This article was downloaded by: ["University at Buffalo Libraries"]On: 09 October 2014, At: 14:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Psychology: AnInternational Journal of ExperimentalEducational PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Beliefs of experienced and noviceteachers about achievementStelios N. Georgiou aa Psychology Department , University of Cyprus , Nicosia, CyprusPublished online: 08 Feb 2008.

To cite this article: Stelios N. Georgiou (2008) Beliefs of experienced and novice teachers aboutachievement, Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental EducationalPsychology, 28:2, 119-131, DOI: 10.1080/01443410701468716

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410701468716

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educational PsychologyVol. 28, No. 2, March 2008, 119–131

ISSN 0144-3410 print/ISSN 1469-5820 online© 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/01443410701468716http://www.informaworld.com

Beliefs of experienced and novice teachers about achievement

Stelios N. Georgiou*

Psychology Department, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Taylor and FrancisCEDP_A_246751.sgm10.1080/01443410701468716Educational Psychology0144-3410 (print)/1469-5820 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis2800000002008Dr. STELIOSGEORGIOUstege@ucy.ac.cy The aim of this study was to examine the beliefs that experienced and novice teachers holdabout school achievement. It is important to investigate these beliefs and attributions becauseof the significant role that teachers play in the lives of most children. A group of Greek Cypriotelementary school teachers (n = 154) and a comparable group of teacher education students(n = 159) completed the Beliefs About School Achievement (BASA) scale. It was found that,in comparison to student teachers, experienced teachers tend to attribute achievement more tofactors that are biologically determined, uncontrollable by the child, and stable over time –such as intellectual ability. They also believe significantly more than student teachers thatfactors such as gender and family background play an important role in child achievement. Incontrast, novice teachers believe more in the role that teachers play in student learning and inthe importance of student effort.

Keywords: teacher attributions; beliefs; achievement; novice and experienced teachers

Introduction

The aim of this study was to examine the beliefs that experienced and novice teachers hold aboutschool achievement. As teachers play a significant role in the lives of most children, these beliefsand attributions are important.

Teachers influence cognitive development and school achievement not only through explicit strategyinstruction, but also through overt and subtle messages about their perceptions of children’s abilities,and their attributional theories about other factors that influence achievement. (Kurtz, Schneider,Carr, Borkowski, & Rellinger, 1990, p. 269)

Prior research has shown that teachers’ attributions influence their behaviour towards theirstudents, as well as the children’s self-image and consequently their school performance (Clarkson& Leder, 1984; Fennema, Peterson, Carpenter, & Lubinski, 1990; Graham, 1990). For example,a teacher who believes strongly that girls are not as competent in mathematics as boys may usethis belief to explain – at least partially – why a specific female student has failed in this subject.Similarly, a teacher may be convinced that children from homes that are of lower socio-economicstatus or whose parents are not well educated do poorly in school. Again, this could explain (inthe teacher’s mind) why a particular student from such a background cannot perform at the requiredlevel in class.

Stereotypes are descriptive and explanatory labels that have two fundamental functions: theyoffer a basis for immediate action in uncertain circumstances and they allow individuals tosimplify complex social environments (Dijker & Koomen, 1996; Fiske, 1998). When a stereotypeis activated, we tend to perceive people within a specific social category as possessing thecharacteristics associated with the stereotyped group.

*Email: stege@ucy.ac.cy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 1

4:31

09

Oct

ober

201

4

120 S.N. Georgiou

For example, gender differences in favour of boys have been systematically observed in math-ematics achievement for many years (Hedges & Nowell, 1995; Randhawa, 1994). This hascreated the stereotype that girls are not good at mathematics. Helwig, Anderson, and Tindal(2001) point out that since boys tend to outperform girls in a wide variety of mathematics achieve-ment measures, and since the media exaggerate and sensationalise these differences, ‘the possi-bility exists that teachers may acquire erroneous negative perceptions of the mathematics abilitiesof their female students’ (p. 93). This, in turn, affects girls’ motivation and attitudes towardsmathematics. It also influences the attitudes and behaviour of important others such as teachersand parents. The stereotypical thinking of all these people, including girls themselves, contributesto lower mathematics achievement, and the cycle repeats itself.

Attribution theory is based on the premise that people are not content simply to observe eventsas they occur, but strive to understand their causes. In doing so, they develop explanations, orattributions, which help make sense of what is happening around them. Weiner (1994) hasproposed an influential three-dimensional taxonomy of attributions, according to which attribu-tions can be classified on the basis of three criteria: locus (internal or external to the acting indi-vidual), stability (stable or unstable over time), and controllability (controllable or uncontrollableby the affected individual). Children’s achievement tends to be attributed either to internal(talents and biologically determined dispositions) or external (i.e., the influence of parents, teach-ers, siblings, luck, etc.) factors. Effort and ability are two major internal sources of attribution;the first is controllable but unstable, while the second is stable but uncontrollable.

