SELF REGULATION & TEACHER EFFICACY: BLENDING CLIMATE & CULTURE

Presented at

Our Savior Lutheran School 64-33 Woodhaven Blvd.

Queens, NY

Co-Presenters:Marie White, & Stuart Knapp

Nyack College, Manhattan, NY Phone: 845. 675.4547

Fax: 845.358.0874marie.white@nyack.edustuart.knapp@nyack.edu

March 20, 2009

2

Presentation Outline

Section Presenter Time Focus

Morning Stuart Knapp 10:00-12:00 Climate &

Culture

Lunch ---- 12:00-1:00

Afternoon Marie White 1:00-2:00 Classr’m

& Issues

Stuart Knapp

3

Teachers:Novice & Expert

Novice Mix important info

w/irrelevant info

Are acquiring content knowledge (what to teach)

Are acquiring pedagogical knowledge (how to teach)

Learning time/mgt. Ponder “What’s the right

thing to do”

Expert alert students when

something critically important is coming

Have acquired more content knowledge (over more time)

Have acquired more pedagogical knowledge

More efficient (do more in less time)

Creative insight (more appropriate solutions to problems)

4

Figure 1. 9 Context-Setting Characteristics (after Purkey & Smith, 1985)

CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTIONAL DEFINITION

1A. School-site Mgt. autonomy from central office

1B. Democratic

decision-

making

invited participation of parents & staff

2. Leadership behavior resulting in the facilitation of change

3. Staff stabilityinfrequent transfer of staff; high level of employee consistency

4. Curric. articulation and organization

coordinated planned curriculum which increases % of students’ engaged learning time

5

9. District

supportdistrict office recognizes efforts of school staff and provides needed resources

8. Maximized

learning

time

more of school day & class periods are disruption & interruption-free

7. School-wide

recognition of

academic

success

publicly honoring student academic effort, improvement and achievement in moving toward standard of excellence encourages students to adopt similar values

6. Parent

involvement

and support

welcoming parent input & support for homework, Attendance & discipline impacts positively on student motivation & performance

5. Staff Development ongoing; links staff concerns to schools’ needs

CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTIONAL DEFINITION

6

In Cooperative Grade-level (or other) Groups…

1. Discuss the 9 context-setting

characteristics of effective schools

2. Prioritize those that contribute most significantly to instructional effectiveness in your classroom

3. Groups report out in 5-10 minutes

7

FIGURE 1.2 CLIMATE AND CULTURE-SETTING CHARACTERISTICS

10. Collaborative planning

& collegial

relationships,

11. Sense of community,

CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTIONAL DEFINITION

working together; dissolving

barriers separating staff, administration & departments blending ideas, feelings & beliefs; seeking common agreements which coalesce into consensus;

feelings of collective solidarity & bonding;

8

rules are mutually agreed,

fairly& consistently enforced.13. Order and discipline,

energy of staff & students is channeled toward mutually shared purposes

12. Clear goals & high expectations commonly shared,

FIGURE 1.2 CLIMATE AND CULTURE-SETTING CHARACTERISTICS (Cont.)

CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTIONAL DEFINITION

9

Climate• The way people

behave, respond, react, given a goal target or direction.

• The surface level of a culture (Sun, 2007).

Culture1. What people believe,

their values, attitudes, and convictions.

2. The deeper level e.g. values that are reflected in goals, laws, curriculum delivery. (Sun, 2007).

Defining (Distinguishing) Climate & Culture

10

Climate(Setting the stage)

building capacity for

KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS

dvpmt.

11

KNOWLEDGE & SKILLSdefined

KNOWLEDGE

“knowing that…

SKILLS

knowing how…

12

Culture(Setting the stage)

building capacity for

DISPOSITIONS

dvpmt.

13

DISPOSITIONSdefined

DISPOSITIONS

“BELIEVING that…”e.g.

“fairness”, & “all students can learn” …are givens

14

In Cooperative Grade-level (or other) Groups…

1. Given the definitions in the preceding 5 slides, which of the 4 climate & culture-setting characteristics (slide 7-8 ) describe climate, and which describe culture

2. Prioritize those that contribute most significantly to instructional effectiveness in your classroom

3. Groups report out in 5-10 minutes

15

OUT-OF SCHOOL

CONDITIONS

          Federal

          State

          Local

  Community

TRANSFORMATIONALLEADERSHIP·   Vision-building·   Providing individual support·   Providing Intellectual support·   High Performance·   Contingent reward

IN-SCHOOL CONDITIONS·     School goals·     Culture·     Programs & Instruction·     Policies & Organization·     Resources

Teachers’

Commitment to

Change          Personal goals

          Context beliefs

          Capacity beliefs

FIGURE 3. A Model to Explain Teacher Commitmentto Change

Source: Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Fernandez, A. 1994, p. 80. (In Murphy & Louis, Eds.)

16

From the previous slide, each group selects a category box.

List and describe the particular factors that are given in outline form only

Groups report out in 5-10 minutes

In Cooperative Grade-level (or other) Groups…

17

Summary & Conclusions

• This presentation has attempted to share several key factors which recent research has shown to directly influence student performance for K-12 Public Schools.

• It would seem that these factors also might benefit students at private Christian Schools.

• On behalf of your presenter (Stuart Knapp) this morning-

•Thank you for enlivening the discussion of “Best Practices” today!

18

REFERENCESBaines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in

grouping practices over primary and secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1/2), 9-34.

Barker, B. (2007). The leadership paradox: Can school leaders transform student outcomes? School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 18 (1), 21-43.

Creemers, B. P. M. (2002). From school effectiveness and school improvement to effective school improvement: background theoretical analysis and outline of the empirical study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8 (4), 343-362.

Fruen, L. (2001), Enriching the curriculum. Science Teacher.68(1), 8.

19

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Fernandez, A. (1994). Transformational leadership and teachers’ commitment to change. In Murphy, J. & Louis, K. (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Hoy, W. & Miskel, C. (1991). Educational administration: Theory, research and practice, 4e. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22.

Papanastasiou, C. (2008). A residual analysis of effective schools and effective teaching in mathematics. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34(1), 24-30.

Purkey, S. & Smith, M. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of the effective schools literature. The Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 353-389.

20

Scheffel, D., Shaw, J. & Shaw, R. (2008). The efficacy of a supplemental multisensory reading program for first- grade students. Reading Improvement. 45(3), 139-152.Sun, H., Creemers, B., deJong, R. (2007). Contextual factors

and effective school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(1), 93-122.

Wikely, F., Stoll, L., Murillo, J., & deJong, R. (2005). Evaluating effective school improvement: Case studies of programmes in eight European countries and their contribution to the effective school improvement model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 387-405.