is an important element in assessment for this
very reason: it helps guide the creation of links between what is known, and what
is happening. This happens through a process and at various levels, and repeats
constantly.
Laverick (2017), in his research, describes five levels of reflection; rapid
19

reflection, repair, review, research, and retheorizing and reformulating. Teachers are
constantly employing the first three levels of reflection in their daily teaching, as
they make observations and adjustments for individual learners throughout a
lesson. The last two steps, research and retheorizing and reformulating take more
conscious effort for a teacher. At the research level, a teacher typically collects data,
or analyses research, and sustains their thinking on this over a period of time. In
retheorizing and reformulating, “teachers critically examine their own theories and
practice in regard to academic theories” (Laverick, 2017, p. 58). This model
encourages reflection to take place consciously, so the teacher can evaluate and
decide what he or she will or will not do—the goal of which is for the teacher to
move from saying ‘I think’ to the ability to say ‘I know’.
In particular, critical reflection is the point where assessment becomes
learning. “Learning through critical reflection is assisted where students have
three attributes, namely: open-mindedness; responsibility; and wholeheartedness”
(Densten & Gray, 2001, p. 120). These three attributes are what make reflection
effective. Yost, Stentner, and Forlenza-Bailey (2000) define open-mindedness as
the ability to see things from multiple points of view, and suggest that proper
mentorship can nurture this attribute. They define responsibility as “a perceived
duty to search for truth and use knowledge for positive change” (p. 46), and
wholeheartedness as being critical of one’s own actions and thinking. Where these
three attributes meet, effective self-reflection occurs.
Self-reflection is not something that should be done alone; “Adding others
in the reflection process makes it easier to reduce individual bias” (Laverick, 2017,
p. 56). To be truly wholehearted, others must be involved at multiple levels of the
process. Collecting data, analysing the data, and lending constructive criticism are
all ways that coordination between peers and supervisors help reflectors achieve
higher levels of thinking (Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000).
In his book The Reflective Practitioner, Donald Schon (1983) speaks about
the role of the supervisor in aiding professionals with reflection-in-action.
Professionals will often encounter situations with which they are unfamiliar and
20

may have a hard time bringing past experiences to bear on their new problem. The
supervisor must help the professional reframe the problem into a method of
inquiry in which they are confident. Supervisors, or mentors, are well suited for
this task when they have adequate experience in order to be able to draw upon a
many past circumstances. They should also be capable of thinking in several
different frameworks related to their profession as new problems may require
different frameworks to be solved.
The next section of this literature review shifts into the realm of school
leadership. It will look at how school leaders might be able to contribute to
professional reflection and collective-efficacy of teaching faculties. The following
section explores research on the dual role of a school leader as teacher evaluator
and supervisor.
Teacher Evaluation and Supervision
There is a balance to be struck by school leaders when addressing issues of
teacher supervision and teacher evaluation. This can be tricky to navigate, as
teacher evaluation requires authority and sound judgement. Depending on the
school, teacher evaluation can also carry real consequences for teachers in the
form of rewards or punishment (Zhang & Ng, 2017). Teacher supervision, on the
other hand, requires a collegially responsive relationship that “is focused on
ongoing support, teacher improvement, and teacher professional growth” (Mette,
Anderson, Nieuwenhuizen, Range, Hvidston, & Doty, 2017, p. 710). In this regard,
reflection on teaching practices can be an invaluable professional development
tool. Behaviours that aid in one, such as a focus on accountability or determining
and documenting a level of performance, can harm the other, such as providing
support, development, and facilitating reflection. There is a need for school leaders
to reconceptualise how they think of their role in regard to supervision and
evaluation in order to function as they need to function (Mette et al., 2017).
There are many systems of teacher appraisal in place, and the outcomes can
have an effect on teacher retention, promotion, and tenure (Derrington &
Campbell, 2015, p. 306). Amzat (2017) describes his key performance indicators
21

for educators: teaching philosophy, teacher’s expectations, teaching objectives,
pedagogical content knowledge, and classroom management. In his view, it is
mastery of these domains that constitutes an excellent educator. His study was
conducted in Malaysia, where teacher appraisal ratings affect teachers’ jobs in
significant areas, such as salary, hiring, tenure, promotion, and official rating.
Charlotte Danielson, in her work with the Danielson Group (2014) has
developed a framework for effective teaching. This framework is presented in
Figure 4. In it, she identifies four domains of effective teaching: Planning and
preparation, the classroom environment, professional responsibilities, and
instruction.

Figure 4. Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching. Source: The Danielson
Group LLC (2014).

22

In her publication, Danielson (2013) elaborates more fully on each of her
proposed domains. In Domain 1, teachers must show they have a command of the
subjects that they teach, and also the pedagogical approaches that are best suited
for their subjects. Domain 2 emphasises the classroom’s atmosphere as a ‘culture
of learning’ where the notion of hard work involves precision in thought and
language. Domain 3 has an instructional focus, including items such as teacher
communication with students, questioning and discussion, engaging and assessing
students, and demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness. The final domain
(Domain 4) of the framework defines the professional responsibilities of the
teacher in their own personal professional development habits and decision and in
their communication with community stakeholders.
In regard to teacher reflection as a professional responsibility, Danielson
(2013) notes that reflection must be accurate and actionable. She elaborates
further, stating:
Reflecting on teaching encompasses the teacher’s thinking that follows any
instructional event, an analysis of the many decisions made in both the
planning and the implementation of a lesson. By considering these elements
in light of the impact they had on student learning, teachers can determine
where to focus their efforts in making revisions and choose which aspects of
the instruction they will continue in future lessons. Teachers may reflect on
their practice through collegial conversations, journal writing, examining
student work, conversations with students, or simply thinking about their
teaching. Reflecting with accuracy and specificity, as well as being able to
use in future teaching what has been learned, is an acquired skill; mentors,
coaches, and supervisors can help teachers acquire and develop the skill of
reflecting on teaching through supportive and deep questioning. Over time,
this way of thinking both reflectively and self-critically and of analyzing
instruction through the lens of student learning—whether excellent,
adequate, or inadequate—becomes a habit of mind, leading to improvement
in teaching and learning. (p. 87)
Not every school practices teacher evaluation where there is such an impact
on the teachers’ jobs. Most of the research in this area has been conducted in
environments where school reform efforts are prevalent and job status is
23

dependent on the successful implementation of those reforms by teachers and
principals who are closely scrutinized in relation to both evaluation and
accountability.
However, in the research of Zhang and Ng (2017), they argue that “teacher
appraisal… has often deteriorated into a mechanical and meaningless exercise.
Teacher appraisal becomes a perfunctory ritual activity that is disjointed from the
process of teaching improvement and teachers’ professional development” (p.
197). This is from a study conducted in China, where teacher evaluation dictates
rank and salary. From an American perspective, Wiliam (2014) states “observation
protocols… do ’work’ in that students taught by teachers who are rated more
highly on the framework do learn more, but these frameworks are unable to
identify all, or even most, aspects of effective teaching” (p. 4). Zhang and Ng
(2011), in their earlier research, make mention that there is debate as to whether
an effective combined appraisal system for teacher evaluation and teacher
supervision can be achieved. Mette et al. (2017), speaking from the context of
schools in the United States, states that “the theory of supervision, the formative
feedback provided to teachers intended to promote growth as an instructor, can
exist in practice within the current high stakes agenda of school accountability that
predominately focuses on evaluation as a human resource function” (p. 722).
If teacher quality is the biggest contributing factor in student achievement
(Aldeman, 2017), then developing quality teachers in a school should be a priority.
Wiliam (2014) argues that “increased teacher quality requires investing in the
teachers already working in our schools” (p. 1). This is the responsibility of school
administration. Mette, Range, Anderson, Hvidston, and Nieuwenhuizen (2015)
note that for principals’ effectiveness, “helping teachers self-reflect was the most
important predictor of teachers’ ratings of principals’ supervisory effectiveness in
helping improve teacher instruction” (p. 24). This study focused on the teacher’s
perspective, and Mette (2015) and his colleagues note that research is still needed
from the perspective of the administration on teacher supervision and evaluation.

24

Merging the tasks of supervising and evaluating teachers helps to create “a
school culture that values ongoing learning through a shared leadership approach
to address school improvement efforts” (Mette et al, 2015, p. 25). Awkard (2017)
notes that, for principals practicing the roles of both evaluator and supervisor, “it is
critical that teachers see this as a collaborative effort in which they have
meaningful opportunities to steer the discussion, relying on the principal and
teacher leader to serve as critical friends, not as judges or evaluators?” (p. 55). One
of the main challenges in motivating teachers is engaging with them in improving
their own performance as teachers. This requires “organizational opportunities
that encourage teachers to think about their work in new ways and commit
themselves to new standards and goals” (Leithwood & Beatty, 2008, p. 77).
Creating a culture in this way creates a balance between supervision and
evaluation. Sebastian and Allensworth (2013) state, school leaders must:
coach and model good instruction, enable professional development for
teachers, hire effective teachers and fire ineffective ones, manage
relationships among staff members, facilitate collaboration around
instruction and student support, set the vision for the building, create ties
with families and communities, and maintain order and safety in the building
so that instruction can occur. (p. 1)
In order to go into further depth of how principals can go about marrying their
roles as supervisors and evaluators, a closer look at the research surrounding the
concepts of instructional leadership is needed.
School Leadership
There are a number of ways school leaders can exercise their influence to
increase student achievement. While school leadership does not directly influence
classroom learning, it has been found to be second only to classroom instruction
among all-school factors that contribute to student learning (Leithwood, Seashore
Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). School leaders are in a position to help
influence some of the sources that shape the nature of school conditions. Among
those sources are professional learning experiences, in which leaders can include
25

efficacy-building strategies. Çalik et al. (2012) notes that instructional leadership
influences the collective-efficacy of a school indirectly through individual teachers’
sense of self-efficacy.
The following Figure 5 illustrates the critical roles leaders play in the school
around identifying and supporting learning, structuring the social settings and
mediating external demands.