Teacher behaviours are formed by teachers’ past experiences and are likely to be influencedby their beliefs (Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992). As Fang (1996) points out, ‘Beliefs act as a filterthrough which a host of instructional judgments and decisions are made’ (p. 51). Teachers whohave reservations about a student’s ability or effort may alter their behaviour accordingly.Thus, if a teacher believes that a child lacks ability, then this teacher may be less likely topresent the child with challenging tasks. Therefore, it is of crucial importance to understand thebeliefs teachers hold about different students in their classrooms (Wigfield, Galper, Denton, &Seefeldt, 1999).

When influential adults, such as teachers, make attributions about a student’s performancebased on stereotypes their reactions can communicate these attributions to the student – eitherdirectly or indirectly through emotional and behavioural cues (Graham, 1990). According toButler (1994), once students reach the elementary grade levels (seven years old and higher), theyare able to decipher a teacher’s reactions along attributional lines. The attributions that teacherscommunicate to their students can influence (at times detrimentally) the students’ own attribu-tional interpretations of their achievement outcomes. In the classroom, internal and stable attri-butions – which hold that academic outcome is determined by factors beyond the student’scontrol – can ultimately do more damage to the student’s motivation and self-image than anyother kind of stereotype (Reyna, 2000).

The strategies that teachers employ and the messages they give convey their beliefs aboutgender (Lightbody, Siann, Stocks, & Walsh, 1996). Li (1999) conducted a meta-analysis ofgender issues and teacher beliefs in mathematics, and found that teachers in primary and second-ary schools hold different beliefs about the abilities of male and female students. Teachers viewedmathematics as a male domain, overrated boys’ capabilities in mathematics, had higher expecta-tions for male students’ achievement, and had more positive attitudes toward them. Li’s conclu-sion was that teachers have accepted gender-role stereotypes in mathematics. In line with this,Garrahy (2001) notes that gender bias and discrimination in society may begin in the classroom.

The fact that gender differences in mathematics achievement are non-existent in the early yearsand only appear in high school argues in favour of the use of the notion of stereotyping to explainthese differences in teacher beliefs. Georgiou, Stavrinides, and Kalavana (in press) found no

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 1

4:31

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Educational Psychology 121

gender differences either in actual mathematics achievement or in attitudes towards mathematicsamong early adolescents. However, they did find significant differences in the ways boys and girlsexplain their performance. Boys tended to believe more than girls that their intellectual abilitieswere causing their high marks in mathematics.

In addition to gender bias, teachers can also exhibit socio-economic bias. A number ofresearchers argue that teachers hold lower expectations of the academic performance of childrenfrom low-income families (Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Kennedy, 1995; Leithwood,Begley, & Cousins, 1990; McLoyd, 1998). Hauser-Cram, Sirin, and Stipek (2003) found thatteachers rated children as less competent academically and had lower expectations of their futureacademic success when they believed that the education-related values of the children’s parentsdiffered from their own. Examining teacher beliefs, attitudes, and expectations, Solomon (1996)found that teachers were more sceptical about the abilities of economically disadvantagedstudents than they were about the abilities of more privileged children. Numerous other studieshave described the lower expectations that teachers generally have of children from deprivedbackgrounds (e.g., Baron, Tom, & Cooper, 1985; Knapp, 1995; Winfield, 1986). These findingssuggest a mechanism whereby some young children from low-income families embark on a pathof diminished expectations.

Two different paradigms have been identified regarding beliefs about achievement. The firstcharacterises the Western culture’s emphasis on ability and the second characterises the Easternemphasis on effort (Stevenson & Stigler, 1994). However, this bipolar categorisation may be anover-simplification: there are many different countries within each of the two basic culturalframeworks and individuals in these countries may share beliefs to different degrees. For exam-ple, Kurtz et al. (1990) found stronger effort attributions for achievement among Americanstudents and teachers than among their German counterparts, who emphasised innate abilities.

Buckmann (2003) cites several studies reporting that experienced teachers have a strongbelief in inherited abilities and natural giftedness as correlates of achievement. His own study ofnovice teachers showed that they did not emphasise abilities but instead concentrated on moremalleable constructs such as effort. A study that compared experienced and novice teachers interms of attributions for school failure (Georgiou, Stavrinides, & Panaoura, 2002) found that theformer believed that low ability causes low achievement, whereas the latter believed that externalfactors such as teacher characteristics and the educational system in general are to be blamed forindividual student failure at school.

How do teachers develop these beliefs? Earlier studies (e.g., Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992)imply that it happens over the course of years of daily transactions with children. This experienceallows professional teachers to acquire a deeper knowledge than the average person about thecultural and other societal factors that influence child achievement at school. If this is so, thenteachers at the beginning of their careers should think differently to more experienced teachers.This difference should be even greater between student teachers who have no teaching experienceat all and experienced classroom teachers.

Many studies document the supremacy of experienced teachers over non-experienced teach-ers on a variety of issues, including teacher understanding of classroom events (Rich, 1993).Therefore, one could expect experienced teachers to be more aware of biases arising from variousfactors such as gender and socio-economic status than student teachers would be; their rich expe-rience should help them to guard against such biases. Consequently, experienced teachers couldbe expected to express stronger beliefs in controllable factors such as student effort than lessexperienced student teachers. The age variable is relevant here also. As adults grow older, ‘attri-butional biases should decrease’ (Blanchard-Fields, Baldi, & Stein, 1999, p. 666). Older adultsshould rely less on dispositional attributions such as intellectual ability and gender than youngeradults. Further, older and more experienced teachers should have higher efficacy and therefore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 1

4:31

09

Oct

ober

201

4

122 S.N. Georgiou

believe more strongly than younger teachers in their own capability to help students learn(Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).

Based on the literature outlined above, the following was hypothesised:

(1) Younger, inexperienced student teachers will believe more than older, experienced teach-ers that factors that are stable and uncontrollable by the child affect child achievement,such as inherited abilities, gender, and family status.

(2) Experienced teachers will believe more than inexperienced teachers that the child’sschool achievement is influenced by the child’s effort.

(3) Experienced teachers will believe more than inexperienced ones that teachers (i.e., them-selves) influence student achievement.

Method

Participants and procedures

The participants were 154 Greek Cypriot elementary school teachers working in the publicschools of a particular educational district and 159 teacher education students, a total of 313. Theteachers’ average age was 42.7 (SD= 1.4) and their average number of years of teaching experi-ence was 16.3 (SD= .9). The majority (78.9%) were female, which reflects the gender demo-graphics of elementary school teachers in Cyprus. The comparison group consisted of third- andfourth-year university students in teacher education, of whom 55.2% were female. The students’average age was 22.8 (SD= 1.2). This sub-group had completed their initial coursework and hadsome practical training in schools, but did not have any actual teaching experience. The twogroups were comparable, since they were similar in terms of educational and professional orien-tation. The main differences between the groups were in level of teaching experience and age.

The sampling procedure followed two stages. The teacher sample was put together first andconsisted of all participants in a professional development seminar organised for the teachers ofan educational district. This was part of the in-service training offered to teachers with more than12 years of experience who are eligible for promotion. The scale and the demographics sheet werecompleted anonymously in class and were collected immediately. The purpose of the study wasexplained to the teachers and it was stressed that it had nothing to do with any form of evaluation.They were asked to answer all the questions honestly according to their own personal beliefs,since there was no right or wrong answer. They were assured that their anonymity would beprotected and that all the ethical standards of research would be carefully adhered to. Similarprocedures were followed for the second group of participants, who were teacher educationstudents attending an educational psychology course.

Instruments

Data were collected via the Beliefs about School Achievement (BASA) scale. This 20-item instru-ment was constructed on the basis of earlier research (Hauser-Cram et al., 2003; Tiedemann, 2000)into stereotypical thinking (gender and socio-economic bias) and characteristics of achievementsuch as stability and controllability, as proposed by Weiner’s (1994) attribution theory. Negativeterms such as ‘bias’ or ‘stereotype’ do not appear anywhere on the questionnaire.

In an earlier study (Georgiou, Stavrinides, & Panaoura , 2002), the BASA scale produced fivereliable factors (Cronbach alpha in the .70–.90 range) in terms of teacher attributions for studentachievement: child ability, child effort, family, teachers, and gender. Some examples of the state-ments on the scale are: ‘A child’s school achievement is caused by biologically determined char-acteristics’; ‘Any child can do well at school if he or she tries hard enough’; ‘Boys are better inmathematics than girls’; and ‘Children of well-educated parents do better at school than children

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 1

4:31

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Educational Psychology 123

of less educated parents.’ All items included in the BASA scale appear in Table 1. Answers aregiven on a five-point Likert type scale (4 = absolutely agree, 3 = agree, 2 = ambivalent, 1 =disagree, 0 = absolutely disagree).

Data analysis

The first step was to ensure that sound comparisons could be made on the basis of the instrumentused. To this end, the collected data were factor analysed in order to produce more valid and inter-nally consistent categories of response, using principal components analysis with varimax rota-tion. The Bartlett test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy(KMO) were used in order to test for the appropriateness of using such a technique. The KMOvalue was found to be .662, and the Bartlett test of sphericity yielded a value of 969.58 (p < .01).The main criterion used to select factors was their eigenvalue; the cut-off was set at 1.00.Questionnaire items with loadings greater than or equal to .5 were thought of as adequately defin-ing each factor.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) extracted five belief factors with eigenvalues over 1.00,accounting for 67.8% of the total variance (see Table 1). These factors are the following:

(1) Ability: this factor explains 17.9% of the variance and consists of items referring to therole that innate abilities play in students’ achievement. These items deal with the impactof inherited talent, biologically determined characteristics, and intelligence. These hered-itary characteristics are stable, global, and uncontrollable by the child and his or herparents. The alpha value for this factor was .72.

