Developing collective teacher efficacy in mathematics through professional learning

ABSTRACT

Since the turn of the 21st century, collective teacher efficacy has been positively associated with improved student outcomes, even after controlling for students’ socioeconomic circumstances or prior achievement. Despite a large body of literature examining professional learning for teachers, little attention has been paid to intentionally fostering teachers’ collective efficacy. Bandura posited 4 sources of information that contribute to the formation of efficacy beliefs, but limited research explicitly links the sources to processes and structures of professional learning. In this article, we offer insights into how collective teacher efficacy may have been shaped in the context of an Australian primary mathematics professional learning program. Through detailed descriptions of the program’s structures and processes aligned with Bandura’s 4 sources, we consider their potential to inform collective teacher efficacy. We conclude with recommendations for practice and further research.

There is no doubt that professional learning (PL) is an ongoing need for teachers, particularly in primary mathematics. Greater emphasis on the provision of high-impact PL for teachers is needed (Gore et al., 2023), however evaluating the impact of PL remains an unresolved issue. Positively associated with productive behaviors in teachers (Donohoo, 2018) and improved mathematics achievement for students (Goddard et al., 2017), collective teacher efficacy (CTE) is emerging as a potential construct for analyzing PL impact (Loughland & Nguyen, 2020). Based on Bandura’s (1986) social-cognitive theory, CTE holds promise for illuminating how and why PL works. CTE has been defined as a “collective self-perception that teachers in a school can make an educational difference to their pupils over and above the educational impact of their homes and communities” (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004, p. 3). Attributed with an effect size of 1.57 (Hattie, 2015), CTE can result in teachers having a stronger focus on academics, holding higher expectations of students, taking greater risks with pedagogical strategies, and being more receptive to new ideas (Donohoo, 2018). Despite its apparent benefits, there is still much to learn about how contextual factors surrounding PL influence the development of CTE (DiBenedetto & Schunk, 2018).

In translating the theoretical construct of CTE into practical application, more detailed descriptions of PL activities and how they positively influence CTE are needed to better understand causal relationships (Donohoo, 2017). Bandura (1997) proposed 4 sources of information that shape efficacy beliefs: mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and affective states. A critical review of the literature on these sources pointed to the importance of research into both the quality and quantity of teachers’ experiences (Morris et al., 2017). Examining PL mechanisms and their potential to animate the 4 sources is therefore 1 approach to understanding ways in which efficacy information is selected and integrated into CTE.

Context: Mathematical expertise and excellence

Examples of PL structures and processes may strengthen understanding of contextual factors and how the 4 sources might influence CTE development (Donohoo, 2018). In this article, we highlight 1 example: Mathematical Expertise and Excellence (MEE)—a PL program intended to improve mathematics education across a large system of schools in Sydney, Australia (Mae, 2020). While co-delivering MEE, the 1st author recognized specific PL structures and processes that had potential to develop participants’ perceptions of their collective capabilities to produce desired outcomes. MEE had 2 aims: to maximize the levels of numeracy attained by all students and to increase the proportion of students studying, and aspiring to study, higher levels of mathematics and mathematics related subjects. There were 5 years of MEE implementation from 2018 with many schools reporting improved teacher capacity and enhanced student achievement and interest. Thus, MEE can serve as an informative case to explore the relationship between PL and CTE and assist in identifying structures and processes that have potential to contribute to CTE. What follows is a brief description of each MEE structure and process, and then connections are made between them and their potential to activate the 4 sources that foster CTE.

MEE: PL structures

MEE PL had 4 structural levels: 2 temporal and 2 organizational. The 1st temporal structure involved 3 annual courses set at Proficient, Highly Accomplished and Lead levels, accredited through a local educational authority to meet the professional standards for Australian teachers (National Education Standards Authority, 2019). The Proficient course focused on learning and implementing new knowledge and skills for teaching primary mathematics. Highly Accomplished course participants learned to support colleagues in applying the approach to mathematics learning, teaching, and assessment promoted by MEE. The Lead course developed capacities for leading, embedding and sustaining a school-wide plan for expertise and excellence in mathematics learning and teaching. The 2nd temporal structure comprised a series of 4 terms that made up each annual course. In increasing sophistication over the 3 courses, the focus of each term in chronological order was:

• the design, implementation, and evaluation of cognitively challenging mathematics tasks;

• strategies to notice and respond to student thinking in productive, inclusive learning environments;

• balancing new learning with practice and mastery through high expectations and goal setting; and

• sequencing learning to maximize communication, problem solving, reasoning, understanding, and fluency.

Within each term there were 2 organizational structures—workshops and in-situs. Six-hour workshops, designed to deepen teachers’ knowledge of mathematics curriculum and pedagogy, occurred once per term. Provided by system leaders or trained MEE participants, workshops were attended by leaders and teachers together. Initial participants were a small, crucial group from each school who would have responsibility for introducing and embedding the pedagogies in ensuing years. Three-hour in-situs followed each workshop. Conducted at each school location, in-situs were facilitated by system leaders or trained MEE participants and were attended by the participating leaders and teachers from that school. In-situs were held at least once per term and concentrated on translation of workshop theory into practice.

MEE: PL processes

Workshops and in-situs employed a variety of recursive PL processes to build teachers’ mathematics content knowledge and knowledge of how to teach the subject. A careful balance of theory and practice was achieved through a focus on contemporary research reinforced with practical examples and experiences. Of the processes, the following were most applicable to fostering the 4 sources of efficacy: professional reading, knowledge package, modeled lesson, pre-lesson discussion, collaborative analysis of practice conversation, co-writing tasks, and teachers doing the mathematics. Each is described in the paragraphs that follow.

Professional readings enhance and expand knowledge and understanding of topics, themes, and research in mathematics education and can be a valuable tool to enable teachers to make sense of new ideas (Hodgson & Wilkie, 2022). During each workshop, syntheses of contemporary studies in pedagogical practice were used as stimuli for deepening thinking on meaningful and achievable change at classroom and whole-school levels. Individual journaling and collaborative conversations in response to prompts based on the readings engaged participants in reflection that challenged thinking and practice.

Teachers’ content knowledge is central to student learning (Ball et al., 2008). During each workshop, participants worked together on a knowledge package process to examine specific mathematics curriculum content and summarize the required mathematical language, strategies, and skills. Participants matched mathematics problems to important ideas in the content and shared summaries from Kindergarten to Year 8 to reveal syllabus expectations and the progression of ideas. Further, trajectories of key ideas were collaboratively created and linked to student assessment.

Observations of modeled lessons can invoke dissonance, reflection and resolution that support primary mathematics teachers to shift practice (Hodgson & Wilkie, 2022). During workshops and in-situs, modeled lessons involved a series of guided enactments designed to build participants’ proficiencies, skills, and pedagogical knowledge. In collaborative settings, new pedagogical strategies were demonstrated by system leaders, school leaders, and teacher participants in their own classrooms to support the translation of theoretical constructs into changed practice.

There is a growing emphasis on high-quality analysis of lesson design and effective identification of key lesson elements in PL for Australasian mathematics teachers (Bobis et al., 2020). Evaluation of cognitively challenging tasks took place during 1-hour pre-lesson discussions: 1 of 3 PL processes used during an MEE in-situ. The process involved discussing the extent of alignment of mathematical content with the task, talking through the structure of the lesson, and pre-planning pedagogical strategies with the intention of motivating teachers and guiding their actions anticipatorily.

Opportunities provided to collaborate and engage in collegial reflection addressed teachers’ content and pedagogical needs to transform classroom pedagogy (Wright, 2020). The 3rd in-situ process was a post-lesson or collaborative analysis of practice conversation which comprised factual recall of events, an evaluative and reflective analysis of the effectiveness of the teaching and learning, and goal setting. The purpose of this process was for school leaders and teachers to develop a common theory of action, consistent language for describing expert teaching practices, and a mutual commitment to high expectations for themselves and their students.

Co-writing lessons boosts teachers’ confidence, engagement and feelings of success when implementing unfamiliar mathematics pedagogical practices (Bruce et al., 2010). Formally during workshops, and informally between PL sessions, teachers co-planned tasks that scaffolded their transition from observation of a modeled lesson and learning about new pedagogies, to planning for implementation and enactment in classrooms (Hodgson & Wilkie, 2022). Collaborative co-construction improved task design, enhanced the learning sequence of lessons, and supported clarification and development of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching.

