|USFDC Home | USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2010 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004783
Dynamics of teacher self-efficacy :
b middle school reading and language arts teacher responses on a teacher sense of efficacy scale
h [electronic resource] /
by Kimberly Schwartz.
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.
Dissertation (PHD)--University of South Florida, 2010.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
ABSTRACT: Efficacy is created early in a career and not easily influenced over time yet states and school districts loose tremendous amounts of money annually educating and training teachers who elect to leave the profession as a result of low self-efficacy. The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived levels of self-efficacy of middle school Language Arts and reading teachers at various stages in their teaching careers in an attempt to inform the practices of teacher preparation. The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale along with a Teacher Demographic Survey was used to identify how preparation method, content area, and years of experience might relate to self-reported teacher self-efficacy scores. Findings suggest preparation method does play a significant role in self-efficacy of teachers specifically regarding classroom management. Content area of instruction did not reveal a significant difference among participants scores while years of experience did. Participants' self-efficacy increased as the total number of overall years teaching experience increased. Nevertheless, when focusing on the number of years at one location, this finding did not hold true. Teacher self-efficacy scores increased only until the 10 year and beyond mark then decreased. Demographic factors such as participant age, sex, ethnicity, and school location were not identified as predictive variables of a teachers' self-efficacy. Findings suggest school factors at the 6-8 grade levels may impact teacher efficacy scores. Implications and recommendations to schools districts and teacher preparation programs are offered.
Advisor: Mary Lou Morton, Ph.D.
Content Area Teacher Efficacy
x Curriculum and Instruction
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Dynamics of Teacher Self Efficacy: Middle School Reading and Language Arts Teacher Responses on a Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale by Kimberly Ann Schwartz A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of D octor of Philosophy Department of Childhood Education and Literacy Studies College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Mary Lou Morton, Ph. D. Roger Brindley, Ed D. S usan P. Homan, Ph.D. Patricia L. Jones Ph. D Jeffrey Kromrey, Ph.D. Date of Approval : October 21, 2010 Keywords: Content Area Teacher Efficacy, T eacher A ttrition, S taff D evelopment, T eacher P reparation Curriculum Development Copyright 2010, Kimberly Ann Schwartz
Dedication Work of this magnitude is never simply an accomplishment. Rather, it has been the transforming experience that Bandura discusses. This journey began 25 years ago and though it will never fully be finished, I have several people to whom my utmost gratitude and respect must be expressed. I dedicate this book to: My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, without you ABD would have been actualized, my husband Ed, for without you this journey would have been a m oot point, and to my little big men Alex and William; your love is more than I shall ever deserve. In 1996, as I sat in a make shift classroom at Centennial Elementary lis tening to various professors lecture me on how not to lecture my students, I realized something is definitely wrong with this process. I neede d to teach teachers. As I served pecan blueberry pancakes to a customer who would become a mentor and dear friend, the door way to my academic life opened Susan I thank you for being instrumental in opening the door and providing an opportunity to substan tiate my dreams This work is also for, Mary Lou, who from the very beginning eight years ago treated me as a friend and continues to push me to support my thoughts, in all ways. As I have grown professionally and personally, it is abundantly clear your involvement in my life remains imperative. This body of work, this extension of my life, the words on these pages will forever, remind me of the times I missed a baby play date because mommy had boy s knew was being missed This
work is for all the missed evenings on the couch with my beloved, who when I asked if I could quit eight years ago simply is for me to say, I can do anything; I know that anything is possible and that God will provide me with what I need, not always what I want. And so, though I have named s ome in this dedication, this body of work is dedicated to all those who known and unknown, have impacted my life and helped me to see in sometimes all too real ways, that life is a journey not a destination.