(2) Teacher: the second factor, which accounts for 16.5% of the variance, includes items thatrefer to teacher influence on student achievement and particularly to teacher efficacy. Thealpha value for this factor was .70.

(3) Family socio-economic status: the percentage of the variance explained by this factor is12.7%. Items with high loadings refer to a connection between family demographics (i.e.,parents’ educational and socio-economic status) and student achievement. The alphavalue was .79.

(4) Effort: this factor explains 11.9% of the variance and consists of items that deal with thechild’s effort. It is the only factor controllable by the child and changeable over time. Thealpha value for this factor was .70.

(5) Gender: this final factor explains 9.8% of the variance, and refers to differences inachievement between boys and girls. The alpha value was .91.

The ability of the whole ‘beliefs about achievement’ structure to fit the data was tested usingconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by means of the Structural Equations Program-EQS (Bentler,1995). Both observed (measured) and latent factors were included in the proposed model. A totalof five first-order factors were included (i.e., those revealed by the EFA). All loaded on a second-order factor standing for the latent construct of beliefs about achievement (see Figure 1).Figure 1. The components of the Beliefs About School Achievement (BASA) scaleThree fit indices were computed, following currently accepted practice: the chi-square to itsdegree of freedom ratio (χ2/df), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean-square errorof approximation (RMSEA). According to Marcoulides and Schumacker (1996), the followingneeded to hold true in order to support model fit: the observed values for χ2/df should be less than2.5, the values for CFI should be close to 1.0 (higher than .9), and the RMSEA values should beclose to zero.

It was found that the constructed model as a whole could accurately describe the above.Parameter estimates were reasonable in that all factor loadings were large and statistically signif-icant (p < .001). All indicators loaded strongly and distinctly on each of the latent constructs and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 1

4:31

09

Oct

ober

201

4

124 S.N. Georgiou

Tabl

e 1.

Bel

iefs

abo

ut c

hild

sch

ool a

chie

vem

ent a

s re

veal

ed b

y th

e E

FA.

Bel

ief

fact

ors

(Cro

nbac

h al

pha)

Fac

tor

eige

nval

ueP

erce

ntag

e (%

) of

ex

plai

ned

vari

ance

Fac

tor

com

pone

nts

(loa

ding

)

Fac

tor

1:A

bili

ty (

.72)

2.3

17.9

AB

L1:

Sch

ool a

chie

vem

ent i

s an

inhe

rite

d ta

lent

(.8

0)A

BL

2:A

chi

ld’s

sch

ool a

chie

vem

ent i

s ca

used

by

biol

ogic

ally

det

erm

ined

ch

arac

teri

stic

s (.

75)

AB

L3:

Sch

ool a

chie

vem

ent i

s a

mat

ter

of in

tell

igen

ce (

.68)

AB

L4:

A w

eak

stud

ent a

t fir

st g

rade

wil

l be

a w

eak

stud

ent a

t tw

elft

h gr

ade

(.50

)

Fac

tor

2:T

each

er (

.70)

2.0

15.5

TE

A1:

A g

ood

teac

her

can

impr

ove

the

achi

evem

ent l

evel

of

all s

tude

nts,

eve

n th

ose

who

are

ver

y w

eak

(.77

)T

EA

2:T

each

ers

can

mak

e th

e di

ffer

ence

wit

h di

ffic

ult s

tude

nts

(.62

)T

EA

3:T

each

ers

are

effe

ctiv

e in

hel

ping

stu

dent

s le

arn

(.75

)T

EA

4:A

chi

ld’s

ach

ieve

men

t dep

ends

on

the

qual

itie

s of

his

/her

teac

her

(.67

)

Fac

tor

3:F

amil

y so

cio-

econ

omic

sta

tus

(.79

)

1.7

12.7

SE

S1:

Chi

ldre

n of

wel

l-ed

ucat

ed p

aren

ts d

o be

tter

at s

choo

l tha

n ch

ildr

en o

f le

ss

educ

ated

par

ents

(.7

6)S

ES

2:C

hild

ren

from

ric

h fa

mil

ies

perf

orm

bet

ter

at s

choo

l tha

n ch

ildr

en f

rom

poo

r fa

mil

ies

(.60

)S

ES

3:P

aren

ts’

own

educ

atio

n is

res

pons

ible

for

thei

r ch

ild’

s su

cces

s or

fai

lure

at

scho

ol (

.71)

SE

S4:

Fam

ily

soci

al s

tatu

s af

fect

s ch

ild

scho

ol p

erfo

rman

ce (

.55)

Fac

tor

4:E

ffor

t (.7

0)1.