26

Figure 5. A Framework for School Leader Influence. Source: Leithwood et al.
(2004)

School leaders, though shown to be impacted by many factors themselves such as
standards, policies and experiences, have direct impact on both the school and
classroom conditions in which teachers work, and students learn.
27

Instructional leadership behaviours are also related to variables such as
professional development (Blasé & Blase, 1999). Leithwood (1996) describes this
type of behaviour as “developing people”. This is where leaders emphasise the
importance of internal professional development, which is focused on meeting the
priorities, concerns and needs individually identified by teachers (Day, Sammons,
Leithwood, Hopkins, Gu, Brown, & Ahtaridou, 2011).
Leithwood et al. (2004) notes that in order to engage in practice that helps
teachers develop professionally, leaders need a solid knowledge of the “technical
core” of schooling—sometimes referred to as instructional leadership. It is
important for principals in the role of evaluator to have a deep knowledge of
teaching and learning, understand how to give feedback, and how to plan
professional development that supports teacher learning. Instructional leadership
is largely about the ways in which principals are interacting with their faculty to
“build capacity of their teachers as leaders, training, and empowering teachers to
take ownership of their school’s improvement efforts” (Larkin, 2017, p. 31). Stein
and Nelson (2003) note that effective instructional leaders “must be able to know
strong instruction when they see it, to encourage it when they don’t, and to set the
conditions for continuous academic learning among their professional staffs” (p.
424). Evaluators who completed the National Board Certification program in the
United States reported that going through the process of personal reflection and
providing feedback to teachers was useful in evaluating effectiveness of others and
improving their own practice (Darling-Hammond, 2013).
Instructional leadership, compared to the more traditional operational
leadership, is quickly becoming noted as one of the most important focuses in
effective school leadership (Oleszewski, Shoho, & Barnett, 2012; Marks & Printy,
2003; Neumerski, 2012). Though there does not exist a single agreed upon
definition of exactly what is instructional leadership or its processes, it is most
commonly described as a set of behaviours. Neumerski (2012) offers that:
most common among the list of behaviours, instructional leadership was to
be carried out by the principal alone, and he or she was to be a strong,
28

directive leader, focused on building school culture, academic press, and high
expectations for student achievement. (p. 318)
According to Larkin (2017) there are three main effective instructional
leadership behaviours of principals, which include defining the school’s mission,
managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive learning climate. To
elaborate further on these behaviours, she states instructional leadership
behaviours of principals include:
(a) a principal’s ability to establish a shared mission, vision, and goals for
the school; ones that promote high expectations for the learning of all
students;
(b) a principal’s knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; and
their ability to support teacher’s instructions and students’ learning in the
classroom; and
(c) a principal’s ability to promote and establish safe, orderly, and positive
teaching and learning environments. (p. 28)
In their study, Hallinger and Murphy (1985) discuss these very dimensions of
focus for effective school leadership.
Defining the school’s mission. School leaders need to define school-wide
goals within their schools that focus on student achievement, and communicate
those goals with the objective of developing a shared purpose and vision (Larkin,
2017). This communication must take place across all school stakeholders,
including students, teachers, parents, and community members. All should have
the opportunity to provide feedback in helping shape that vision. Leithwood and
Beatty (2008) note that when stakeholders feel the school leader:
not only respected their contributions but also cared about their ideas and
their personal well-being, they were loyal to those leaders and would do
almost anything for them…The impact principals can have on the building of
29

a shared vision for the school is often meted out in daily seemingly minor
interactions. (p. 92-93)
The school mission must be more that the school leader’s mission; it must
also be the school community’s mission.
Managing the instructional program. Within their schools, school leaders
are responsible for ensuring that students are learning and achieving at a high
level through the supervision and evaluation of instruction, the coordination of
curriculum, and the monitoring of student progress (Larkin, 2017). This is done
indirectly, through the impact school leaders have on teachers and classroom
practices. Some of these impacts include formulating school goals, setting and
communicating high expectations, organizing classrooms, allocating required
resources, supervising teacher performance, monitoring student progress, and
promoting a positive environment for learning (Heck, Larsen, & Marcoulides,
1990). Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) note that effective school leaders are
knowledgeable about instructional, curricular, assessment, and classroom
practices. They must act as a ‘teacher of teachers’ in order to help their teachers
improve their craft.
Promoting the school’s climate. Larkin (2017) defines school climate as
“the beliefs, values, and interactions among a school’s staff, students, and parents”
(p. 34). These factors have a real impact on the teaching and learning that happens
inside a school. Principals must promote a positive culture by protecting
instructional time through the creation of policies and practices that minimize
classroom distractions, promoting continuous learning for all, maintaining high
visibility, and providing incentive for teachers and students (Hallinger & Murphy,
1985; Hallinger, 2005).
Many school leaders have established professional learning communities in
their schools as a method for professional development. The following section will
review literature related to professional learning communities as successful
professional development opportunities.
30

Professional Learning Communities
The formalization of professional learning communities began sometime in
the early 1990’s, some say in response to Peter Senge’s work The Fifth Discipline
[(1990). While many were engaging in practices that would later be described as
professional learning communities (PLC), the phrase has worked its way into the
educational lexicon, partly because it described succinctly a form of ongoing
professional practice, and partly due to the extensive marketing arm of the
DuFours (1998). Regardless of the formation, PLCs make a lot of sense. “We need
each other. We always have, but the price of failure to work with others near and
far has become unsustainable” (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2015, p. 9). A Professional
Learning Community refers to a school, or a network within a school, in which
teachers collaborate, inquire, support, and care for each other together as
members of a shared practice (Sergiovanni, 2009). These types of communities are
often informal, and do not survive in instances of direct management—rather, it is
best to cultivate environments and structures where they can thrive (Wenger &
Snyder, 2000). Collaboration and accountability are key to establishing successful
PLCs (Brown, Horn, & King, 2018).
Cultivating strong PLCs is an excellent way for teaching faculties to
experience and participate in professional development throughout the school
year. This type of group allows for teachers to become teacher leaders, and
principals to become instructional leaders (Trilaksono, Prursottama, Misbach, &
Prasetya, 2019). PLCs help teachers solve problems, promote best practices,
develop professional skills, and will help with the recruitment and retention of
teachers in a school (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Ning, Lee, and Lee (2015) discuss
the two main dimensions of PLCs, which are collective learning and professional
practice. Teachers must prioritize professional advancements and make efforts to
develop the best strategies to provide effective student learning in order to achieve
collective learning. Sharing of personal practice requires teachers to participate in
peer coaching, classroom observation and group discussion, which will enhance
their professional development.
31

Trust in colleagues is an integral part of successful PLCs. This type of social
interaction helps teacher reduce the fear and anxiety they may experience in their
work environment and helps them to define and build their own self-concepts (Dur
& Sol, 2010). Teachers must be open in both mind and attitude to deal effectively
with change and difference (Erwin & Garman, 2010) and also to stimulate
creativity (Trilaksono et al., 2010). Growing and changing together as a team
brings teachers closer and builds trust amongst the group. This trust allows
colleagues to engage in more honest conversation, and helps create a comfortable
environment where collegial peer observation can take place.
School leaders can be participants in these communities, but not as a
manager. Direct management over these types of environments can be detrimental
to their productivity and survival (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). This is especially true
in cultures with high power distance (Lee & Lee, 2018) such as the Philippines.
When authority figures are present, or teachers feel evaluation may be taking
place, the group will tend to discuss and present what they believe their supervisor
would like to hear rather than engage in honest and helpful discussion. School
leaders should look to foster a shared vision, or alignment of values. Values
generated by those within the school will become the organization’s catalyst for
moving forward (Sabir, Sonair, & Khan, 2011). There must be a focus on the
importance of reflective dialogue throughout the meetings in order to voice and
use alternative views productively and avoid just reifying of mandated practices
(Lee & Lee, 2018). There should be a system of shared governance of these
communities in order for them to result in school improvement (Brown et al.,
2019).
Professional learning communities can also help to improve self-efficacy
(Gilbert, Voelkel, & Johnson, 2018). These communities are opportunities for
participants to practice verbal persuasion. This could be in the form of coaching or
sharing experiences. Gilbert (2018) and her colleagues also found that leading
PLCs was an excellent way to improve the self-efficacy of school leaders, or those
leading the PLC meetings.
32

The final section of this literature review will look at research concerning
programs of evaluation where school leaders can combine their roles of teacher
evaluation and teacher supervision. This is important to this study as school
leaders and teachers in private schools are held highly accountable, and will often
have in place formal evaluation practices.
A System of Evaluation
Darling-Hammond (2014) talks about teacher evaluation as part of a system
for teaching and learning, rather than an isolated practice occurring once or twice
a year. In her article, she suggests that systems for evaluating teachers need to be
embedded in good practice, and that they should be ongoing. She emphasises that
collaborative learning is a key element in an ideal system of evaluation. “In
building a system, it is important not only to develop skills on the part of individual
practitioners, but also to create the conditions under which practitioners can use
their skills appropriately” (p. 7).
Darling-Hammond (2014) suggests taking lessons from high achieving
countries in relation to how to improve teaching quality. Finland, for example, does
not focus on firing poor teachers, but on creating highly qualified teachers in their
preparation programs. In schools, instead of focusing on formal, on-the-job
evaluation of teachers, they focus on collaboration amongst professionals to
improve student learning. This is done through ongoing professional development.
She suggests a couple of conditions that are necessary to create productive
systems: “evidence about teacher’s practice must be integrated with appropriate
evidence about student learning, and... evaluations must be connected with both
individual and collective professional learning” (p. 9).
Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertle, and Rothsien (2012) outline
some of the problems surrounding the Value-Added Model of teacher evaluation,
which is widely practiced in the United States. Briefly, the Value-Added Model
compares student test scores across school years to determine change (growth)
and evaluates teachers based on that change. The problem Darling-Hammond et al.
33

outline is that there are other forces at work in student achievement (or lack of
achievement) beyond teacher influence alone. They discuss such elements such as
class size, curriculum materials, instructional time, availability of
specialists/tutors/resources; home and community support; individual student
needs; peer culture and achievement; prior teaching/schooling; summer learning
loss; and specific tests used, as factors that can greatly influence students’ test
scores from year to year, and likewise a teacher’s ability to “add value”. Tracking
student growth is certainly valuable information, and should contribute to sound
professional reflection, but it should not be used as the only means of evaluating
teachers and their effectiveness.

34

Chapter Three: Methodology
Research Design and Rational
This research used a mixed methods approach. This method was chosen in
order to expand the scope and breadth and to try to offset the weaknesses of either
approach alone (Driscoll, Appiah-Yeboah, Salib, & Rupert, 2007). Qualitative data
was gathered from interviews conducted with six school leaders of international
schools in the Philippines. A qualitative interview was chosen in order to gather
richer, more in-depth data about each school and school leader, given the small
sample size. The goal of these interviews was to have conversations with school
leaders about their previous and current experience with reflective practice, and to
identify what types of instructional leadership behaviour they were currently
engaging to help teachers grow through reflective practice. It was felt that
qualitative data collection was more appropriate for this information as it allowed
respondents to explain and elaborate on their instructional leadership practices
and how they believed those practices might influence their faculties. The
quantitative data was collected in the form of a survey modeled after the
instrument developed by Goddard (2000) and colleagues called the Collective
Efficacy Survey (see Appendix C for this instrument) which has been found to have
significant reliability and validly. The quantitative approach was added to the
research in order to triangulate the interview data, as well as remove personal bias
from the data. The survey was completed by each school leader following the
interview, and then was distributed to all faculty reporting to that school leader.
The goal of the surveys was to ascertain the perceived collective-efficacy of school
leaders related to faculty who report to them, and to look for correlations between
instructional leadership practices and teacher efficacy ratings.
Procedure
After securing Thompson Rivers University ethics approval, approval to
conduct the research was gained from the head of each school. Principals were
then contacted to explain the research and ask for participation. Those who agreed
scheduled an interview via Skype with the researcher. The interviews were
35

conducted in March, two months into each school’s second semester. The
interviews were approximately 30-45 minutes in length. Following the interview,
school leaders were sent the collective-efficacy survey online, and their faculties
were also sent the same online survey.
The interviews were transcribed and returned to the school leaders who
sent their verification and correction if desired. The interviews were then analysed
and coded for themes. This was done by hand, and with multiple readings, the
themes becoming narrowed into the three broad themes discussed in the next
section. The survey data was analysed to look for median responses in the
categories of group competence and task analysis, as well as medians for each
individual question. Median scores were chosen instead of averages as they are a
more statistically sound presentation of the true center within a dataset and also
allow better for reducing the impact of outliers (especially in a small sample size)
Participation Selection
The schools chosen are all private schools in the Philippines. They have different
owners, but two of the schools had different school leaders for difference school
levels (i.e. upper school, middle school, and lower school). These school leaders
were chosen due to the private status of their schools, and their high standards for
student achievement. These schools are licenced to operate by the Philippine
Department of Education, but are externally accredited and have developed and
deliver their own curricula. They all describe themselves as college preparatory
schools and carry the classification of international schools due to their mix of
Filipino and non-Filipino students, faculty and school leaders. None of the school
leaders were Filipino, and all had completed their post-secondary studies in
‘western’ countries (Canada, USA, UK, Australia). The schools were of varying sizes
(900-200 students) and school leaders who were selected worked in Upper
(grades 9-12), Middle (grades 5-8) and Lower (grades PK-4) school levels. The
study was conducted shortly after the beginning of the second semester so that
participants had already put in place and experienced many of the practices