Acknowledgements Patti, Corina, and Sarah, (A.K. A m y stats posse ) without the three of you were instrumental in the beginning conce ptualization of this undertaking and from our first meeting, I knew you were my angel W ho else would have laughed ummy coding. I really did think you were referring to me at one point in time. Sarah, oh, Sarah, Thom chose well when he met you. Being married to him prepared you for me and you handled me with the same tough love I expected from a sister thank you. To my committee, when I interviewed each of you, inviting you to be on my committee, it was for a reason Y ou each possessed a quality I knew would be paramount in the successful completion of my journey into the professorate. Given that I would never orde r you in anyway other than alphabetical by last name after Mary Lou, I acknowledge you here: Mary Lou, the support and love you displayed over the last eight years has never gone unnoticed, or underappreciated. Your compassion integrity, and tolerance are astounding and unmatched
Roger, from Starbucks at the library to dog sitting, I have gained the insight to look at the impact my thoughts might have on the global community and the social justice essential to make a decision. Susan, you have taught me to be a better juggler than I ever thought possible. It has been your love of analogies, understanding of differences, and unwavering expectations that have helped me to push myself farther than I have ever thought possible and helped to mold me into the pro fessor I want to be. Pat, our time together has shown me that without questions, there would be no answers. You welcomed me into your fold investing the time to teach this neophyte about secondary literature and the world of better writing. You pushed me to write at levels I never had before and this work is a demonstration of your hard work. this guy is tolerant of non Your calm pres ence has impacted me beyond words and the notion of numbers is now comforting and exciting rather than daunting and intimidating Prior to this experience, I would have said that I could only pray to someday become the educa tor that represents each of the qualities mentioned above. As a result of t his transforming experience, I believe I am that educator and now pray to be the mentor of others as each of you have mentored me.
i Table of Contents List of Tables viii List of Figures x Abstract xi Chapter One Introduction 1 Context of the Problem 3 Statement of the Problem 4 Purpose of the Study 6 Research Questions 7 Research Hypothesis 8 Methodology 8 Theoretical Framework 9 Significance of the Study 12 Assumptions of the Study 1 4 Limitations 14 Definition of Terms 14 Alternative Certification Program or Pathway 14 Ethnicity 1 5 Mastery Experience 1 5 Middle School 1 5 Physiological State 15 Self Efficacy 1 6 Sex 1 6 Social Cognitive Theory 1 6 SpringBoard (SB) 16 Teacher Efficacy 16 1 6 Verbal Persuasion 1 7 Vicarious Experiences 1 7 Summary 17 Chapter Two Review of the Literature 19 Literature Search Method 1 9 Social Theories of Learning 20 Cognitive Theory 2 1 2 2 Self Efficacy 2 2 Sources of Efficacy 2 3
ii Mastery experiences 23 Vicarious experiences 23 Verbal persuasions 2 4 Physiological state s 2 4 Effects of Self Efficacy on Beliefs 24 Interaction of the T wo T heories 2 5 Teacher Efficacy 26 Measures of Teacher Efficacy 27 RAND Study 2 8 28 2 9 Ashton and Webb Vignettes 30 Gibson and Dembo 30 32 Self Efficacy Scale 34 Tschannen Moran Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale 3 5 Summary of Teacher Efficacy Measures 3 7 Teacher Experience 3 8 Beginning First year and Novice Teachers 38 Veteran Teachers 39 Summary of Teacher Experience 40 Teacher Preparation 40 Traditional Four year Program s 42 Liberal arts education 42 Professional study 42 Practical experience 4 2 Alternative Teacher Certification Pathway or Programs 43 Summary of Teacher Preparation 45 Influence of Preparation on Efficacy 4 6 Glickman and Tamashiro 46 Darling Hammond Chung and Fellow 47 Tournaki, Lyublinskaya, and Carolan 47 Summary of Influence of Preparation on Efficacy 49 Implementation and Use of Curriculum 49 Structured Reading Curriculum 50 Scripted Language Arts Curriculum 5 1 Summary of Implementation and Use of Curriculums 5 2 Teacher Attrition 5 2 School Context 5 2 Summary of Teacher Attrition 5 3 Surveys 5 4 Traditional Surveys 5 4 Online Surveys 5 5 Survey Summary 5 6 Chapter Summary 5 7
iii Chapter Three Methodology 5 8 Purpose of the Study 5 8 Research Questions 59 Research Hypothese s 6 0 Research Design 6 0 Pilot Study 6 1 Pilot sample 61 Study Population 62 Teachers 63 Data collection 62 SurveyMonkey 62 Statistical Power 63 Standard effect size 64 Sample size 64 Test size 64 Power of the test 64 Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale 65 Teacher Demographics Questionnaire 68 Distribution of the Measures 68 Timeline of Measures Distribution 69 Data Management 72 Description of the Variables 7 2 Dependent variables 7 2 Independent variables 73 Threats to Validity 74 Internal Validity 7 4 External Validity 7 6 Analysis 76 Research Question One : How are Differences in Teacher Self Efficacy Scores Related to Teacher Preparation? 7 7 Research Question Two : How are Differences in Teacher Self Efficacy Scores Related to the Content Area Taught? 77 Research Question Three : To What Extent are Differences in Teacher Self Efficacy Related to Years of Teaching Experience? 77 Research Question Four : To What Extent Can Differences in Teacher Self Demographic Factors a) Age, b) Sex, c) Ethnicity, and d) School Location? 78 Summary 79 Chapter Four Results 81 Research Questions 81 Purpose of the Study 82