611

.9E

FF

1:E

ven

stud

ents

who

are

not

ver

y sm

art c

an h

ave

high

ach

ieve

men

t, if

they

try

(.71

)E

FF

2:W

hen

a ch

ild

perf

orm

s ba

dly

at s

choo

l, th

is is

bec

ause

of

inad

equa

teef

fort

(.5

2)E

FF

3:H

igh

grad

es a

t sch

ool a

re d

ue to

har

d w

ork

(.66

)E

FF

4:A

ny c

hild

can

do

wel

l at s

choo

l if

he o

r sh

e tr

ies

hard

eno

ugh

(.75

)

Fac

tor

5:G

ende

r (.

91)

1.2

9.8

GE

N1:

Boy

s ar

e be

tter

in m

athe

mat

ics

than

gir

ls (

.89)

GE

N2:

Gir

ls a

re b

ette

r th

an b

oys

in la

ngua

ge s

ubje

cts

(.89

)G

EN

3:U

nlik

e gi

rls,

boy

s ar

e go

od w

ith

num

bers

(.9

9)G

EN

4:S

olvi

ng m

athe

mat

ics

prob

lem

s is

som

ethi

ng b

oys

do w

ell a

t (.8

4)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 1

4:31

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Educational Psychology 125

���

���

���

���

���

������

���

���

���

���

���

��

���

���

���

���

���

���

���

��

���

���

���

���

� ��

� �

�����

�

�����

������

� ���

�����������

����

����

���

����

����

�����

������������������� !����

����

����

���

"���

"��

"���

"���

� ��

����

� ��

��������

�����#

���

"��$��

������

� ����#

Fig

ure

1.T

he c

ompo

nent

s of

the

Bel

iefs

Abo

ut S

choo

l Ach

ieve

men

t (B

AS

A)

scal

e.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 1

4:31

09

Oct

ober

201

4

126 S.N. Georgiou

the goodness of fit index was very good in comparison to typical standards (χ2 = 362.76 with155 degrees of freedom, p < .001). In fact, the CFI of .97 indicates an excellent fit. The ratio ofchi square to its degrees of freedom was also acceptable (χ2/df = 2.34). The RMSEA of the testedmodel was .07. The direction and strength of the relationships are shown in Figure 1.

The next goal of the analysis was to test whether the same structure of beliefs about achieve-ment could be applied to both groups of participants. To this end, a multiple group analysis wasperformed. Factor loadings for the measurement model were fixed to be equal across the twogroups, whereas the pathways between latent variables were left free to be estimated. This stageof model testing focused on estimating the magnitude and significance of the pathways betweenthe latent variables, in addition to obtaining measures of overall model fit. Thus, the proposedmodel was tested, including all hypothesised pathways. Measures were obtained to assess overallmodel fit and the statistical significance of specific parameters. Chi- square analysis was used totest the hypothesis that the relationships proposed in the model provide a plausible explanation ofthose that exist in the data. Furthermore, to test the hypothesis that the factor structure is the samein the two groups, the factor loadings (regression coefficients) between the factors and their indi-ces were constrained to equality across the two groups. Then a test statistic was calculated forexamining the equality of these parameters across the two groups by subtracting the chi-squarestatistic of the constrained from the unconstrained model. This chi-square difference was thencompared to the chi-square distribution in relation to the degrees of freedom.

The full measurement model (including all of the latent variables and the indicators) wasfitted to the data from the two groups simultaneously in a multi-group model, to assess whetherthe indicators measure the same components across the two groups. In this non-constraint model,the configuration of the factor loadings was identical in both groups, but parameters were free tovary across groups. This model provided a baseline by means of which to evaluate a moreconstrained model.

Then measurement invariance was established: that is, the regression coefficients (factorloadings) of the observed indicators of the common factors were constrained to be identical in thetwo groups. No significant measurement invariance was found between the two groups, suggest-ing that constraining the models to be equal for the two groups was appropriate. Also, a calcula-tion of difference in χ2 and degrees of freedom between conditions (restricted and non-restricted)indicated that differences (χ2

diff = 31.42 / df = 11) did not reach a level of statistical significance.Furthermore, the goodness of fit statistics of the constrained model (χ2/df = 525.903/319 = 1.64,p < .001, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .04) were not significantly better than those of the unconstrainedmodel. Thus, the proposed model in Figure 1 can be generalised across the two groups of partic-ipants – those who are teachers by profession and those who are studying to become teachers.

Results

The differences between the two groups regarding beliefs about achievement were tested viamultiple analysis of variance (MANOVA). The five belief factors revealed by factor analysisserved as dependent variables and the participants’ gender and experience (i.e. teacher or studentteacher) served as independent variables.