36

related to the interview questions and would have a sense of their efficacy for the
school year.
Study Participants
The heads of schools that met the above-mentioned criteria were contacted
in order to get permission to conduct the study with school leaders and teachers in
their schools. After heads of schools granted permission to conduct the study, the
researcher contacted school leaders about participating in the study. Six school
leaders from five private schools in the Philippines agreed to be interviewed, and
the school leaders were asked to complete the collective-efficacy survey following
the interview. Teachers who reported to those school leaders were also sent the
twenty-one-question survey after having reflected in writing on ways in which
they use professional reflection in their daily work. The surveys were sent by email
to faculty either through the school leader who was interviewed with an
explanation of the study by the researcher, or directly by the researcher. These
surveys were anonymous, and participants were a mix of international teachers—
teachers from ‘western’ nations —and local Filipino teachers, who teach together
in the International School. Neither the school leaders nor heads of school had
access to these responses. Teachers who participated in this study were
professionals working in a Philippine International School context. As such, there
were two main profiles for these participants: International teachers, and local
Filipino teachers. The international teachers were those who left their home
country (and more importantly culture) in order to live and work abroad. The
teachers, like the school leaders mentioned above, mostly came from “western”
countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia) and have completed their own schooling in
those regions. The local Filipino teachers had mainly gone to school in the
Philippines, with a minority having received their post-secondary education
outside the country. They were, therefore, familiar with the culture of host
country—though not necessarily the students.

37

All school leaders and teachers worked with a significantly multicultural
student body. A significant population of the students in these schools were
Filipino (around 40%). Other students who were from foreign countries were not
immigrants, but highly mobile—these types of schools anticipate a normal annual
student turnover of around 30 percent (Matthews, 1989), and often these students
live in a culture different than that of their parents’ –they are described as Third
Culture Kids (Pollock & Van Reken, 2009). This means that, given everyone’s
cultural backgrounds, a majority of people were working with colleagues and
students from very different cultural backgrounds, and were not necessarily
hoping to assimilate, or ‘fit in’, to the host country’s wider community beyond the
school. Educators in this context can have their intentions challenged after they are
exposed to a partially familiar school setting, but are immersed in a not so familiar
society (Murakami-Ramalho, 2008) and vice versa.
The demographics of the participants are presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Participant Demographics
School
School
Leader
Scott
School A

Grade Level
Upper (9-12)

Size of
Faculty
84

Mark

School A

Upper (9-12)

84

Caryn

School B

Middle (5-8)

80

Caitlin

School C

Lower (PK-4)

52

Tyler

School D

Middle (6-8)

31

Jesse

School E

All School (PK12)

32

Note. Participants have been assigned a pseudonym

38

Data Collection Instruments
Three broad questions were asked in relation to the qualitative data:
1. In order to understand how school leaders use professional reflection in
their schools they were asked first to reflect on their experiences with
professional reflection as a classroom teacher, and then to consider how
those early experiences may or may not have influenced their current
practice as a school leader.
2. They were asked about professional learning communities that exist in
their school and how they contribute to those communities.
3. They were asked ways that they use professional reflection in their current
practice as instructional leaders.
These interviews were transcribed and returned to the school leaders to verify
their accuracy and validity. This checking of the data was done in order to support
the validity of the interview data collected (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). They returned
their verified interviews to the researcher with additional information and/or
deletions and revisions. The transcripts were reviewed and themes relevant to the
interviews were identified as they emerged in the interviews themselves.
In addition, the school leaders were asked to fill in a Collective Efficacy
Survey that was adapted by the researcher from the Collective Efficacy Scale in the
research of Goddard et al. (2000). This survey was used to acquire school leaders’
perceptions of their school’s ability to influence student learning. The instrument
was provided immediately following the interview so that the respondent was able
to reflect on recent experiences about uses of professional reflection as they
completed the survey. This instrument has twenty-one items, asking respondents
to rate each item on a 4-point Likert Scale from disagree to agree. Items were
worded so that respondents would consider both categories of group competence
(GC), and task analysis (TA). It also recognised that wording items positively (+) or
negatively (-) could influence respondents, so the survey used both. In questions
worded positively, high score denote higher efficacy, while in negatively worded
39

questions, lower scores denote higher efficacy. Task analysis refers to assessment
teachers make of what is required to perform the teaching task. This includes
inferences about the challenges of teaching in a particular environment, including
the ability to motivate students, available teaching and community resources and
the physical plant (Goddard et al., 2000). Group competence is the explicit
judgment of the competence of colleagues in the school. This includes teachers’
skills, methods, strategies, experience, and training. Teachers also get a sense of
group competence from the history success of students after leaving the school
(Goddard et al., 2000).
The following Figure 6 illustrates how each question relates to group
competence (GC) or task analysis (TA) positively and negatively. This figure also
illustrates the questions asked by the survey of Goddard et al. (2000, p. 492), and
notes which category the questions belongs under.

40

Figure 6. Collective Teacher Efficacy Instrument. Source: Goddard et al. (2000, p.
492).

41

To check for criterion validity of their survey, Goddard (2000) and
colleagues examined the relationship of collective-efficacy with other social
processes in schools including conflict, sense of powerlessness, trust in colleagues
and individual efficacy. This additional data made it possible to perform further
tests of criterion related validity for the scale. They found a positive correlation
between high teacher efficacy and low conflict schools (the reverse being true as
well, high conflict schools tend to have low teacher efficacy). In relation to teacher
powerlessness, in circumstances where teachers felt they have no control over
both students and the organization, there was a negative correlation—lower
collective-efficacy. Trust in colleagues was found to foster higher levels of
collegiality and more opportunities for vicarious learning resulting in a positive
correlation—higher collective-efficacy. Finally, they concluded a positive
relationship between collective teacher efficacy, and aggregated individual teacher
efficacy. The following Figure 7 shows factors which negatively and positively
affected collective efficacy based on their research.

Figure 7. Forces Affecting Collective Efficacy. (Goddard et al., 2000)

42

The following Figures 8 and 9 show the factor loading for a one-factor
solution, and the reliabilities and correlations for collective teacher efficacy scale,
respectively.

Figure 8. Factor Loading for a One-Factor Solution. (Goddard et at., 2000, p. 495)

43

Figure 9. Reliabilities and Correlations for Collective Teacher Efficacy Scale.
(Goddard et al., 2000, p. 496)

To conclude their study of validity and reliability, Goddard (2000) and his
colleagues stated that:
As predicted, our measure of teacher efficacy was positively related to (a)
aggregated teacher efficacy as assessed by Bandura’s (2000) measure, (b)
aggregated personal teacher efficacy assessed using Hoy and Woolfolk’s
(1993) adaptation of a set of Gibson and Dembo (1984) items, (c) and
faculty trust in colleagues. In addition, collective efficacy was negatively
related to teacher powerlessness and unrelated to environmental press.
These results provide evidence that the collective teacher efficacy scale
employed in this study is valid. In addition, the measure has high internal
reliability (alpha=.96) (p. 496)

44

Chapter Four: Findings and Discussion
The interviews conducted with school leaders yielded rich conversations
about programs and practices that are being used to promote teacher growth in
high performing International Schools in the Philippines. School leaders all
identified professional reflection as a key practice in both their own, and teachers’
professional growth. In our conversation, participant Scott noted, “It’s very difficult
to teach someone to be reflective.” The difficulty is taking the time to look critically
at a piece of data in order to reframe thinking. Indeed, sometimes it’s even difficult
just identifying a valid piece of data to be analysed.
Laverick (2017) spoke about five levels of reflection: rapid reflection, repair,
review, research and retheorizing and reformulating. In order to function in a
classroom, teachers are constantly applying the first three levels—they are
reactionary. It is in the last two areas that conscientious practice needs to be
applied in order to influence deep professional reflection among faculty. By
creating programs, practicing specific behaviours, or establishing certain
expectations, school leaders were trying to create circumstances and
environments conducive to professional reflection.
Upon reviewing the completed interview transcripts, three common themes
emerged as relevant to instructional leadership practices that could have influence
on collective-efficacy. Those themes were 1) setting in place intentional protocols
to promote reflective practice, 2) providing feedback to stimulate reflective
thinking, and 3) utilizing distributed leadership to alleviate the evaluative nature
of school leader/faculty interactions. The following Figure 10 provides a visual
representation of the themes that emerged from the data analysis. This chapter
will first discuss the quantitative findings of the collective-efficacy surveys,
followed by the qualitative findings of the three themes in relation to the related
literature, and present excerpts directly from the interviews to support that
discussion.

45

Figure 10. Emerging Themes.

Quantitative Findings: Efficacy Surveys
The quantitative data collected through the collective-efficacy surveys
yielded limited data. The feedback from the selected populations was quite low, as
only 11% of all teachers completed the survey (a total of 31 teacher out of 286).
Therefore, the results cannot be statistically analysed and no trends can be
extracted. Possible explanations of why this may have occurred will be explored
more fully in the limitations section. There are, however, a couple of
generalizations that are worth noting in this section.
As this survey used a four-point Likert scale, median scores are
representative the middle value of data between a lower boundary of 1 and an
upper boundary of 4. A score above a median of 3.75 would therefore be
considered very high, as a majority of respondents would have fully agreed with
46

the statement. Conversely, scores below 1.25 would be considered very low as a
majority of respondents would have fully disagreed with the statement.
Some of the generalized trends in the data noticed through the surveys
where there existed sizable differences in median scores, included that faculty
members generally rated slightly more positively (higher on the + questions, and
lower on the – questions) than their school leader. Those schools (A & B) that
practiced peer-observation protocols generally scored more positively than
schools that did not. This can be observed when looking at the average median
score of both faculty and school leaders within the school. Evidence of the total
median faculty efficacy scores compared to the school leader efficacy scores is
presented in Tables 2 and 3. These are the median rating of each question set (GC+,
GC-, TA+, TA-) out of a possible score of 4, as well as the percentage of faculty who
completed each survey.