iv Power 83 Non Response Bias 85 Sources of Non Response 87 Checking Assumptions 90 Analysis of Variance Measure 90 Multiple Regression Analysis 9 1 Research Findings 9 2 Research Question One: How are Differences in Teacher Self Efficacy Scores Related to Teacher Preparation? 92 Research Question One Summary 98 Research Question Two: How are Differences in Teacher Self Efficacy Scores Related to the Content Area Taught? 99 Research Question Two Summary 102 Research Question Three: To What Extent are D ifferences in Teacher Self Efficacy Related to Years of Teaching Experience? 102 Anywhere responses 103 Current site responses 106 Research Q uestion T hree S ummary 111 Research Question Four: To What Extent Can Differences in Teacher Self Efficacy Be Demographic Factors a) Age, b) Sex, c) Ethnicity, and d) School Location? 113 Age 113 Sex 116 Ethnicity 117 School location 120 Factors that Influence Teaching and Teacher Feedback 133 Positive Factors 133 The Other Positive Factors 136 Personal characteristics 137 Personal experiences 137 Knowing students 138 Support structures 138 Research 138 Pedagogical freedom 138 Negative Factors 138 141 District/State level 143 School level 144 Class level 145 Summary of Findings 146 Summary of Research Findings 147 Chapter Five Discussion 150
v Purpose of the Study 150 Research Questions 151 Limitations of the Study 151 Discussion of the Findings 153 Research Question One: How are Differences in Teacher Self Efficacy Scores Related to Teacher Preparation? 154 Research Question Two: How are Differences in Teacher Self Efficacy Scores Related to the Content Area Taught? 159 Research Question Three: To What Extent are Differences in Teacher Self Efficacy Related to Years of Teaching Experience? 165 Research Question Four: To What Extent Can Differences in Teacher Self Demographic Factors a) Age b) Sex, c) Ethnicity, and d) School Location? 169 Age 169 Sex 170 Ethnicity 171 School l ocation 172 Othe r positive and negative factors 173 Implications 176 For Teacher Preparation Programs 178 Mastery experience 178 For School Districts 180 Staff development a n d enrichment coursework 180 Peer mentoring 184 Teacher retention 185 Teacher experiences 186 For Research Methodologies 187 Recommendations 188 School Districts 188 Teacher Preparation Programs 188 Unanswered Questions 189 Final Thoughts 191 Future Research 194 References 199 Appendices 217 Appendix A Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale and Teacher Demographic Survey 218 Appendix B Script for Monthly Language Arts and Reading Subject Area Leaders Meeting 222 Appendix C Letter of Invitation to Participate in Survey Introductory Script 223
vi Appendix D T ime line for Survey Distribution 224 Appendix E Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Preparation Method 225 Appendix F Side by Side Box Plots for TSES TOTAL Prep Scores 226 Appendix G Side by Side Box Plots for TSES Student Engagement Prep Scores 227 Appendix H Side by Side Box Plots for TSES Instruct ional Strategies Prep Scores 228 Appendix I Si de by Side Box Plots for TSES Clas sroom Management Prep Scores 229 Appendix J Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Content Area 230 Appendix K Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Teaching Experience Anywhere 231 Appendix L Side by Side Box Plots for TSES Total Anywhere Scores 232 Appendix M Side by Side Box Plots for TSES Student Engagement Anywhere Scores 233 Appendix N Side by Side Box Plots for TSES Instructional Strategies Anywhere Scores 234 Appendix O Side By Side Box Plots for TSES Classroom Management Anywhere Scores 235 Appendix P Side By Side Box Plots for TSES Total Current Site Scores 236 Appendix Q Side By Side Box Plots for TSES Student Engagement Current Site Scores 237 Appendix R Side By Side Box Plots of Instructional Strategies for Current Site Scores 238 Appendix S Side By Side Box Plots of Classroom Management for Current Site Scores 239 Appendix T Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Teaching Current Site 240 Appendix U Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Age 241 Appendix V Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Sex 242 Appendix W Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Et hnicity 243 Appendix X Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Title 1 Site Eligibility 244 Appendix Y Residual Fit Diagnostic for TSES Total 245