It was found that experienced teachers believed significantly more than student teachers thatfamily background plays an important role in child achievement (F[312,1] = 50.23, p < .001). Themean score of teachers for this belief was significantly higher than the corresponding score ofstudent teachers (X1 = 2.84, X2 = 1.96). The effect size of this difference (η2) was .14. Also,experienced teachers believed more than the comparison group that gender is a determining factorin school achievement (F[312,1] = 69.46, p < .001). The mean scores of the two groups were 1.9and .81 respectively, and the effect size of this difference was .18. Furthermore, experienced

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 1

4:31

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Educational Psychology 127

teachers believed to a significantly higher degree than the comparison group that achievement isattributable to biologically determined characteristics, such as intelligence, that are stable overtime and uncontrollable by the child (F[312,1] = 47.51, p < .001). The above three results contra-dict Hypothesis 1.

Similarly, Hypothesis 2 was not supported by the results, since no significant difference wasfound between experienced teachers and student teachers in terms of attributing achievement tostudent effort (F[312,1] = .83, p >.05).

Finally, student teachers believed more than professional teachers in the effect that teacherscan have on student learning (F[312,1] = 13.06, p < .001). However, while this difference wasstatistically significant, the effect size of this difference was not (η2 = .04). Thus, Hypothesis 3was not supported by the results.

No significant main effects were found for teacher gender, and there were no interactioneffects between gender and experience. The MANOVA results are summarised in Table 2.

It should be noted that attributing achievement to biologically determined characteristics wassignificantly correlated to accepting both the gender and the socio-economic factors as parame-ters of achievement (r = .31 and r = .30 respectively, p < .01). The correlation coefficient matrixappears in Table 3.

Discussion

The results of this study show that experienced teachers and inexperienced teachers (i.e., studentteachers) hold different sets of beliefs about what causes different levels of child achievement.The former emphasise hereditary and biologically determined characteristics that cannot becontrolled by the child and are stable over time, such as intellectual ability, gender, and familybackground. The latter believe less in these factors and more in controllable factors such asteacher efforts. The two groups did not differ in their belief that child effort affects schoolachievement.

Specifically, it was found that experienced teachers (in comparison to student teachers)believe that children coming from affluent families and having well-educated parents do better atschool. Consequently, teacher expectations of children who did not fulfil these conditions werelower. This is in line with earlier reports (Hallinger et al., 1996; Hauser-Cram et al., 2003;Kennedy, 1995; Knapp, 1995; Leithwood et al., 1990; McLoyd, 1998; Solomon, 1996; Winfield,1986). All these studies point out that teachers consistently doubt the abilities of children whocome from disadvantaged families and expect less from them in terms of school achievement.The present study offers support to this finding. This does not mean that teachers treat the children

Table 2. Results of MANOVA for the differences between teachers and student teachers in beliefs about achievement.

Dependent variable X1 (SD1) X2 (SD2) FSignificance

(p <) Effect size

(η2)

Ability 3.22 (.49) 2.53 (.95) 47.51 .001 .13Teachers 3.01 (.62) 3.30 (.66) 13.06 .001 .04Family 2.84 (.81) 1.96 (1.1) 50.23 .001 .14Effort 3.17 (.69) 3.15 (.76) .83 n.s. .00Gender 1.90 (.85) .81 (1.1) 69.46 .001 .18

Note: X1 = mean score of teachers (standard deviation in parentheses); X2 = mean score of student teachers (standard deviation in parentheses).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 1

4:31

09

Oct

ober

201

4

128 S.N. Georgiou

of poorer and less educated parents differently to the other children. No such data were obtainedby this study. However, lower expectations could easily lead to self-fulfilling prophecies andvicious circle effects as described by authors such as Reyna (2000). Besides, as Solomon (1996)points out, teacher beliefs are generally consistent with teacher practices. It should be stressed thateven though beliefs and expectations are closely related, they are two different concepts. Havinga certain belief may lead to having a certain level of expectation. For example, if a teacherbelieves that children of immigrant families do not do well at school, this teacher may expect lessfrom such children in class.

Teachers participating in the present study also believed more than student teachers that thereis a gender effect in aspects of achievement (i.e., boys are superior in mathematics). This addssupport to worries (Li, 1999) that teachers seem to accept gender and socio-economic stereotypesas facts and use them to explain individual student achievement at school. Perhaps their everydayexperience in dealing with children tells them that boys are indeed better than girls in mathemat-ics and that the children of better-educated parents or children who come from better-off familiesactually do better at school. However, research into stereotypes (e.g., Helwig et al., 2001)describes quite convincingly the mechanisms by which influential figures such as teacherscontribute to the maintenance of these stereotypes. Some authors go as far as to argue that differ-ent stereotypes actually start in the classroom (Garrahy, 2001). This is very sad: one would expectthe classroom to be a place where children learn to overcome their biases and avoid falling intothe trap of stereotyping, which limits their ability to think freely and clearly.