Table 2
Median GC Efficacy of Faculty compared to School Leaders

School
A

Survey
Completion
7%

B

Median GC+ Scores

Median GC- Score

Faculty
3.75

School
Leader
3.92

Diff.

Combined
Median

1.19

School
Leader
1.50

+0.17

3.80

+0.31

1.25

10%

3.75

3.81

+0.06

3.73

1.22

1.10

-0.12

1.21

C

3%

3.75

3.60

-0.15

3.69

2.17

1.83

-0.34

1.83

D

19%

3.76

2.80

-0.96

3.59

1.25

3.00

+1.75

1.34

E

26%

3.86

3.92

+0.06

3.87

1.21

1.50

+0.29

1.23

Diff.

Combined
Median Faculty

47

Table 3
Median TA Efficacy of Faculty compared to School Leaders

School
A

Survey
Completion
7%

Median TA+ Score
Median TA- Score
Combined
Combined
School
School
Median
Median
Faculty Leader Diff.
Faculty Leader Diff.
-0.55
3.20
1.07
3.80
3.25
1.07
1.07

B

10%

3.50

3.83

+.033

3.43

1.05

1.00

-0.05

1.01

C

3%

3.25

3.50

+0.25

3.33

1.17

1.00

-0.17

1.10

D

19%

3.64

3.00

-0.64

3.57

1.10

2.50

+1.40

1.14

E

26%

2.94

2.83

-0.10

2.92

1.17

1.17

-

1.17

Worth noting in Tables 2 and 3, is that when looking at the combined
median, the schools all rated themselves higher in GC+ than in TA+, and lower in
TA- than in GC-. This could indicate that faculties in these schools found their
colleagues very competent, and that outside factors, such as family circumstances
or school resources, were not affecting their perceived ability to teach students.
This could be due to the nature of the type of schools these teachers are teaching in
(i.e. highly rated private schools). These considerations may have had an effect on
both the low number of respondents to the survey, and also to high collectiveefficacy scores. More discussion on teachers’ perception of collective efficacy in
high achieving schools will be presented in the limitations and future
considerations section.
A breakdown of each question with the median efficacy score per school is
presented in Table 4. After each question, the table also stipulates the question
category of that item.

48

Table 4
Median Efficacy Scores per School
Question

School A

School B

School C

School D

School E

1. If a child doesn't learn something
the first time teachers will try another
way. (GC+)
2. Teachers in this school are skilled in
various methods of teaching. (GC+)

3.90

3.75

4.00

3.63

4.00

4.00

3.40

3.25

3.63

4.00

3. Teachers here are well prepared to
teach the subjects they are assigned to
teach. (GC+)
4. Teachers in this school really
believe every child can learn. (GC+)

3.93

3.86

3.00

3.63

4.00

3.83

3.75

4.00

3.33

3.78

5. If a child doesn't want to learn
teachers here give up. (GC-)

1.17

1.06

1.35

1.38

1.44

6. Teachers here fail to reach some
students because of poor teaching
methods. (GC-)
7. Teachers here don't have the skills
needed to produce meaningful
student learning. (GC-)
8. Teachers in this school have what it
takes to get the children to learn.
(GC+)
9. Teachers in this school are able to
get through to difficult students. (GC+)

1.75

1.25

2.00

1.38

1.78

1.00

1.06

1.25

1.20

1.00

3.90

3.86

4.00

3.63

4.00

3.75

3.75

3.00

3.63

3.22

10. Teachers here are confident they
will be able to motivate their students.
(GC+)
11. The lack of instructional materials
and supplies makes teaching very
difficult. (TA-)
12. Teachers in this school do not
have the skills to deal with student
disciplinary problems. (GC-)
13. Teachers in this school think there
are some students that no one can
reach. (GC-)
14. The quality of school facilities here
really facilitates the teaching and
learning process. (TA+)
15. Home life provides so many
advantages they are bound to learn.
(TA+)
16. These students come to school
ready to learn. (TA+)

3.30

3.60

3.75

3.63

3.33

1.00

1.06

1.25

1.38

1.56

1.30

1.88

2.75

1.38

1.56

1.17

1.14

2.00

1.86

2.11

3.90

4.00

4.00

3.80

3.11

2.17

2.92

2.75

2.75

2.11

3.17

3.38

3.25

3.63

3.11

49

17. Drug and alcohol abuse in the
community make learning difficult for
students here. (TA-)
18. The opportunities in this
community help ensure that these
students will learn. (TA+)
19. Students here just aren't
motivated to learn. (TA-)

1.17

1.00

1.00

1.08

1.20

3.30

3.38

3.25

3.63

3.00

1.17

1.25

1.25

1.38

1.56

20. Learning is more difficult at this
school because students are worried
about their safety. (TA-)
21. Teachers here need more training
to know how to deal with these
students. (GC-)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.50

1.25

2.33

1.38

1.89

In relating their practices or programs to the effect on collective-efficacy
during the interviews, school leaders had a hard time speaking to any direct links
between the two. “It’s hard to measure the impact” (Scott), “Anecdotally we’ve
received feedback, but we have not got a system in place to test the effects of the
PLCs or the focus groups” (Mark).
In questions pertaining to teacher powerlessness related to drug use,
facility quality, or safety of communities, teachers’ general response was that these
were not factors that contributed to reduced collective-efficacy. The research of
Goddard et al. (2000) would validate this trend, as these schools would be
classified as low conflict schools, which should result in higher collective-efficacy
results.
Median school efficacy results for each question category arranged by
positive and negative group competence questions (GC+) (GC-) and task analysis
questions (TA+) (TA-) can be found in Table 5. This data is also organized by
category in Figure 11 and by school in Figure 12.

50

Table 5
School Median by Question Category
Question
Category
GC+

School A

School B

School C

School D

School E

3.80

3.73

3.69

3.59

3.87

GC-

1.25

1.21

1.83

1.34

1.23

TA+

3.20

3.43

3.33

3.57

2.92

TA-

1.07

1.01

1.10

1.14

1.17

Note. Bolded columns represent schools that practiced peer observation.

51

Figure 11. Average Group Competence and Task Analysis Across School.

52

Figure 12. Average Group Competence and Task Analysis Within a School

53

Interestingly, it was not in the positively worded survey questions that
faculties that practiced peer observation tended to score higher, it was in the
negatively worded questions that these faculties were less critical of their own and
colleagues’ competence. This may suggest that peer-observation promotes
increased empathy among faculties, which contributes to increased collectiveefficacy. They seem less willing to dismiss poor student achievement and
behaviour as a result of a lack of effort on the part of the teachers—perhaps
understanding more holistically the nature of student interactions in their schools.
Peer observation is discussed in some more detail in the qualitative findings
section. As survey samples were too small, this correlation needs further research.
The number of respondents for the collective-efficacy survey did not meet
the threshold for reliability. As the survey was anonymous, there is no way to
confirm who did or did not respond or for what reasons. One possible explanation
is the nature of the schools surveyed. These were private schools in the
Philippines, which means that parent and administration expectations on faculty
are quite high. In addition, faculty likely feel that are already excellent teachers as
they work in an exclusive school with high performing students. Faculty may have
felt that, despite the guarantee of anonymity, their identity may somehow have
become known due to the size of the faculties surveyed, and they feared job
implications or that their perceived efficacy differed from that of their school
leader. The data tended to suggest that factors outside the control of the teacher,
such as student safety, drug and alcohol use, or a lack of school resources had little
impact on teacher’s sense of efficacy.
There were also some inconsistencies in answers between questions that
were worded positively and negatively. This is possibly due to English not being
the first language of all the respondents.
As the sample was too small, outlying responses had a larger impact on the
overall totals. Also, as the size of the samples of quantitative data was too low, the
scale does not work to conduct a T test in order to compare efficacy results
54

between the two independent groups: teachers and school leaders. It would have
been interesting to compare the efficacy results of school leaders, who were
engaged in instructional leadership behaviours, with the teachers and their
experience and perception of those instructional leadership behaviours. There
were clearly respondents who had either misread the questions or whose views
were polarized to either end of the spectrum, but as the sample was too small, the
impact of these outlying responses could not be minimized.
In the following section discussing the qualitative findings of the interviews,
I will look at the relationship between school leaders’ instructional leadership
behaviour and collective-efficacy. I will discuss the behaviours described in the
interview in relation to the four major sources that contribute to the development
of efficacy: mastery experiences, emotional state, vicarious experience, and social
persuasion (Bandura, 1977).
Qualitative Findings
The transcripts of the interview were analysed by reading through them
and assigning codes to important and reoccurring comments or ideas. After several
reviews, the codes were reduced into three broad themes: Protocols, Feedback,
and Distributed Leadership. Those themes will be explored more thoroughly in
the following section.
Theme 1—Protocols
Darling-Hammond (2014) noted that proper conditions must be in place in
order to develop and appropriately use skills on the part of individual
practitioners. Having protocols in place was needed to help teachers find the time
to reflect, distinguish between school leaders acting as supervisors and evaluators,
and build collaborative relationship with their colleagues.
All school leaders spoke about having some protocols in place surrounding
supervisors being in classrooms for teacher observation and providing feedback
based on those observations. Sometimes they were very formal, laying out clear
expectation at the beginning of the school year with faculty and providing

55

handouts of expectations; other times school leaders would have less structure for
choosing who and when to observe and how to provide feedback.
In their ability to answer the interview questions, there was a clear
distinction between school leaders that had very specific protocols in place
surrounding teacher supervision and evaluation, and those whose protocols were
less structured. Examples of these protocols are the frequency of classroom
observations, the means of delivering feedback, specific programs designed to help
teachers’ professional growth with school leaders and with peers, and peer
classroom observations.
In some cases, school leaders’ observations were formal and contributed to
official evaluation, but in most cases they were informal and were intended to
focus on teacher growth and supervision. School leaders noted that many of their
faculties were used to an administrator in the classroom as being purely
evaluative. Several school leaders noted the difficulty of getting teachers to buy
into programs designed for teacher growth, and they were dealing with this issue
in a few ways.
School leaders intentionally built time into the school day for teachers to
meet with school leaders, and for teachers to meet and collaborate among
themselves. According to school leaders, this scheduling helped both teachers and
school leaders use their time efficiently. In all schools interviewed, these ‘built-in’
times occurred on one set morning each week where students would arrive late,
giving teachers and school leaders time to meet. In other cases, this involved
manipulating teacher timetables in order to arrange for common preparation
blocks for teachers in the same department to conduct meetings.
I really worked hard on building collaborative planning, and I cracked it
about seven years ago….I finally cracked a way for the system to give me
what I wanted, and it’s been really really well received because now they
have three times a week, plus the Wednesday morning, where they can
meet…where they can moderate, where they can do some articulation some
56

vertical articulations, sometimes where they can plan the next units, they
can reflect on the last one and tweak it for next year. (Scott)
All school leaders spoke about intentionally scheduling time into their days
to be present in classrooms. Caryn emphasized the importance of blocking time to
engage in observations by relaying the instructions they had given to their
secretary:
It’s untouchable. You have to push, push me out the door. Whatever is
happening, if it’s a parent, it’s…unless I need to jump on a grenade it can
wait. I can always send the email tomorrow, schedule an appointment with
them when I am available, but please, don’t take me away from being in
lessons.
Hallinger and Murphy (1985) would describe this as instructional
leadership behaviour that helps maintain the instructional program. The
importance of being in classrooms to observe and provide feedback is an example
of school leaders acting as teachers of teachers.
Many of the school leaders had specific programs they had developed in
order to ensure that they were providing quality feedback to all teachers. This
most often took the form of some level of classroom observation, followed by
feedback that always included questions that invited teacher reflection.
We’ve got these teacher self-reflection questions that we share with
teachers so they can do it [with each other], too. Often I just start with a
teacher, I will say on a lesson, “of 1 to 10, I’m just curious, how did you think
that lesson went?” And they’ll give you a number and then I’ll say, “okay, so
if you give it a six, why not a seven or eight? What would had to have
happened differently for you to rate that higher?” And then we talk about
that. (Caryn)
57