Few studies look at teachers “doing the mathematics” themselves in order to address what is needed in learning (Robutti et al., 2016). Yet, collaborative problem solving can play a crucial role in anticipating students’ underlying mathematical thinking and the strategies they may use (Melhuish et al., 2022). In every workshop, participants collaboratively solved a series of problems on the selected mathematics content. During pre-lesson discussions, they also worked through the lesson problem to anticipate student thinking and misconceptions. When teachers “do the mathematics,” their mathematical knowledge for teaching can improve (Copur-Gencturk et al., 2019).

Following is an overview of CTE in primary mathematics PL research and a synthesis of each of Bandura’s (1986) sources with reference to relevant studies. Connections are made between MEE PL structures and processes, the 4 sources, and the development of CTE.

Activating sources of collective teacher efficacy through MEE

There is a small body of literature on how mathematics PL for primary teachers affects their self- or collective efficacy and even fewer studies have specifically focused on the 4 sources (Donohoo, 2017). Some studies have referred to Bandura’s work but have not explored the sources (e.g., Althauser, 2015). Others examined some, but not all, sources (e.g., Bruce & Flynn, 2013). One study only referencing all 4 sources investigated a Canadian PL program designed to increase the self-efficacy of primary mathematics teachers (Ross & Bruce, 2007) however, CTE was not addressed. To our knowledge, there is no research on ways the 4 sources can be activated to build CTE during PL for primary teachers of mathematics.

Overall, studies have shown that mastery and vicarious experiences consistently emerge as powerful sources of efficacy, while the other 2 sources have been less well researched. According to Bandura (1997), mastery experience typically occurs when consistent application of new skills and strategies enhance perceptions of a group’s capacity for effective task performance. Vicarious experience involves witnessing demonstrations of effective pedagogical skills and strategies and equating quality examples to the performance of oneself and one’s colleagues (Loughland & Ryan, 2022). Social persuasion entails purposeful, structured collaborative learning in rich, interactive educational contexts where critical reflection on teaching performance is promoted (Beauchamp et al., 2014). Information gained through emotions, physical states, and coping mechanisms, known as affective states, can also impact on efficacy beliefs (Bleakley et al., 2020).

Mastery experience

Mastery experiences result from accomplishing a challenging task or performance. Robust beliefs about collective competence and effectiveness can be developed from consistent application of new knowledge, skills, and strategies, and through repeated successes when mastering new or difficult activities (Loughland & Nguyen, 2020). As a result of facing adversity and overcoming obstacles, successful mastery experiences create a sense of resilience and accomplishment that can lead to changed behavior and boosted efficacy beliefs. Some of the MEE structures and processes enabled participants to persevere, overcome challenge, and produce desired outcomes thus activating mastery experiences.

MEE structures

The annual structure of MEE gave participants sustained time to learn and change, a condition Labone and Long (2016) explained is effective in developing CTE. Since learning is maximized when there are adequate intervals between educative events (Bandura, 1997), the temporal nature of the PL afforded sufficient time to trial and refine new pedagogies between formal inputs. Deliberate practice of strategies in everyday lessons allowed direct experience of positive performance, while occasional setbacks were overcome with perseverant effort. Teachers progressively built their knowledge for teaching mathematics as they transferred learning from workshops into their practice (Hilton & Hilton, 2019).

The organizational structure of 4 educational terms supported Bandura’s (1986) findings that mastery acquisition is supported in 2 main ways: breaking down complex skills into easily mastered subskills and allowing diagnostic information to be cognitively processed. By segmenting the course in terms, the learning was introduced slowly and sequentially allowing time for practice and gradual mastery of skills. These match observations of Hilton et al. (2016) that cycles of learning, implementation, experimentation, and reflection over extended periods of time can result in adoption of new pedagogical practices.

Sustained PL can elevate efficacy beliefs for primary teachers of mathematics (Althauser, 2015). In MEE, mastery experiences were gained from observing student success with challenging mathematics problems and progress in the face of difficulty (Ross & Bruce, 2007). Teachers realized they had become more competent instructors when observing successful mathematics lessons where the teaching had supported students’ increased understanding (Bruce et al., 2010). MEE temporal structures may have raised efficacy appraisals through gradual application and refinement of newly advocated pedagogical approaches and repeated exposure to performance improvement.

MEE processes

Some MEE processes also had potential to contribute to participants’ mastery experiences. Mastery of mathematics content knowledge and pedagogy are vital for teacher competency (Ball et al., 2008). The knowledge package, pre-lesson discussion, and “doing the mathematics” helped to facilitate deeper understanding of content knowledge, while pedagogical knowledge was developed through co-writing tasks and professional reading. For example, during the knowledge package process, individual and collective expertise was acquired through methodical deconstruction and collaborative reconstruction of mathematics content. When matching mathematics problems to curriculum content descriptors, participants justified their selections and refined their understanding of the content. Collaborative creation of learning trajectories and alignment of content with student assessments required teachers to reason, challenge and confirm their new knowledge with each other.

Content knowledge was further strengthened during pre-lesson discussions. Through close examination of content selected for a modeled lesson, leaders and teachers worked at enhancing common understandings and grew in awareness of each other’s content knowledge. Detailed analyses of the mathematics content to be taught and students’ pre-requisite knowledge and misconceptions gave rise to participants ascertaining perceptions of the group members’ content knowledge.

Each workshop involved a session of “doing the mathematics.” Participants engaged in collaborative problem solving including using multiple examples from the national standardized testing program (ACARA, 2022). Working with others to find solutions not readily apparent, participants focused on the processes of problem solving causing them to think deeply about how to teach concepts. Engaging in the doing of mathematics and reflecting on those experiences contributed to pedagogical knowledge development (Chick & Stacey, 2013).

Co-writing tasks may also have activated mastery experiences as participants paid close attention to mathematical content and carefully consider instructional strategies (Bruce & Flynn, 2013). The scaffolded process of co-designing tasks showed how to create learning intentions, open-ended problems, and differentiated success criteria. From the 2nd workshop, participants learned to plan for and implement pedagogical strategies, and multiple ways to provide differentiated practice were introduced in the following workshop. Furthermore, during pre-lesson discussions, the task was examined, and teaching strategies anticipated, which further tested and extended participants’ pedagogical knowledge.

Professional readings provided during workshops shared recent findings from mathematics educational research. Review of the literature included key principles of effective mathematics instruction (Sullivan, 2011), practices for orchestrating productive mathematical discussions (Smith & Stein, 2011), and local curriculum elaborations on working mathematically. As participants engaged in thinking about contemporary models of learning, development of new knowledge for teaching may have contributed to changes in beliefs and attitudes and provided a rationale for trialing new practices.

During MEE, mastery experiences occurred because of the gradual introduction of mathematics curriculum content and unfamiliar pedagogies which made the complex simpler and gave participants time to practice and master new knowledge and skills. Consistent application of new skills and strategies had potential to create enhanced perceptions of participants’ collective capacity for effective task performance and hence their CTE.

Vicarious experience

CTE beliefs are boosted when teachers witness demonstrations of effective skills and strategies and equate the quality examples to their performance and that of their colleagues. Such vicarious experiences can support the transmission of knowledge and expertise, convince people of their efficacy, weaken the impact of direct failure, and sustain proficient performance effort (Bandura, 1997). Beyond mathematics, vicarious experiences have led to teachers trying new reading strategies (Ryan & Hendry, 2022). Loughland and Nguyen (2020) broadened the range of activities that constitute vicarious experiences to include collaborative planning, in-the-action mentoring, and reflective discussions and found that these also contributed to an improved sense of CTE for teachers of primary science.

MEE structures

Multiple opportunities for vicarious experience were afforded by MEE PL. Workshop and in-situ structures facilitated modeling to demonstrate ways of teaching mathematics for conceptual understanding. Co-writing tasks and doing the mathematics also served as m for promoting a sense of CTE as they allowed observation of peer competencies. Further, Ross and Bruce (2007) concluded that teachers benefited vicariously when they recounted activities in their own classrooms to colleagues, similarly to what occurred during MEE. In addition, the impact of modeling as a vicarious experience was heightened during collaborative analysis of practice conversations when peers shared successes of reform implementation. Such reflection can aid cognitive appraisal of CTE.

The 1st occasion for observation of new pedagogies each term was during workshops when a lesson was taught by the PL facilitator and MEE participants engaged as students. In this context, didactic modeling served as a strategy to demonstrate expert teaching featuring anticipating, monitoring, selecting, sequencing, and connecting learning (Smith & Stein, 2011). These experiences often confronted assumptions about traditional approaches to teaching mathematics and prompted participants’ reflection and goal setting for improving practice (Hodgson & Wilkie, 2022). Through such in-action mentoring, modeling assisted connection of theoretical understandings with pedagogical practices that challenged and extended pedagogical knowledge, and so may have boosted CTE.

MEE in-situs provided follow-up vicarious experiences from the workshops where teachers could see pedagogical strategies in action in their own classrooms. At the beginning of each term, lessons were modeled by PL facilitators or trained MEE in-school leaders, with participants observing each other teaching later in the term. For the introductory vicarious experience, experienced leaders had the credibility Bandura deemed necessary to demonstrate new practices and share quality teaching. Subsequently, peers of comparable skill levels modeled teaching challenging ideas with new pedagogies. The impact of these processes aligns with Bruce and Flynn’s (2013) finding that peer observations of risk taking with challenging instructional strategies and achieving success in terms of student learning contributed to CTE.

When co-writing tasks during MEE, participants gained vicarious information about colleagues’ approaches to teaching mathematics. When teachers’ pedagogical approaches were confronted and they gained understanding about others’ teaching methods, vicarious experiences also ensued (Loughland & Nguyen, 2020). MEE provided new styles of challenging learning experiences that often conflicted with existing views of teaching through collaboratively designing lessons aimed at participants reflecting on and setting goals for improved practice (Hodgson & Wilkie, 2022). Further, co-writing tasks involved consideration of pedagogical strategies and mathematics content, enabling teachers to take risks together and further expand their knowledge of each other’s efficacy (e.g., Bruce et al., 2010).

MEE processes

The process of collaborative analysis of practice conversations was likely a key factor in the appraisal of colleagues’ capabilities and the formation of CTE. During the MEE conversations, leaders drew specific attention to different pedagogical strategies to connect the vicarious experiences to the participants’ teaching (Hodgson & Wilkie, 2022). Information extracted from modeled teaching involved transforming observations into new concepts for participants with the intention of changing their pedagogical practice (Bandura, 1997). Similar to Berebitsky and Salloum (2017), engaging teachers in cognitively processing vicarious experiences helped raise awareness of the success of their colleagues—thus influencing CTE beliefs.

Observational learning when “doing the mathematics” helps make sense of the discomfort, reflection, and resolution that colleagues may experience when facing complex, unfamiliar, non-routine mathematics problems (Hodgson & Wilkie, 2022). Efficacy beliefs can be affected by watching comparable others succeed or fail (Bandura, 1997). As the adage goes “if they can do it, so can I.” Observing a peer solving a challenging mathematics problem can shed light on one’s own capabilities through comparison. MEE serves as an example of how PL structures and processes can allow competent models to convey information about effective teaching skills and strategies. Therefore, vicarious experiences offered through MEE PL had potential to build CTE.

Social persuasion

CTE is also affected by social persuasion, as encouragement of credible others can foster people’s beliefs about their capabilities to achieve success. There is limited research that specifically links social persuasion to PL for primary teachers of mathematics, however substantial literature exists about the importance of teachers’ collaborative learning, feedback and reflection that may provide insights.

Social persuasion may be activated during collaborative PL aimed at promoting change in knowledge and practice. There is a strong confluence between collaboration and CTE, however more needs to be known about the reasons why (Loughland & Ryan, 2022). Sullivan (2011) recommended specific actions for teachers’ social learning that align with some MEE processes including having uae on pedagogy and content, scheduled meetings both before and after observations, and an agreed structure for feedback.

Critical collaborative reflection has potential to challenge prevailing discourses in mathematics education and transform teaching practice (Wright, 2020). After a modeled lesson, reflective practices might include sharing observations, drawing out implications for subsequent lessons, and summarizing in writing what was learned to consolidate the learning (Lewis et al., 2009). Structured collaborative PL in primary mathematics that has incorporated reflection on the outcomes has promoted teachers’ knowledge of mathematics content and pedagogy (Hilton & Hilton, 2019). This view is supported by Robutti et al. (2016) who described teacher collaboration as joint activity with a common purpose, involving critical dialogue, inquiry, and mutual support in addressing issues are professionally challenging.