Interestingly, teachers who believed that achievement is biologically determined tended alsoto believe that stable and uncontrollable factors such as gender and family background are deter-mining factors in school achievement. This may mean that these three types of belief can begrouped together into an underlying ‘ideology’. People with this ideology tend to explainachievement in a deterministic fashion that de-emphasises factors that are controllable by thechild (such as effort) or by the teacher. It seems that the experienced teachers who participated inthis study share this group of beliefs to a greater degree than inexperienced student teachers.

It should be pointed out again that no evidence is provided by the data from this study thatclassroom teachers actually use gender and socio-economic stereotypes in their interactions withchildren. This study examined only their beliefs about achievement and compared them to thoseheld by inexperienced student teachers. However, as prior research has pointed out, teacherbeliefs influence teachers’ daily instructional judgments and decisions (Fang, 1996) and aregenerally consistent with their practices (Solomon, 1996; Wigfield et al., 1999).

Why do novice teachers believe that achievement is influenced by controllable factors, suchas teacher and student effort, while experienced teachers emphasise dispositional factors such asintelligence, gender, and family status? One possible explanation may be that teachers go througha disillusionment process, as implied by Marlatt (2004). That is, novice teachers start out withunrealistic beliefs that all students can achieve well if they try hard enough, but then they

Table 3. Correlation matrix (Pearson r) between the five belief factors.

1 2 3 4 5

1. Ability – −.08 .30** .13 .31**2. Teachers – −.02 .25** −.15*3. Family – .22** .32**4. Effort – .005. Gender –

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 1

4:31

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Educational Psychology 129

conform, as they gain experience, to more down-to-earth positions based on perceived realities inclass. The same argument could be used to explain the finding about diminishing teacher efficacy.Perhaps at the beginning of their careers teachers think that they have total control of children’slearning, but later they realise that they are only one of many factors influencing it, and not eventhe strongest factor. As Weinstein (1988) points out, novice teachers enter the profession withhigh hopes about the kind of impact they will have on students’ lives, but often encounter a pain-ful ‘reality shock’ when they understand that it may be more difficult than they thought initially.

An alternative explanation may be the one suggested by Buckmann (2003) referring to ‘polit-ical correctness’: it may be the case that young student teachers are closer to the socially desirableidea that anything is possible if one makes sufficient effort. Thus, participants in the present studyappear to have the same implicit theories about what causes school achievement as other, cultur-ally similar individuals (Stevenson & Stigler, 1994). That is, younger and less experienced teach-ers believe that student and teacher effort can be instrumental in producing good results at school,while older and more experienced teachers think that natural giftedness and other dispositionalfactors such as gender and family background have the final say.

Whatever the explanation, the mere existence of this set of beliefs among experienced teach-ers deserves some attention. Many authors spell out the possible effects of such a preoccupationon the part of teachers (e.g., Graham, 1990; Wigfield et al., 1999). Earlier research has shown thatattributing achievement (especially when it is low) to stable, global, uncontrollable factors affectsstudent self-esteem in a negative way (Skaalvik, 1994). Furthermore, such attributions discourageparental involvement (Stevenson & Lee, 1990) and contribute to the deterioration of childachievement at school (Georgiou, 1999). Finally, this attribution and explanatory style is associ-ated with premature giving up on the part of the teacher – teachers who attribute a student’s lowachievement to low ability tend to stop trying to help the student earlier than they would if theirattribution was to insufficient effort or to external factors (Georgiou, Christou, Stavrinides, &Panaoura, 2002).

These results should be interpreted with caution because the effect sizes of the differencesfound were rather small, even though the differences between experienced and novice teacherswere statistically significant. The results may also be culture-specific. More research is needed toexamine the beliefs and achievement-related attributions of experienced and novice teachers fromvarious cultural backgrounds. Also, more longitudinal research is needed to examine how teacherbeliefs change over time.

References

Baron, R., Tom, D., & Cooper, H. (1985). Social class, race and teacher expectations. In J. Dusec (Ed.),Teacher expectancies (pp. 251–269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bentler, P.M. (1995). EQS: Structural equations program manual. San Francisco, CA: MultivariateSoftware Inc.

Blanchard-Fields, F., Baldi, R., & Stein, R. (1999). Age relevance and context effects on attributions acrossthe adult lifespan. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 665–683.

Buckmann, C. (2003, August). Young teachers’ implicit theories about individual factors of schoolachievement. Paper presented at the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction(EARLI) Conference, Padova, Italy.

Butler, R. (1994). Teacher communications and student interpretations: Effects of teacher responses to fail-ing students on attributional inferences in two age groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology,64, 277–294.

Clarkson, P., & Leder, G.C. (1984). Causal attributions for success and failure in mathematics: A crosscultural perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 413–422.

Dijker, A.J., & Koomen, W. (1996). Stereotyping and attitudinal effects under time pressure. EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology, 26, 61–74.