For school leaders who had organized peer observations or peer led
professional learning communities, they spoke about making sure protocols are
clear, and labeled, so that everyone is able to participate in the program:
They will introduce protocols, like the small fires protocol, or the final word
protocol that will make sure that every member of the group participate in
the conversations and share their thoughts so we don’t get those reluctant
participants that say nothing…and so far the chairs have reported, you
know, good things—a high level of participation and a high level of fun and
enjoyment. (Mark)
School leaders were conscientious of the evaluative element of their
observations and feedback, and how that might affect how teachers reacted to
what they said. For this reason, some school leaders noted that they were very
clear about a different set of protocols teachers could expect if there was a
problem and they were under evaluative as opposed to the day to day supervision
and professional growth protocols. Caryn spoke about the importance of being
clear about the difference between conversations about teacher growth, and
conversations about teacher evaluation:
So we try and, you know, when people are coming in, to always give them
feedback straight away. Is this an evaluation conversation, or is it simply an
appreciative conversation, or is it a coaching conversation? To really
delineate those three areas rights off the bat.
Faculty reporting to school leaders who did not have these distinctions of
protocols in place did not have responses lower on their efficacy surveys as seen in
Tables 2 and 3. However, given the sample size of teachers who responded in these
schools (only 11%), the survey results are not reliable enough to note any
58

significant connection between the vagueness of the protocols and collectiveefficacy. In their book, Leithwood and Beatty (2008) note that “organizational
opportunities that encourage teachers to think about their work in new ways and
commit themselves to new standards and goals” (p. 77) are crucial in motivating
teachers to improve their own practices.
School leaders also acknowledged that, to some extent, their presence in
meetings or classrooms always carried with it some sense of evaluation: “Now
whenever an administrator walks into a classroom, there’s a certain aspect of
evaluation going on, that’s unavoidable. And I’ll say that to faculty as well” (Scott).
“By being in classrooms often and frequently, and having small conversations, I
think it lowers the temperature of that evaluation” (Caryn). Though they were
clear on their own practices in terms of observing lessons, one school leader did
speak about some inconsistencies that existed within the protocols at their school
that needed to be addressed:
I’m not sure that…[the] four administrators do it in exactly the same way,
and I’m not sure that there is a clear understanding of the expectations
around visits. So I think that’s something that we could definitely clear up,
that is something we could improve. (Mark)
Some school leaders spoke about the protocols to have faculty in each
other’s classrooms often, and that they were to be giving feedback to each other.
The most notable distinction amongst protocols was between schools that
practiced protocols for peer observations, and those who did not practice it at all.
Those who incorporated peer observations were much more organized in their
overall protocols around faculty supervision and evaluation. School leaders from
schools A and B, who had the protocols in place for peer observation, spoke very
highly of the experience and reported that teachers valued the opportunity. This
type of program required a high level of trust amongst faculty. The combined
median efficacy results (as seen in Table 4) from schools with peer observation
59

protocols in place were higher than those without. A possible explanation for this
is because these teachers have a better sense of the classroom strategies and
management of their colleagues. It would be interesting to conduct a wider study
where the self-efficacy results of faculties who practice peer observation are
compared with those who do not. They also reported that teachers enjoyed
participating the peer observations:
We have peer observations where people are expected to be in and out of
each other’s classrooms. We say it’s three a year, but I know people do a lot
more than that, too. Very much an open door policy. (Caryn)
These peer observations were an opportunity for teachers to support each other
using personal areas of strength:
I think that through these groups we have people who have put themselves
forward as being in need of some kind of development in this area. A lot of
people who have said, "I think this is one of my strengths" and vice versa.
And so we have got people who are going in, looking for specific things from
teachers who are particularly good at a particular teaching strategy. (Scott)
These types of protocols, where teachers are working together and
observing each other, create a culture of continuous learning in the school—as not
only are the students getting constant feedback, but teachers as well. School
leaders where being intentional about promoting the school’s climate (Hallinger &
Murphy, 1985). This type of culture contributes to the emotional state aspect of
collective-efficacy development as teachers were enjoying the practice of peer
observations. The peer collaboration through the professional learning
communities also allowed for excellent opportunities in the area of vicarious
experience.

60

Mastery experience as source of information for efficacy is highly personal,
and therefore hard for school leaders to influence. In all interviews, there was a
focus on observation, either by peers or school leaders, during actual teaching
time. During this time is when teachers are acquiring their information about their
own mastery experiences. The protocols set in place by school leaders can help
create an environment among peers and school leaders where teachers are able to
reflect upon their mastery experiences collaboratively. Through these types of
collaborative meetings, teachers become conscientious of their performance, and
are able to reflect on their ability to affect student learning. It is also helpful for
teachers to have common ground with someone else who was present during a
lesson to gain different perspectives, or observations that they may have missed
while conducting the lesson.
Theme 2—Feedback
Another main theme that permeated the interviews with all school leaders
was the giving and receiving of feedback. It was highlighted that not all feedback
will inspire professional reflection. Caitlin mentioned, “some of them, they’ll take
[feedback] with a grain of salt and continue within their own methods.”
Faculty engagement with feedback was largely reported to have to do with
the relevance of the feedback. In order to ensure that teachers were getting
relevant feedback, most school leaders would meet with faculty early in the school
year to ensure they had a clear professional goal based off departmental/ school
focuses. Scott spoke about his program:
We have a system in place where the start of each academic year all
teachers will form a professional goal, usually around a theme. So for
example a couple years ago the main theme was approaches to teaching and
learning.
Another school leader established the goal setting by considering the faculty selfreflections:
61

They then also get a link to a new form that is their goal setting form, and
they can’t get the goal setting link until they [finish] the self-evaluation. And
it describes that they need to take a look at their self-evaluation and choose
two variants, two aspects perhaps where they scored themselves a bit
lower, and then develop two goals with action plan on how they are going to
improve in that area. (Jesse)
In this way, school leaders could be going into classroom and providing
feedback specific to a teacher’s interest, instead of providing generalized feedback.
I think those targets and observations are helpful because they give the
observer cart blanche to actually address some of those issues head on,
whereas if [the feedback] could have come from left field and the teacher
wasn’t ready for it, I guess then you could have to sugar coat the
observations a little bit. (Mark)
This focused feedback was also reported to put teachers in a better mind
frame to receive the feedback and act upon it. “When the person being observed is
really in the mood to hear those observations and really wants to know specific
observations, then I guess making yourself open to feedback is a huge benefit”
(Mark).
The work school leaders were doing in helping teachers choose a focus or a
goal for their year, especially when done among peers in professional learning
communities, helps to build a shared vision for growth among faculty. It makes the
goals and direction of growth a part of everyone’s mission, not just that of the
school leader. This is an example of instructional leadership behaviour that helps
define the school’s mission (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). The most prevalent
relationship between the instructional leadership practices and a source for
efficacy from the interviews is social persuasion. The main source of this
62

connection is the feedback that was described. Whether it is positive or
constructive feedback, teachers were made to feel encouraged to take on
challenges they face in their daily work in classrooms. This can be seen in the
intentional positive feedback school leaders would give in order to encourage
teachers and bring them into a growth mindset.
Ensuring feedback is relevant to teachers, and that they are prepared to
accept that feedback is an example of behaviour that contributes to both emotional
state and social persuasion, leading to an increase in teacher efficacy. Whether it is
positive or constructive feedback, teachers were made to feel encouraged to take
on challenges they face in their daily work in classrooms.
Caryn made mention of a handout they made use of in questioning teachers
following an observation. Figure 9 is the handout that was sent to me following our
interview. It shows ten different types of questions school leaders can use to help
stimulate critical thinking and professional reflection in teachers.

63

Figure 13. Ten Questions for Better Feedback for Teachers. Source: The Principal
Center (2018, p. 4).

64

School leaders also spoke about their own ability and training in providing
feedback, as well as training teachers in how to give and receive feedback. Caitlin
spoke about her own professional development goals:
Just know how to approach teachers, how to have those difficult
conversations, right? And without just stepping in, right? So that has been
something that has consistently, I’ve been working on. Just having, how to
approach someone in a kind manner, but also just making sure that it is
something that I’m looking at the person as a whole, so building those
relationships.
Teachers were also interested in learning about giving and receiving feedback:
Teachers were asking more guidance on how to [give] feedback to teachers
when they do a peer observation in a way that doesn’t sound critical and
condescending, and how do teachers receive feedback in the way that it’s
meant to be given. It’s not meant to be critical even though a question, if it is
framed wrongly, can be received critically. So next phase of our training will
be on giving and receiving feedback that then leads into this peer
observations and administration observations to faculty. (Scott)
School leaders all spoke about the importance of specifically providing
positive feedback to their teachers:
In those personal interactions I am able to really let that teacher know that
I’m paying attention and that he is doing a good job and I can tell him that….
Human nature is, with positive feedback, you are helping inspire educators
…that’s practicing instructional leadership” (Jesse).

65

If there is something you see, something that is being done well you have to
let them know…So a positive feedback is critical….I’m looking for things
they’re doing well, because I know as a former teacher I wanted someone to
acknowledge and to give me some praise, tell me what I’m doing right. I
really look for those right moments. (Caitlin)
I give them feedback that day in writing about what I’ve seen. I call it a 2 +
2…two positive pieces of feedback…the other two parts can be a questions
that I have or just another opinion, it could be a third piece of positive
feedback, it could be a constructive piece of feedback. (Tyler)
This intentional providing of positive feedback is a leadership behaviour
that contributes to the emotional state of teachers. Teachers need to hear positive
things, and know that supervisors are not just looking for problems, or as Charlotte
Danielson (2012) would call it low hanging fruit—that which is obvious and easy
to fix. This helps teachers feel like their school leaders are on their side, and will be
more receptive to feedback given by that school leader. If they feel noticed for the
positive things they are doing, they will approach those and similar situations in
the future with increased confidence knowing they have succeeded before, and
that their supervisor supports them.
The means of giving feedback varied among school leaders, some choosing
to send emails, others speaking informally outside classrooms or in faculty
lounges. It is important that teachers are able to reflect on their actions and
decisions as a result of this feedback, not simply told what they did and how it can
be fixed. As teachers must feel they have personally confronted and succeeded at
tasks which they find challenging—there can be no direct school leader of peer
influence on their success—they must feel solutions and ideas come from them.
This is why having teachers reflect on their experience through questioning,
instead of just providing constructive criticism, is crucial to behaviours that
contribute to collective-efficacy. Given the high level of performance expected at
66

private schools, some teachers could feel that their teaching abilities are more
inherent rather than acquired, stalling their development of self-efficacy—this may
have been a contributing factor in the low teacher participation in this research.
Mark, who was part of a larger administrator team at his school, noted that
feedback is not always given from all classroom visits: “I personally think it is okay
for [no comment to be given] if it’s just a pop in to see what is going on in the class.
A teacher shouldn’t expect feedback all the time.”
Theme 3—Distributed Leadership
Distributed leadership, in this case, refers to principals relinquishing direct
supervision over faculty who report to them. Instead, they allow for teachers to
lead groups and be accountable to themselves instead of administration. Spillane,
Halverson, and Diamond (2004) have published research supporting this approach
to leadership. Teachers are left to their own sense of professionalism as
motivation to improve their practice (Brandt, 1992).
Peer observations, or peer-led groups was a common practice discussed
throughout the interviews—there was frequent reference to distributed
leadership, where school leaders were setting up groups, helping establish
direction, but then stepping back and allowing peers to work together.
The chairs of each one of those focus groups is not a head of department,
and not an administrator. So it’s very peer-to-peer and so it does build up
leadership potential in some teachers….I think it’s made teachers excited
about teaching and I think it helped create a culture of learning within the
school and openness to learning, which I’m sure has had benefits across the
board. (Scott)
As stated earlier in relation to peer-observation, the survey results tend to
suggest that teachers who observe and are observed by peers rate higher in
average collective-efficacy scores. This may be due to an increased trust in their
colleagues. Trust in colleagues was found to foster higher levels of collegiality and
67

more opportunities for vicarious learning resulting in higher collective-efficacy
(Goddard et al., 2000). The peer collaboration through the professional learning
communities allowed for excellent opportunities in the area of vicarious
experience, as teachers were both seeing and demonstrating competencies in
various areas of teaching.
There was a general sense that peer feedback, through either peer
observations or professional learning communities, was more influential to
teacher growth than school leader feedback. One school leader even mentioned
faculty-wide training in the giving and receiving of feedback to ensure everyone
was trying to achieve the same goal through feedback—growth.
On their roles in these settings, all school leaders spoke about stepping
away to allow for teachers to lead themselves.
I try not to be a participant. I’m not a participant who sits in one meeting for
the entire meeting. I want the folks to want those meetings and my presence
sometimes can set the meeting in a different direction…when I take up that
air time it’s taking away air time for somebody else and I don’t need to do
that. (Tyler)
We made it such that it was teachers that will facilitate in those meetings,
not even program leaders. So my role in that was primarily to set it in
motion and to make sure that the right people are in the right groups. But
then to kind of coach the facilitators ahead of their meetings…make sure
that they were comfortable with the process. (Mark)
In addition to allowing their teachers to work and reflect with peers, school
leaders also noted their preference for interacting and reflecting with their peers.
I remember in [a different school], a good friend of mine, we were just
constantly talking school. And it might start at the negative side, but it was a
68

joke, we would tear down the school but we would build it back up in our
conversations. It was very reflective with “ok, this is a problem, how do we
fix it? What’s the plan?” (Jesse)
I actually think the best kind of PD is when you visit other colleagues in
other schools…I was just chatting with [another] principal, we spent three
hours chatting just about our different jobs…So talking to like-minded
people that have a job-a-like situation. (Mark)
Summary
The major themes that emerged from interviews with school leaders were
1) having protocols in place to support professional reflective practices among
teachers. Some ways school leaders were doing this was through allocating specific
time for teachers to meet and collaborate, outlining expectations around classroom
observations, and organizing professional learning communities to include all
faculty in collaborative practice. This related to improving efficacy through the
opportunity for teachers to reflect on mastery experience, and demonstrated
instruction leadership behaviours of maintaining the instructional program and
intentionally promoting the school’s climate. 2) Providing specific, relevant, and
timely feedback to faculty. Some ways school leaders were doing this was through
having intentional goal setting meetings with teachers, sometimes accompanied
with a self-reflection, and also ensuring that teachers were getting positive
feedback along with constructive feedback. This related to improving efficacy
through social persuasion and is an example of the instructional leadership
behaviour of defining the school’s mission. 3) Allowing for distributed leaders of
professional learning communities in order to balance teacher evaluation and
supervision. Some ways school leaders were doing this was by limiting their
presence in Professional Learning Community meetings, and by appointing
designated teach-leaders with group to ensure participation and report. This

69

related to improving efficacy through vicarious experience and was an example the
instructional leadership behaviour of fostering leadership.
The collective-efficacy surveys yielded limited data, but did suggest a
relationship between peer-observation and high collective efficacy. The survey
results also suggested that faculties in the Philippines International school context
tended to rate higher in collective efficacy than school leaders, and that faculties
that practice peer observation are less critical of colleagues and have high
collective efficacy than faculties that do not practice peer observation. Overall,
school collective efficacy scores in this study were high, which is likely due to the
high student achievement these school expect.
Whether the high efficacy scores are a result of excellent teaching or not, it
is still important for school leaders in this context (or in any context) to be
practicing behaviours that would increase collective efficacy in their faculties.
When teachers have experiences that promote an increase in efficacy, they are
more likely to repeat behaviours, or try other behaviours that would generate
those types of experiences again (Leithwood & Beatty, 2008). And students in
classroom where teachers have a higher sense of efficacy also show higher
achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Çalik et al., 2012; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). So
regardless of the source of efficacy for teachers, those who practice behaviours
that would increase their sense of efficacy will have students who achieve higher
because of it. Through professional reflection, teachers process experiences that
contribute to their sense of both personal and collective efficacy. It is therefore
important for school leaders to be promoting opportunities for those behaviours in
their schools.

70

Chapter Five: Limitations and Future Considerations
In order to better understand the relationship between instructional
leadership practices and teacher efficacy, a more controlled program should have
been used in the research. Initially, this research intended to have schools
implement the RPR protocols described in the introduction for a six-week period,
interviewing school leaders at certain stages of the process, and surveying teachers
for collective-efficacy before and after to measure differences. However, while
there were a sufficient number of school leaders who agreed to participate in the
study, we were not able to find enough teachers willing to participate and
therefore had to base the research on practices currently in place.
This lack of teacher participation in the initial research proposal carried
into the revised research as a low response rate from teachers surveyed. Possible
reasons for the lack of teacher participation include the nature of the schools
themselves—private International school that have high tuition costs (especially
compared to other educational institutions in the country)—expectations on
teacher from both administration and parents are quite high. Teachers may have
felt that information they provided about the school of their colleagues’
performance may be discovered and there could be employment implications.
Likewise, in regard to the initial research proposal sent to them, most of the
schools already practiced teacher evaluation (though not always annually), which
they would have already underwent. Participating in the research may have felt to
them like another opportunity for their supervisors to conduct an evaluation,
again, which could carry employment implications. These teachers do not have a
union which could protect them should they be accused of saying or doing
something unprofessional, or to protect their salaries should an additional
evaluation impact their pay.
There was also a considerable time and effort commitment in participating
in the RPR program. Teachers may have felt that they did not have time in their
schedules for the meetings, observations, and writing required to participate in the
study. If school leaders had been approached before the beginning of the academic
71

school year, and had agreed to implement the program with their faculty
regardless of their individual participation in the research, there likely would have
been a much higher participation from teachers. There needed to be a larger and
better-balanced sample.
In addition, faculty working in these types of school contexts likely feel that
are already excellent teachers as they work in an exclusive school with high
performing students and they felt that they would not benefit from the processes
outlined in the RPR procedures. They may, too, have feared that their perceived
efficacy differed from that of their school leader or other colleagues.
It is not uncommon, when working in these exclusive private schools, to
receive many requests from local high school and university students looking to
conduct research for their program requirements. Quite often, these research
studies have very poor methodology and have not undergone approval from an
ethics board. As both a teacher and a principal working in this context, I received
many of these types of requests. When I followed up with researchers or
supervisors, it became clear that supervisors often had far too many students
conducting research studies to properly advise and maintain academic rigour in
these studies. It is possible that the request to participate in this study was
dismissed as another one such study, even though it was clear in the participant
consent form that it was being conducted through a Canadian university and had
undergone ethics board approval.
It raises a question about teachers in the context of high performing private
schools. As stated earlier, teachers in schools such as those in this study likely have
a high degree of confidence in their teaching as they are employed in an exclusive
private school and work with students who perform at a high level. It is likely that
teachers attribute much of this student success to their own teaching effectiveness.
It is known, for instance, that teachers in low-performing schools may experience
some lack of efficacy as they sometimes struggle to show evidence of student
learning and achievement that is at a high level. It raises some questions: Is it then
also possible that teachers in high performing schools over-personalize the
72

achievement and attribute achievement to their wonderful teaching? Could this
same principle be extended to the self-perception of school leaders in these
contexts? Did teachers feel an unacceptable level of vulnerability if they
participated in the study? That their teaching ability might reflect differently than
their perceived efficacy? Or that there may be too great a difference of perceived
efficacy between their own and that of their supervisor?
It may also call into question the role that both self and collective-efficacy
even plays in high performing schools. The role of examining teacher and leader
practices may benefit from some sort of holistic consideration that includes
student learning and achievement but also includes other aspects of engaged
schools, such as instructional innovation that requires some risk-taking, etc.
It would also be useful to extend this type of study beyond Philippine
schools to see if there is a cultural factor in the Philippines (a country known to
have a very high power distance) dissuading teachers from participating in this
type of research, as well as how efficacy may differ across cultures. The same
principle could be extended to including public schools in addition to private in
order to study schools with more diverse achievement levels as it would be
interesting to see if there is a difference in collective-efficacy and what sort of
factors may contribute to the difference.
As the interviews were being reviewed and coded, I felt the study would
have been greatly improved by adopting a couple different theoretical lenses
surrounding the multicultural nature of these international schools, which could
have been explored through the interviews with school leaders, and possibly
through a short answer question to teachers. Firstly, an interesting lens would
have been that of equity pedagogy. This refers to the practice of teachers changing
their methods so that students from diverse cultures, genders, socio-economic
classes, etc. can all learn and achieve (Banks, & Michelle, 1998). This goes beyond
including content that reflects cultural diversity. It means that teachers must
diversify their strategies and techniques to accommodate the wide range of
learners present in their classrooms. This can be through strategic groupings,
73

