Teacher Trust in Students: The influence of School and Teacher Characteristics

Author(s):

Dimitri Van MaeleMieke Van Houtte

Conference:

ECER 2009

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 04 B, Research on Pedagogical Approaches in Teacher Education

Paper Session

Time:

2009-09-28

16:00-17:30

Room:

NIG, HS 3F

Chair:

Kennert Orlenius

Contribution

In this paper the influence of school and teacher characteristics on teacher trust in students is investigated. Within organizational studies trust is a long-standing topic (cf. Zand, 1972), but it has only recently been examined in a systematic way within educational research (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Goddard et al., 2001; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999; Smith et al., 2001). The importance of research into the determinants of teacher trust is great though, since trust is related to a successful functioning of the school (Brewster & Railsback, 2003). After all, trust not only influences students’ performances (Goddard et al., 2001), but also teachers’ functioning by affecting their sense of efficacy (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999), job satisfaction (Van Houtte, 2006) and mutual collaboration (Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Additionely, Fisler & Firestone (2006) demonstrated the importance of social trust for teacher learning in a school-university partnership. Not only is teacher trust in students a quite recent topic within educational research, it is also largely of American origin. Hence, analyzing this topic within a European context, namely Flanders, is innovative and important. After all, understanding the impact of school context on teacher outcomes may contribute to greater staff awareness of pervasive trends in their attitudes that demand systematic intervention efforts (Roach & Kratochwill, 2004, p. 10-11). When results illustrate that school context, school composition or teacher characteristics may result in a lack of trust in students, it is argued that teacher education could contribute to overcome certain stereotypes among prospective teachers (cf. Nieto, 2000; Van Houtte, 2007). Teacher trust is viewed from the relational trust perspective (Bryk & Schneider, 2002), indicating the importance of normative role expectations in the school. School size affects the interactions between teachers and students (Lee & Loeb, 2000), which may influence trust. Gender, ethnic, and socioeconomic composition of the school are related to teacher trust as well (Goddard et al., 2001; Van Houtte, 2007). As the pupils’ study culture is associated with school features and with normative expectations teachers hold (cf. Thrupp, 1999; Van Houtte, 2003, 2007), a mediating effect of study culture is conceivable (cf. Van Maele & Van Houtte, 2008). At the teacher level, attention is paid to the role of the teachers’ perception of the pupils’ teachability (cf. Van Houtte, 2007). Controls are assessed for teachers’ gender, socioeconomic background, years of experience at the school, amount of teaching hours, and for the nature of the courses teached.

Method

Data were collected by means of anonymous written questionnaires within the context of the Flemish Educational Assessment during the 2004-2005 school year. Across a representative sample of 84 secondary schools in Flanders, 2.104 teachers instructing the third and/or fifth grade, and 11.872 third- and fifth-grade students from the same sample of schools plus one additional school, completed written questionnaires. The teacher trust variable was derived from the teacher trust scales developed by Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (1999). These authors conceptualize teacher trust as being composed of five components: benevolence, reliability, competence, openness and honesty. We measured teacher trust in students with 10 items, such as “You have to closely supervise the students”. Cronbach’s alpha for the trust in students scale is 0.77. Multilevel analysis (HLM 6) is used to reveal the associations between the school and teacher characteristics and teacher trust in students.

Expected Outcomes

The unconditional multilevel analysis reveals 23.4% of the variance in teacher trust in students is situated between schools (p < 0.001). This suggests an important proportion of the outcome is explained by variation in school characteristics. The included school features explained 89% of the variance in trust at the school level. These results illustrates the importance of taking into account school characteristics when exploring teacher trust. A school ’s socioeconomic composition has a very determining impact on teacher trust in students. In low socioeconomic school with a large number of students, trust is very worrisome. When the proportion of female students is high, teacher trust is also high. The pupils’ study culture could not explain the effects of compositional school features. These effects are mediated however through teachers’ perception of the pupils’ teachability. Finally, teachers instructing practical courses expressed less trust in their students than their colleagues instructing general subjects.

References

Brewster, C. & Railsback, J. (2003). Building Trusting Relationships for School Improvement: Implications for Principals and Teachers. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Bryk, A. & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools. A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Fisler, J.L. & Firestone, W.A. (2006). Teacher Learning in a School-University Partnership: Exploring the Role of Social Trust and Teaching Efficacy Beliefs, Teachers College Record, 108, 6, 1155-1185. Goddard, R., Tschannen-Moran, M. & Hoy, W. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 102, 1, 3-17. Hoy, W. & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five Faces of Trust: An Empirical Confirmation in Urban Elementary Schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 3, 184-208. Lee, V. E., & Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on teachers' attitudes and students' achievement, American Educational Research Journal, 37, 3–31. Nieto, S. (2000). Placing Equity Front and Center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new century, Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 3, 180-187. Roach, A. T., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2004). Evaluating school climate and school culture, Teaching Exceptional Children, 37, 10–17. Smith, P., Hoy, W. & Sweetland, S. (2001). Organizational health of high schools and dimensions of faculty trust. Journal of School Leadership, 11, 2, 135-151. Thrupp, M. (1999). Schools making a difference: Let’s be realistic. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 308–331. Van Houtte, M. (2003). Reproductietheorieën getoetst. De link tussen SES-compositie van de school en onderwijscultuur van leerkrachten en directie [Reproduction theories tested. The link between SES composition of the school and the academic culture of teachers and administration]. Mens en Maatschappij, 78, 2, 119-143. Van Houtte, M. (2004). Gender context of the school and study culture, or how the presence of girls affects the achievement of boys. Educational Studies, 30, 4, 409-423. Van Houtte, M. (2004). Tracking effects on school achievement: A quantitative explanation in terms of the academic culture of school staff. American Journal of Education, 110, 4, 354-388. Van Houtte, M. (2004). Why boys achieve less at school than girls: the difference between boys' and girls' academic culture. Educational Studies, 30, 2, 159-173. Van Houtte, M. (2005). Climate or culture? A plea for conceptual clarity in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 1, 71-89. Van Houtte, M. (2005). Global self-esteem in technical/vocational versus general secondary school tracks: A matter of gender? Sex Roles, 53, 9-10, 753-761. Van Houtte, M. (2006). Tracking and teacher satisfaction: The role of study culture and trust. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 4, 247-254. Van Houtte, M. (2006). School type and academic culture: evidence for the differentiation-polarization theory. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 3, 273-292. Van Houtte, M. (2007). In favour of a multi-method approach to differentiation-polarization theory-building: a response to Abraham. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39, 5, 603-607. Van Houtte, M. (2007). Exploring teacher trust in technical/vocational secondary schools: Male teachers’ preference for girls. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 826-839. Van Maele, D. & Van Houtte, M. (2008). Faculty Trust and School Characteristics: An exploration across secondary schools in Flanders. Presentation at the European Conference on Educational Research: From Teaching to Learning?, Göteburg, Sweden: September 10-12, 2008. Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 229–239.

Author Information

Dimitri Van Maele

Ghent University

Department of Sociology

Gent

Mieke Van Houtte

Ghent University, Belgium

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.