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38, 47–65.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 1

4:31

09

Oct

ober

201

4

130 S.N. Georgiou

Fennema, E., Peterson, P., Carpenter, T., & Lubinski, C. (1990). Teachers’ attributions and beliefs aboutgirls, boys, and mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 55–69.

Fiske, S.T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 357–411). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Garrahy, D.A. (2001). Three third-grade teachers’ gender-related beliefs and behavior. The ElementarySchool Journal, 102, 81–96.

Georgiou, S. (1999). Parental attributions as predictors of involvement and influences on child achieve-ment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 409–429.

Georgiou, S., Christou, C., Stavrinides, P., & Panaoura, G. (2002). Teacher attributions of student failureand teacher behavior toward the failing student. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 583–595.

Georgiou, S., Stavrinides, P., & Kalavana, T. (in press). Is Victor better than Victoria at maths? EducationalPsychology in Practice.

Georgiou, S., Stavrinides, P., & Panaoura, G. (2002). School failure: Teacher attributions and behavior.Educational Review, 33, 115–136.

Graham, S. (1990). Communicating low ability in the classroom: Bad things good teachers sometimes do.In S. Graham & V. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental health andinterpersonal conflict (pp. ). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and student readingachievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 527–549.

Hauser-Cram, P., Sirin, S.R., & Stipek, D. (2003). When teachers’ and parents’ values differ: Teachers’ratings of academic competence in children from low-income families. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 95, 813–820.

Hedges, L.V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability and numbers of highscoring individuals. Science, 269, 41–45.

Helwig, R., Anderson, L., & Tindal, G. (2001). Influence of elementary student gender on teachers’perceptions of mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 95–104.

Kagan, D. (1992). Implications of research on teacher beliefs. Educational Psychologist, 27, 65–90.Kennedy, E. (1995). Contextual effects on academic norms among elementary school students. Educational

Research Quarterly, 18, 5–13.Knapp, M. (1995). Forces inside the classroom linked with teaching for meaning. In M. Knapp (Ed.),

Teaching for meaning in high poverty classrooms (pp. 145–159). New York: Teachers College.Kurtz, B., Schneider, W., Carr, M., Borkowski, J., & Rellinger, E. (1990). Strategy instruction and attribu-

tional beliefs in West Germany and the United States: Do teachers foster metacognitive development?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 268–283.

Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, B. (1990). The nature, causes and consequences of principals’ prac-tices: An agenda for future research. Journal of Educational Administration, 28, 5–31.

Li, Q. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review. Educational Research,41, 63–76.

Lightbody, P., Siann, G., Stocks, R., & Walsh, D. (1996). Motivation and attribution at secondary school:The role of gender. Educational Studies, 22, 13–25.

Marcoulides, G., & Schumacker, R. (1996). Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and tech-niques. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Marlatt, E. (2004). Practical knowledge storage among pre-service, novice and experienced educators ofstudents who are deaf and hard-of-hearing. Exceptional Children, 70, 201–214.

McLoyd, V.C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53,185–204.

Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review ofEducational Research, 62, 307–332.

Randhawa, B.S. (1994). Self-efficacy in mathematics, attitudes, and achievement of boys and girls fromrestricted samples in two countries. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1011–1018.

Reyna, C. (2000). Lazy, dumb, or industrious: When stereotypes convey attribution information in theclassroom. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 85–110.

Rich, Y. (1993). Stability and change in teacher expertise. Teacher and Teacher Education, 9, 137–146.Skaalvik, E. (1994). Attribution of perceived achievement in school in general and in maths and verbal areas:

Relations with academic self-concept and self-esteem. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64,133–143.

Stevenson, H., & Lee, S. (1990). Contexts of achievement. Monographs of the Society for Research inChild Development, 55(1–2, serial no. 221).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 1

4:31

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Educational Psychology 131

Stevenson, H., & Stigler, J. (1994). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learnfrom Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Touchstone.

Solomon, D. (1996). Teacher beliefs and practices in schools serving communities that differ in socioeco-nomic level. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 327–347.

Tiedemann, J. (2000). Parents’ gender stereotypes and teachers’ beliefs as predictors of children’s conceptof their mathematical ability in elementary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 144–151.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning andmeasures. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.

Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving. Review of EducationalResearch, 64, 557–573.

Weinstein, C.S. (1988). Preservice teachers’ expectations about the first year of teaching. Teaching andTeacher Education, 4, 31–40.

Wigfield, A., Galper, A., Denton, K., & Seefeldt, C. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs about former Head Start andnon-Head Start first-grade children’s motivation, performance, and future educational prospects. Journalof Educational Psychology, 91, 98–104.

Winfield, L. (1986). Teacher beliefs toward academically at risk students in inner urban schools. TheUrban Review, 18, 253–268.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Uni

vers

ity a

t Buf

falo

Lib

rari

es"]

at 1

4:31

09

Oct

ober

201

4