mother-tongue language instruction, guided reading, etc. It is the
acknowledgement that “every child learns differently in school, but our disposition
as educators includes ways to help students minimize communication gaps
without taking time away from academic demands” (Murakami-Ramalho, 2008, p.
77). It’s about the presentation and interaction with content, not the content itself.
This would have been a particularly relevant lens to the school context of the
International schools were the research was conducted.
Secondly, the lens of empowering school culture and social structure would
have been an interesting addition to the study. This goes beyond a single
classroom, looking to the school as a whole in its practice of multicultural
education (Banks & Michelle, 1998). This includes what kinds of conversations
administrators and teachers are having about diversity, how achievement and
participation is distributed across all students, what social cliques have developed
on campus, in what ways they contribute and belong, and “the promotion of the
values [that] takes place in a more subtle fashion, through the ethos generated by
the intermingling of students and staff drawn from many nations” (McKenzie,
1998, p. 248). Differences cannot be ignored, but must be acknowledged,
celebrated, and given an equitable opportunity to achieve. In addition to this, and
specific to the Philippines, teacher cultural disposition should be considered.
Specifically in relation to power distance, power underlies collaborative cultures
resulting in many forms and functions of PLCs as well as levels of engagement (Lee
& Lee, 2018). High power distance is likely a factor in the low participation from
teachers and is worth looking at more closely in a future study.
A study on the impact of peer observations practices and their effect on
collective-efficacy would also be interesting. The trend of teacher efficacy results in
the quantitative data suggests a relationship between the two could exist. To
support this further, the enthusiastic manner in which school leaders were
speaking about the peer-observation protocols and how their teachers were
behaving would suggest that there might be interesting information that could be
gathered through a systematic study in this area. This element could easily be
74

added to the RPR protocols to allow for peer observation to be studies alongside
collective-efficacy.

75

Chapter Six: Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine how programs encouraging
professional reflection and teacher growth have evolved and are practiced in
private schools in the Philippines, how school leaders are using this in their
supervision/evaluation of faculty, and how teacher collective-efficacy is impacted
by the practice of these programs. This was done through a mixed methods
approach using interviews with school leaders, and surveys to school faculties.
Three major themes emerged from the interviews in how school leaders are
encouraging professional reflection in their supervision and evaluation of teachers.
The first theme is protocols. School leaders are ensuring that protocols are in place
to create the condition for teachers to be able to meet and discuss their shared
practice. Strategies such as time allocation, observation procedures, and meeting
protocols were used to ensure teachers where aware of expectations and had
appropriate time to meet them. Schools which had peer observation protocols in
place, tended to be less critical of their colleagues in the survey data; however as
the results of the survey data was limited, further study of this relationship is
needed.
The second theme that emerged from the interviews was feedback. School
leaders were giving intentional feedback to teachers based on classroom
observations and conversations. Feedback was often presented as open-ended
questions in order to have teachers think critically about their teaching. School
leaders were conscious to provide relevant feedback to their faculties by
narrowing in on pre-established professional goals set by teachers. It was
acknowledged that positive feedback is an important factor in instructional
leadership and contributes to positive teacher efficacy.
The final theme that emerged from the interviews was distributed
leadership. School leaders felt it was important for them to allow teachers to meet
and reflect without fear of evaluation attached to those actions. Accountability for
group meetings was largely placed on group members instead of school
administration. This was acknowledged as crucial in maintaining a balance of the
76

two roles school leaders embody of teacher evaluation and teacher supervision.
In comparing the behaviours of school leaders in promoting professional
reflection in their schools to the sources of efficacy, there were clear links between
certain practices school leaders were doing and the development of efficacy. The
survey results from teachers reporting to the school leaders was this study’s main
limitation, with only 11% of all teachers responding to the survey. It is therefore
impossible to draw any conclusions from this data, though some trends did emerge
suggesting possible relationships. Firstly, teachers tended to rate their collectiveefficacy higher than their school leaders’. Secondly, teachers who practiced peer
observation tended to be less critical of their colleagues, resulting in high
collective-efficacy.
The study raised questions about the perception of collective efficacy from
teachers in high performing schools. As students in these schools tend to have high
achievement scores, and go on to top universities and colleges, it is likely that
teachers feel their teaching ability is already very high. More research is needed to
understand the role of efficacy in this type of school context, and how it compares
to the role of efficacy in lower performing school contexts.
The relationship between peer observation and collective-efficacy is very
interesting and merits further study. If peer observation could be worked into the
RPR protocols, it would be the next step in this research to look for a relationship
between the two. I would hypothesize that there would be a positive relationship
as peer observation fulfills both social persuasion and vicarious experience
sources of self-efficacy development.
This study has managed to reproduce some of the conclusion of pre-existing
research in the areas of sound instructional leadership behaviours and their
influence on collective-efficacy. It has also generated many new and unanswered
questions in the areas of how teacher collective-efficacy compares to school leader
collective-efficacy, and factors contributing to a low teacher participant turn out.

77

References
Aldeman, C. (2017). The teacher evaluation revamp, in hindsight: What the Obama
administration’s signature reform got wrong. Education Next, 17(2), 60-68.
Amzat, I. H. (2017). Key performance indicators for excellent teachers in Malaysia.
International Journal Of Productivity & Performance Management 66(3), 298-319.
Doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-06-2015-0094
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a Difference: Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy
and Student Achievement. New York, NY: Longman.
Ashton, P. T., Olejnik, S., Crocker, L., & McAuliffe, M. (1982). Measurement
problems in the study of teachers’ sense of efficacy. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E.,
& Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected
Los Angeles minority schools, REPORT NO. R-2007- LAUSD. Santa Monica, CA: Rand
Corporation (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 130 243).
Awkard, T. (2017). The power of reflection action to build teacher efficacy. Phil
Delta Kappan, 98(6), 53-57.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioural change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychology, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self- efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H.
Freeman & Co.
Banks, J.A., and Michelle T. (1998) Multiculturalism’s five dimensions. NEA Today
Online. Retreived from
http://www.learner.org/workshops/socialstudies/pdf/session3/3.Multiculturalis
m.pdf
Beltman, S., Mansfield, C. & Price, A. (2011). Thriving not just surviving: A review of
research on resilience. Educational Research Review, 6(3), 185-207.
78

Blasé, J. & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher
development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35 (3),
349-378. doi: 10.1177/0013161X99353003
Boud, D. (2001) Chapter 1: Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice.
English, L. M., & Gillen, M.A. Promoting Journal Writing in adult Education (pp. 918). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Brandt, R. (1992) On rethinking leadership: a conversation with Tom Sergiovanni.
Educational Leadership, 49(5), 46-49.
Brown, B.D., Horn, R., & King, G. (2018). The effective implementation of
professional learning communities. Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership, 5,
53-59.
Çalik, T., Sezgin, F., Kavgaci, H., & Kilinç, A. Ç. (2012). Examination of relationships
between instructional leadership of school principals and self-efficacy of teachers
and collective teacher efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4),
2498-2504.
Çalkanes, S., Harris, M. (2017). Promoting critical reflection: An evaluation of the
long-term impact of a substantial faculty development program. Journal of Faculty
Development, 31(2), 29-37.
Danielson, C. [Advanced Illinois]. (2012, April 6). Making Teacher Evaluations
Meaningful: Charlotte Danielson [Video File]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzDcYuSsU2E
Danielson, C. (2013). The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument (2013
Ed.). Princeton, NJ: The Danielson Group.
Danielson, C. (2016). Charlotte Danielson on rethinking teacher evaluation.
Education Week. Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/04/20/charlotte-danielson-onrethinking-teacher-evaluation.html
Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertle, E., & Rothsien J. (2012).
Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8-15.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: What Really
Matters for Effectiveness and Improvement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
79

Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). One piece of the whole: Teacher evaluation as part of
a comprehensive system for teaching and learning. American Educator 38(1), 4-13.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Leithwood, K., Hopkins, D., Gu, Q., Brown, E., & Ahtaridou, E.
(2011). Successful School Leadership. England: Open University Press.
Densten, I. L., & Gray, J. H. (2001). Leadership development and reflection: What is
the connection? The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(3), 119124.
Derrington, M. L., & Campbell, J. W. (2015). Implementing new teacher evaluation
systems: Principals’ concerns and supervisor support. Journal of Educational
Change, 16(3), 305-326. doi: 10.1007/s10833-015-9244-6
Driscoll, D.L., Appiah-Yeboah, A, Salib, P, & Rupert, D.J. (2007) Merging qualitative
and quantitative data in mixed methods research: How to and why not. Retrieved
from
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=icwd
meea
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best
Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Dur, R., & Sol, J. (2010). Social interaction, co-worker altruism, and incentives.
Games and Economic Behavior, 69(2), 293-301.
Erwin, D. G., & Garman, A. N. (2010) Resistance to organizational change: linking
research and practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(1), 3956.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.
Gilbert, K.A., Voelkel, R.H., Johnson, C.W. (2018) Increasing self-efficacy through
immersive simulations: Leading professional learning communities. Journal of
Leadership Education, 17(3), 154-174. doi: 10.12806/v17/i3/r9

80

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective Teacher Efficacy:
Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.
Goddard, R., Skrla, L., & Salloum, S.J. (2017). The roles of collective efficacy in
closing student achievement gaps: A mixed method study of school leadership for
excellence and equity. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR)
22(4), 220-236. doi: 10.1080/10824669.2017.1348900
Guskey, T. R. (1981). Measurement of responsibility teachers assume for academic
success and failures in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 44-51.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing
fancy that refuses to face away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239.
doi:10.1080/15700760500244793
Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management
behaviour of principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.
doi:10.1086/461445
Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J., & Marcoulides, G.A. (1990). Instructional leadership and
school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 26(2), 94-125. doi: 10.1177/0013161X90026002002
Hoy, W.K., & Woolfolk, A.E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the
organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 356-372.
Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2015). Models of Teaching, (9th Ed.) Toronto, ON:
Pearson.
Kayapinar, U. (2016). A study on reflection in in-service teacher development:
introducing reflective practitioner development model. Educational Science:
Theory & Practice, 16(5), 1671-1691. doi: 10.12738/estp.2016.5.0077
Kunnari, I., Ilomaki, L., & Toom, A. (2018). Successful teacher teams in change: The
role of collective efficacy and resilience. International Journal of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education, 30(1), 111-126.
Larkin, C. (2017) An examination of the instructional leadership role of high school
vice principals (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED580740.
81

Laverick, V. T. (2017). Secondary teachers' understanding and use of reflection: An
exploratory study. American Secondary Education, 45(2), 56-68.
Lee, D.H., & Lee, W.O. (2018) Transformational change in instruction with
professional learning communities? The influence of teacher cultural disposition in
high power distance contexts. Journal of Educational Change, 19, 463-488. doi:
10.1007/s10833-018-9328-1
Leithwood, K. (1996). School restructuring, transformational leadership and the
amelioration of teacher burnout. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 9, 199-215.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of
Research: How Leadership Influences Student Learning. University of Minnesota,
Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
Leithwood, K., & Beatty, B. (2008). Leading with teacher emotions in mind.
California: Corwin Press.
Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance:
An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397. doi: 10.1177/0013161x03253412
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
McKenzie, M. (1998). Going going gone…global. In M. Hayden & J. Thompson (Eds.),
International Education: Principles and Practices (pp. 242-252). London: Kogan
Page.
Mette, I. M., Anderson, J., Nieuwenhuizen, L., Range, B. G., Hvidston, D. J., & Doty, J.,
(2017). The wicked problem of the intersection between supervision and
evaluation. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 9(3), 709-724.
Mette, I. M., Range, B. G., Anderson, J., Hvidston, D. J., & Nieuwenhuizen, L. (2015).
Teachers’ perceptions of teacher supervision and evaluation: A reflection of school
improvement practices in the age of reform. Education Leadership Review, 16(1),
16-30.
82

Murakami-Ramalho, E. (2008) Domestic practices in foreign lands: Lessons on
leadership for diversity in American international schools. Journal of Studies in
International Education (12)1, 76-95. doi: 10.1177/1028315306291668
Neumerski, C. M. (2012). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do
we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where
should we go from here? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310-347.
doi: 10.1177/0013161X12456700
Ning, H.K., Lee, D., & Lee, W.O. (2015) Relationships between value orientations,
collegiality, and collaboration in school professional learning communities. Social
Psychology of Education, 18, 337-354. doi: 10.1007/s11218-015-9294x.
Oleszewski, A., Shoho, A., & Barnett, B. (2012). The development of assistant
principals: A literature review. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(3), 264286. doi: 10.1108/09578231211223301
Pollock, D. C., & Van Reken, R. E. (2009). Third culture kids: Growing up among
worlds (Rev. ed.). Boston: Nicholas Brealey Pub.
Sabir, M.S., Sohair, A., & Khan, M.A. (2011) Impact of leadership style on
organization commitment: In a mediating role of employee values. Journal of
Economic and Behavioral Studies, 3(2), 145-152.
Schon, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2013). How do secondary principals influence
teaching and learning? Principal’s Research Review, 8(5), 1-5.
Sehgal, P., Nambudiri, R., & Mishra, K. (2017). Teacher effectiveness through selfefficacy, collaboration and principal leadership. International Journal of Education
Management 31(4), 505-517. doi:10.1108/IJEM-05-2016-0090
Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (2009) The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective (6th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc – Allyn and Bacon.

83

Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R., & Diamons, J. B. (2004) Towards a theory of leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34.
Stein, M.K., & Nelson, B.S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(6), 423-448.
The Danielson Group LLC. (2014). Charlotte Danielson’s framework for teaching.
Retrieved from
http://www.k12.wa.us/TPEP/Frameworks/Danielson/2011_Danielson_SMART_C
ard.pdf
The Principal Center. (2018). Ten Questions for Better Feedback for Teachers.
Retrieved from https://www.principalcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/10questions-better-feedback.pdf
Trilaksono, T., Purusottama, A., Misbach, I. H., Prasetya, I. H. (2019) Leadership
change design: A professional learning community (plc) project in eastern
Indonesia. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 8(1), 4756.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher Efficacy: Capturing an
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education 17(7), 785-805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research 68(2), 202-248.
Wenger, E.C., & Snyder, W.M. (2000) Communities of practice: The organizational
frontier. Harvard Business Review, 87(1), 139-146.
Wiliam, D. (2014).The formative evaluation of teaching performance. Centre for
Strategic Education Occasional Paper 137, pp1-24. East Melbourne, Victoria: Centre
for Strategic Education.
Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the
construct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in
the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39-49. doi
10.1177/002248710005100105

84

Zhang, X., & Ng, H. (2011). A case study of teacher appraisal in Shanghai, China: In
relation to teacher professional development. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(4),
569-580. doi: 10.1007/s12564-011-9159-8
Zhang, X., & Ng, H. (2017). An effective model of teacher appraisal: Evidence from
secondary schools in Shanghai, China. Education Management Administration &
Leadership, 45(2), 196-218. doi 10.1177/1741143215597234

85

Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocols
Project:

Professional Reflection: Its Implementation in Instructional
Leadership and Affect on Collective Efficacy in International Schools
in the Philippines

Time of Interview:
Date:
Place:
Interviewer:
Interviewee:
[This research is seeking to ask what your views are on the Reflective Practice in
your formal and informal interactions with teachers. The data collected in this
interview will be securely kept in an encrypted computer file, and your name and
will be assigned a pseudonym to ensure anonymity. This interview should take
about one hour. ]
[Begin recording]
Questions
1. What experiences did you have as a classroom teacher with reflective
practice?
2. Do you have any examples of principals inspiring reflective practice when
you where a classroom teacher? Did this influence your practice or
conversations with teachers in your school? How?
3. Of the workshops or PD you have attended, what has been the most
meaningful to you? How has this changed or influenced interactions in your
school?
4. In what ways do you currently help your teachers as an instructional
leader? Do you feel responsible for encouraging your teachers to grow
instructionally? What do you think makes a difference in your teachers’
classroom practice?
5. What kind of professional learning communities exist in your school and
what is your role in them?
6. How do these affect the learning and environment in classes?
7. How do you currently conduct faculty evaluations? Are you interested in
how reflective practice is working in your school? How are your teachers
using reflective practice?
86

Appendix B: Consent Form
CONSENT FORM
Project Title:

Professional Reflection: Its Implementation in Instructional
Leadership and Affect on Collective Efficacy in International
Schools in the Philippines.

Researcher:

Benjamin Josephson
Thompson Rivers University

This form is provided to aid you in deciding whether you wish to participate
in this study. You are free to decide not to participate or to withdraw at any time
without affecting your relationship with this researcher or Thompson Rivers
University. This study is being overseen by my thesis supervisor, Dr. Victoria
Handford, who can be reached at 250-8526353 vhandford@tru.ca. You may also
contact the Ethics Committee at TRU-REB@tru.ca or the Dean of the Faculty of
Education and Social Work, Dr. Airini at airini@tru.ca.
The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding how Professional
Reflection is used by principals and teachers, and its effect on the collectiveefficacy of a school.
The data will be collected in the form of a one interview with the principal,
lasting approximately one hour, and one 22 question survey to be filled out
anonymously by teachers reporting to the principal, which should take
approximately 15 minutes.
Before participation, or at any point during the study, please do not hesitate
to ask any questions about the study that you might have. I will share the findings
with you after the research is completed in the form of an executive summary.
Neither your name or school will be associated with the research findings in any
way, and only the researcher will know your identity—no quoted information will
be linked with any individual participants. All research data will be kept
electronically on an encrypted thumb-drive in a locked condition at Thompson
Rivers University for a period of five years, after which all information will be
destroyed.
There are low risks associated with this study.
You are signing this consent form with full knowledge of the nature and purpose of
the procedures. A copy of this signed form will be provided for your files.
__________________________________________________
Signature

_____________________________
Date

Benjamin Josephson, Thompson Rivers University (0998-565-6875) josephsonb17@mytru.ca

87

Appendix C: Collective Efficacy Survey
Collective Efficacy Scale*
Project Title: Professional Reflection: Its Implementation in
Instructional Leadership and Affect on Collective Efficacy in International
Schools in the Philippines.
This section is provided to aid you in deciding whether you wish to participate in
this study. You are free to decide not to participate or to withdraw at any time without
affecting your relationship with this researcher or Thompson Rivers University. This study
is being overseen by my thesis supervisor, Dr. Victoria Handford, who can be reached at
250-8526353 vhandford@tru.ca. You may also contact the Ethics Committee at TRUREB@tru.ca or the Dean of the Faculty of Education and Social Work, Dr. Airini at
airini@tru.ca.
The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding how Professional Reflection
is used and its effect on collective-efficacy.
The data will be collected in the form of a one short answer question and a 21
question survey. The time invested in this study approximately 15 minutes
Before participation, or at any point during the study, please do not hesitate to ask
any questions about the study that you might have. I will share the findings with you after
the research is completed in the form of an executive summary. Neither your name or
school will be associated with the research findings in any way, and only the researcher will
know your identity—no quoted information will be linked with any individual participants.
All research data will be kept electronically on an encrypted thumb-drive in a locked
condition at Thompson Rivers University for a period of five years, after which all
information will be destroyed.
There are low risks associated with this study.
In submitted this completed survey you are consenting to participate in this research. You
are submitting it with full knowledge of the nature and purpose of the procedures.
How do you currently use professional reflection in your practice as a teacher?

Directions: Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following
statements about your school on a scale from “1” Disagree to “4” Agree.

Rating of
1-4

1. If a child doesn't learn something the first time teachers will try another
way.
2. Teachers in this school are skilled in various methods of teaching.
3. Teachers here are well prepared to teach the subjects they are assigned to
teach.
4. Teachers in this school really believe every child can learn.
5. If a child doesn't want to learn teachers here give up.
6. Teachers here fail to reach some students because of poor teaching

88

methods.
7. Teachers here don't have the skills needed to produce meaningful student
learning.
8. Teachers in this school have what it takes to get the children to learn.
9. Teachers in this school are able to gut through to difficult students.
10. Teachers here are confident they will be able to motivate their students.
11. The lack of instructional materials and supplies makes teaching very
difficult.
12. Teachers in this school do not have the skills to deal with student
disciplinary problems.
13. Teachers in this school think there are some students that no one can
reach.
14. The quality of school facilities here really facilitates the teaching and
learning process.
15. Home life provides so many advantages they are bound to learn.
16. These students come to school ready to learn.
17. Drug and alcohol abuse in the community make learning difficult for
students here.
18. The opportunities in this community help ensure that these students will
learn.
19. Students here just aren't motivated to learn.
20. Learning is more difficult at this school because students are worried
about their safety.
21. Teachers here need more training to know how to deal with these
students.
* Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective Teacher Efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479507.
Benjamin Josephson, Thompson Rivers University (0998-565-6875) bjosephson17@mytru.ca

89

Appendix D: Transcriber Confidentiality Agreement
Project: Professional Reflection: Its Implementation in Instructional Leadership
and Affect on Collective Efficacy in International Schools in the Philippines.
1. I, ______________________________ transcriptionist, agree to maintain full
confidentiality of all research data received related to this research study.
2. I will hold in confidence the identity of any individual that may be revealed
during the transcription of interviews.
3. I will not make copies of any audio-recordings, video-recordings, or other
research data, unless specifically requested to do so by the researcher.
4. I will not provide the research data to any third parties.
5. I will store all study-related data in a safe, secure location as long as they are in
my possession. All video and audio recordings will be stored in an encrypted
format.
6. All data provided or created for purposes of this agreement, including any backup records, will be permanently deleted. When I have received confirmation that
the transcription work I performed has been satisfactorily completed, any of the
research data that remains with me will be returned to the research team or
destroyed.
Transcriber’s name (printed) __________________________________________________
Transcriber's signature __________________________________________________
Date ___________________________________________________

Benjamin Josephson, Thompson Rivers University (0998-565-6875) josephsonb17@mytru.ca

90