MEE structures

Some MEE structures and processes had potential to elicit efficacy information through social persuasion. The PL’s annual structure provided opportunities to build leadership expertise in the 2nd- and 3rd-year courses through training in holding professional discussions and providing feedback on the quality of learning and teaching. MEE leaders’ capacities were developed to establish clear expectations for collaboration, support classroom practice with modeling, co-teaching, and observation, ask skillful questions that prompted deep reflection, and assist teacher goal setting. For example, the experience of 8 additional knowledge packages in the 2nd and 3rd years further increased content knowledge which, together with greater competence in pedagogical knowledge, saw participants respected as credible experts.

Workshops and in-situs enabled social persuasion as organizational structures employed well-defined collaborative processes. A clear workshop structure for engagement in high quality collaborative and reflective activities supported development of new instructional practices (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). The structure of in-situs involved joint planning, lesson observation, and collaborative analysis of practice conversations which Lewis et al. (2009) found supported changed primary teacher practice in mathematics. MEE built school leaders’ mathematical content knowledge expertise and pedagogical practice excellence. The presence of credible others on their own staff, who modeled, supported, guided, and challenged colleagues, built the knowledge and practice of most teachers, and helped convince them of their collective efficacy.

MEE processes

During workshops, the knowledge package prioritized building understanding of how mathematical concepts were sequenced within and across grade levels (Copur-Gencturk et al., 2019). The collaborative process involved participants querying themselves, challenging each other, and cross checking the curriculum. Consequently, CTE was built when individuals conveyed growing content knowledge, thus lifting beliefs about the collective capabilities of the teaching team (Berebitsky & Salloum, 2017). When participants co-wrote lessons and examined professional readings during workshops they were also exposed to learning through social persuasion. The experience of designing a task with another, engaged participants in deeper discussions about content and pedagogy, revealing and developing each other’s knowledge and understandings about teaching mathematics. Discussions about contemporary research challenged participants’ thinking and caused reflection on effective pedagogies, enabling teachers to make sense of new ideas.

In both workshops and in-situs, protocols for pre-lesson discussions focused on curriculum content, lesson design, selection of pedagogies, planning practice activities, and sequencing learning and assessment activities. Post-lesson conversations focused on pedagogical practice were collaboratively explored, trialed, analyzed, and evaluated, consistent with recommendations for effective PL (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). Advice from peers included instructional practices (Berebitsky & Salloum, 2017), exchange of ideas about student learning, and use of data. Peer feedback was provided through examination of content, selection of appropriate pedagogies, descriptions of what teachers and students were doing, and consideration of impact on student learning. Opportunities to engage in collegial feedback accentuated strategies for explicit teaching, monitoring and responding to student thinking, differentiation, and consolidation of learning. Undertaken in collaborative settings, structured in-situ discussions elicited efficacy information through social persuasion.

In summary, MEE provided multiple opportunities for social persuasion through collaborative experience and practice in sustained iterative PL cycles. Although Bandura (1997) considered social persuasion to be less powerful in shifting efficacy beliefs than mastery or vicarious experience, the structures and processes of MEE PL might challenge this proposition. Despite collaboration being taken for granted and under-theorized (Robutti et al., 2016), it is feasible to suggest that social persuasion information was activated during MEE structures and processes involving collaboration that convinced others of their CTE. Indeed, the contributions that collaborative activities can make to CTE may be crucial to their effectiveness.

Affective states

Lastly, affective or physiological states appear to be the most challenging of the 4 sources to define. According to Bandura (1997) emotional or physical arousal conveys efficacy information through judgmental processes. He explained that the impact of evocative stimuli on efficacy appraisal is dependent on the circumstances in which the experience occurs, and which factors are attended to in a given situation. Affective states can present negatively or positively. For example, tension, fear, or anger may result from threatening situations which can lower efficacy appraisals and, conversely, happiness, satisfaction, or enjoyment may ensue from awareness of accomplishment or success which can raise efficacy appraisal. Overall, beliefs teachers hold in their capabilities can affect how much stress they experience in demanding situations, as well as their motivation. Those who believe they cannot manage challenges can experience high anxiety.

Limited attention has been paid to the impact of affective states during PL for primary teachers of mathematics (Beswick & Goos, 2018). Related areas of research include teachers’ mathematics anxiety (Beilock et al., 2010), motivation (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020), commitment (Donohoo, 2018), and confidence (Bleakley et al., 2020). In a systematic review of how PL helps enhance CTE, Salas-Rodríguez and Lara (2022) found that trust and a supportive climate are essential for teachers to feel and know that, together, they can reach every student. Further, observing student success and experiencing PL in safe and supportive climates have enhanced teachers’ confidence in their ability to teach reading (Ryan & Hendry, 2022).

