Van Houtte, Mieke

Van Maele, Dimitri

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Faculty Trust and School CharacteristicsAn Exploration across Secondary Schools in FlandersDimitri Van MaeleMieke Van Houtte• Purpose Does faculty trust1 occur across secondary schools in Flanders? Exploring faculty trust dimensions (students, parents, colleagues and the principal) Relating structural and compositional school characteristics to faculty trust Trust in Schools Faculty TrustIntro• Trust is a complex and multidimensional concept: General willingness to be vulnerable + the five facets of trust (Reliability – Benevolence – Competence – Honesty – Openness)3• Trust  organizational social capital9  enhanced school functioning5• Two research lines Bryk & Schneider5: ‘Relational Trust Perspective’ Importance of ‘normative expectations’ within role relationships Hoy & colleaguescf.1,2,3:  ‘Teachers’ collective perceptions of trust in the •Teachers in a particular school = similar role & same school context social information processes  collective trust10• A shared level of trust among teachers within the same school  a staff’s trust culture11• Four dimensions of FT related to diverse referent groups FT in students, parents, colleagues and the principal FT in students and parents forming a unitary concept: ‘FT in clients’?2,12• Structural & compositional school features related to trust School sector – Socioeconomic context– Ethnic context – Gender contextDepartment of SociologyFaculty of Political and Social SciencesGhent University• Relevance Trust is related to school effectiveness2,3,4,5,6• Academical embeddedness Growing interest on trust within educational research  little systematic research Influence of school context   school effects research7  teacher outcomes8MethodologyFT Dimensionsschool context’• Data Flemish Educational Assessment 2004-2005 80 schools with > 5 teachers responding(cf. critical mass for aggregation2) 2.091 teachers & 11.872 students (third and/or fifth grade)• Research design 29 items derived from the trust scales of Hoy & Tschannen-Moran (1999)3Translated and transformed to measure individual attitudes on trust Factor analysis on the individual trust items gives four trust dimensions• Individual Teacher Trust ScalesStudents Parents Colleagues The principalCronbach’s alpha 0.77 0.78 0.89 0.90Faculty trust in parentsFaculty trust in studentsFaculty trust in colleaguesFaculty trust in the principalFaculty trust in parents(0,82)a(0,19)b0,780*** 0,230* 0,172Faculty trust in students(0,87)a(0,24)b0,228* 0,304**Faculty trust in colleagues(0,72)a(0,13)b0,292**Bivariate Correlations between Faculty Trust DimensionsDiscussion & Conclusion• Individual teachers’ trust Teachers discern trust in students, parents, colleagues and their principal• Teachers from the same school = a shared level of trust on each trust dimension Faculty trust exists in Flanders’ secondary schools  Faculty trust is composed of four dimensions• Faculty Trust Scales FT = group feature  aggregating teacher scores from a same school  legitimate to aggregate?  index of “mean rater reliability” based on the ICC from a onewayanalysis of variance [(BMS-WMS)/BMS]13,14 Aggregating individual scores at the school level by calculating the meanpermitted for each trust dimension (ICC’s > 0.60)13,14 The means for each FT dimension differ significantly between schools (p < 0.001)*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001ResultsFaculty trust in the principal(0,81)a(0,18)b*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001a ICC’s for the ‘faculty trust’-scales = [(BMS-WMS)/BMS](Glick, 1985; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979)b Rho’s for the ‘faculty trust’-scales = VPC = (SSB/SSB+SSW)• ‘Faculty trust in clients’ : probably not a unitary construct 2,12• Structural and compositional school characteristics  do explain FT in students, parents and colleagues• ‘FT in the principal’: more attention needed on aspects of the principal’s behaviour and character15• Private (catholic) schools show more ‘FT in colleagues’ Social capital theory from Coleman & Hoffer (1987)16• An all determining negative effect from a low socioeconomic student bodyon FT in students, parents and colleagues Role of the students’ study culture and the staff’s academic culture???• Influence of the students’ ethnic composition: FT in students: explained by SES composition FT in parents: negative effect FT in colleagues: positive effect= Mutuality leading to trust17Vs.= Category-based trust18FT Dimension SES composition Gender composition Ethnic composition School sector Adj. R² FT in Students (N=80) High proportion of low SES students (-)*** High proportion of female students(+)*** 67.4%*** FT in Parents (N=80) High proportion of low SES students (-)*** High proportion of immigrant students (-)* 59.6%*** FT in Colleagues (N=79) High proportion of low SES students (-)** High proportion of immigrant students (+)* Private schools (+)** 14.3%** FT in the Principal (N=79) High proportion of female teachers(+)** 6.6% • The importance of school context when analyzing teacher trust • Raising the staff’s awareness of their attitudinal trends • Further research on teachers’ trust Individual and collective trust as both an input and process variable10. Shamir & Lapidot (2003), Organization Studies, 24(3)11. Van Houtte (2005), School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1)12. Rowan (1990), Review of Research in Education, 1613. Glick (1985), Academy of Management Review, 10(3)14. Shrout & Fleiss (1979), Psychological Bulletin, 86(2)15. Dirks & Skarlicki (2004), pp. 21-40 in Kramer & Cook (Eds.), Trust and Distrust in Organizations16. Coleman & Hoffer (1987), Public and Private High Schools: The Impact of Communities17. Troman (2000), British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(3)18. Kramer (1999), Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1)1. Hoy & Kupersmith (1985), Educational & Psychological Research, 5(1)2. Goddard et al. (2001), Elementary School Journal, 102(1)3. Hoy & Tschannen-Moran (1999), Journal of School Leadership, 9(3)4. Gamoran et al. (2005), pp. 111-126 in Hedges & Schneider (Eds.), The Social Organization of Schooling5. Bryk & Schneider (2002), Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement6. Kochanek (2005), Building Trust for Better Schools: Research-Based Practices7. Teddlie & Reynolds (2000), The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research8. Coe & Fitz-Gibbon (1998), Oxford Review of Education, 24(4)9. Leana & Van Buren (1999), Academy of Management Review, 24(3)Regression Analyses between Faculty Trust Dimensions & School Characteristics

Faculty trust in secondary schools in Flanders: effects of structural and compositional school features

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/958821/file/1094677

Faculty trust in secondary schools in Flanders: effects of structural and compositional school features

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography