Enriching Teacher Self-Efficacy Through a Support Centric Evaluation Model: A Mixed Methods Study of TEAM's Impact on Teacher Self-Efficacy

The effectiveness of teacher evaluation systems is determined by the extent to which they can support improved instructional practice. Research suggests that implementation factors such as attitudes of school leaders (Kimball & Milanowski, 2009), perceptions of fairness (Delvaux, Vanhoof, Tuytens, Vekeman, Devos, & Petegem, 2013), the relationship of the evaluator and the teacher (Weber, 1987), and the quality of the feedback provided can all impact the effectiveness of the evaluation system (Conly & Glasman, 2008; Danielson, 2012; Delvaux et al., 2013; Weber, 1987). This mixed methods study attempted to determine the extent to which these implementation characteristics occurring within the context of the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) acted as an intervening variable for teacher self-efficacy, the belief system that mediates teacher behavior. Limitations in the sample size resulted in an inability to conduct the statistical analysis needed to determine the extent to which implementation might act as an intervening variable. However, the study did find that the school with the implementation characteristics most aligned to those outlined in the research had an overall higher teacher self-efficacy average on both the pre and post administration of the Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale-Self. The study also examined how the implementation of TEAM influenced teacher efficacy. Bandura (1977) suggests that there are four sources of efficacy development: mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and affective states. The study found that the teachers’ perceptions of fairness and the attitude of the principal gave power to the sources of efficacy. Teachers were more likely to utilize the evaluation experience as a source of efficacy if they perceived the process and feedback to be fair and if there was an expectation that they utilize the process to improve their practice. In addition, teachers were more likely to utilize the feedback provided if it was connected to student outcomes. Support for the evaluation process was also linked to the generation of affective states for the teachers, or to positive and negative stress responses. Finally a model for principal practice is provided that involves the generation of a support centric evaluation model that could serve to ensure that teacher self-efficacy is supported throughout the evaluation process.