Information gained through emotions, physical states, and coping mechanisms can add to efficacy perceptions (Bandura, 1986). Certain affective states heighten efficacy beliefs and improve performance as positive interpretations of mental and physical responses can improve efficacy perceptions. Awareness that people tend to avoid situations they think exceed their skills, but do get involved in activities they judge themselves capable of handling, can enlighten those who design and deliver PL.

A number of MEE structures and processes relied on optimistic affective states to have a positive impact. The longitudinal temporal structures allowed the time needed for teachers to process new ideas and incorporate them into their practice. The iterative organizational structures of workshops and in-situs provided repeat opportunities for participants to build and refine understanding and practice through continual scaffolded support. The collaborative processes were conducted in a climate of learning, motivation, trust, and acceptance, while seeking to overcome participants’ anxiety.

MEE provided circumstances necessary for positive efficacy appraisal. The temporal structures of the PL broke the learning down into manageable chunks to manage cognitive load, and organizational structures meant learning occurred in environments of encouragement, support and growth rather than criticism or judgment. Workshops were attended by teams of colleagues who were cognizant of learning, changing, and achieving success together. Pre- and post-lesson discussions positioned enhanced knowledge of mathematics content and pedagogy, and subsequent impact on students as central, rather than assessment of teacher competence. Repeated cycles of modeling and analysis of practice enabled participants to become increasingly open to sharing practice and collaboration on ideas for improvement. Affective states were considered by Bandura (1997) to be the weakest source of efficacy, and yet appeared instrumental in the success of MEE. Further research into this efficacy source and its contribution to development of CTE is therefore warranted.

Recommendations

CTE is highly desirable as it is associated with teachers’ productive behaviors, greater job satisfaction, reduced stress (Donohoo, 2018), and increased student performance in mathematics (Althauser, 2015; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). Our findings suggest that teacher PL can shape efficacy perceptions through a combination of carefully planned activities that instigate mastery and vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and affective states. The use of specific temporal and organizational structures can maximize participants’ learning and afford time needed to change practice. Processes that enhance content and pedagogical knowledge and include purposeful, structured collaboration can boost shared beliefs about efficacy and impact.

In this article, we have argued that certain PL structures and processes may facilitate CTE development through activation of Bandura’s 4 sources of efficacy. Future studies should be conducted to confirm this relationship in practice. Longitudinal research could establish the effectiveness of PL on the development of CTE (Loughland & Ryan, 2022) and clarify how efficacy beliefs change over time (Donohoo, 2018). Additionally, further study could investigate the role of Bandura’s social cognitive theory more broadly in the formation of CTE and the consequent potential for improved student performance. With our insights into this important connection between research, theory, and practice, it is recommended that those responsible for the design and delivery of teacher PL intentionally create conditions where CTE can be fostered using processes and structures conducive to activating Bandura’s 4 sources of efficacy.

Additional Resources

1. Arzonetti Hite, S., & Donohoo, J. (2021). Leading collective efficacy: Powerful stories of achievement and equity. Corwin Press, Inc.

This book describes 5 enabling conditions that contribute to building collective teacher efficacy: goal consensus, empowered teachers, cohesive teacher knowledge, supportive leadership, and embedded reflective practices. Containing case studies, the real-life stories are instructive for teachers and leaders who seek educational equity and improved student outcomes.

2. Proffitt-White, R. (2017). Putting teachers first: Leading change through design, initiating and sustaining effective teaching of mathematics. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 73, 14-22.

This article provides insights into an Australian professional learning initiative that enabled teachers to feel competent and confident in their effective teaching of mathematics. Practical examples are provided of how the PL worked in schools and of tasks that revealed misconceptions. Descriptions of workshop design and delivery could enable replication in other settings.

3. Hoogsteen, T. J. (2021). Fostering collective efficacy: What school leaders should know. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8, 78-84.

This provocative article cautions school leaders against jumping headlong into fostering collective teacher efficacy before determining whether it is a viable pursuit. The author makes valuable suggestions about being able to recognize change in CTE, knowing how large CTE change should be, and understanding how long CTE change might take prior to undertaking PL.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Dr. Christine Mae who designed the PL program Mathematical Expertise and Excellence.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).