vii Appendix Z Residual Fit Diag nostic s for Student Engagement 246 Appendix AA Residual Fit Diagnosti cs for Instruction al Strategies 247 Appendix AB Residual Fit Diagnostic for Classroom Management 248 Appendix AC Number of Responses by site and Free/Reduced Lunch Percentages 249 Appendix AD Multiple Regression Table for Total 251 Appendix AE Multiple Regression Table for Student Engagement 252 Appendix AF Multiple Regression Table for Instructional Strategies 253 Appendix AG Multiple Regression Table for Classroom M anagement 254 Appendix AH Qualitative Comments for Positive Factors 255 Appendix AI Qualitative Comments for Negative Factors 257
viii List of Tables Table 1 Construct Validity for Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale 67 Table 2 Research Questions and Analysis 79 Table 3 Participant/Non Participant Response Comparison 85 Table 4 Non Response X 2 Goodness of Fit Statistics 89 Table 5 Means and SD Scores by Preparation Type 94 Table 6 Preparation Method ANOVA and Tukey Result 98 Table 7 Means and SD Scores by Content Are a 100 Table 8 ANOVA Results for Instructional Content 101 Table 9 Mean TSES Score by Teaching Anywhere Experience 104 Table 10 ANOVA Results for Teaching Experience Anywhere 106 Table 11 Mean TSES Score by Teaching Current Site Experience 108 Table 12 ANOVA Results for Teachin g Experience at Current Site 111 Table 13 Mean TSES Scores by Age 116 Table 1 4 Mean TSES Scores by Sex 117 Table 1 5 Mean TSES scores by Participant Ethnicity 119 Table 16 Mean TSES Scores by Site Location/Eligibility 122 Table 1 7 TSES Total Multiple Regression Parameter Estimates 126 Table 1 8 TSES Student Engagement Multiple Regression Parameter Estimates 1 2 8
ix Table 1 9 TSES Instructional Strategies Multiple Regression Parameter Estimates 130 Table 20 TSES Classroom Management Multiple Regression Parameter Estimates 1 3 2 Table 21 Positive Factors Influencing Ability 135 Table 22 Other Positive Factors that Influence Ability 137 Table 23 Negative Factors Influencing Ability 140 Table 24 T he 143 Table 25 Summary of Significant Findings by Research Question 146 Table 26 175
x List of Figures Figure 1 Conceptual Model of the Study 7 Figure 2 Percentages of Participants by Preparation Method 93 Figure 3 Number of Respondents by Experience Category 103 Figure 4 Total Participants by Age Group 114
xi Abstract E fficacy is created early in a career and not easily inf luenced over time yet states and school districts loose tremendous amounts of money annually educating and training teachers who elect to leave the profession as a result of low self efficacy. The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived levels of self efficacy of middle school Language Arts and reading teachers at various stages in their teaching careers in an attempt to inform the practices of teacher preparation The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale along with a Teacher Demographic Survey was used to identify how preparation method, content area, and years of experience might relate to self reported teacher self efficacy scores. Findings suggest preparation method does play a significant role in self efficacy of teachers specifically regarding classroom management. Content area of instruction did not reveal a significant difference among participants scores while efficacy increased as the total number of overall years te aching experience increased. Nevertheless, when focusing on the number of years at one location, this finding did not hold true. Teacher self efficacy scores increased only until the 10 year and beyond mark then decreased. Demographic factors such as parti cipant age, sex, ethnicity, and efficacy. Findings suggest school factors at the 6 8 grade levels may impact
xii teacher efficacy scores Implications and recommendations to school s districts and teacher preparation programs are offered.
1 Chapter One Introduction students are to be well taught, it will be done by knowledgeable and well National Commission on Teaching and 1996, p. 10 In this chapter, the main problem of the study is set in the context of the middle school 6 th 8 th grade classroom s and then related to both K 12 and higher education communities The chapter includes background information, the statement of the pro blem, purpose of the study, research questions and hypotheses, theoretical framework a nd a brief paragraph regar ding the methodology of the study. Also included in this section are the assumptions of the study, limitations to the study, and definitions of terms. The chapter ends with a summary of its contents. F or over twenty years the preparation hers has been a topic of fierce debate riddled with political initiatives that influence the financial livelihoods of the school districts and institutions that educate teachers (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Darling Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). One of the edicts of the F ederal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 is be in every content classroom and each academic classroom in America by the end of the 2005 2006 school year. An obvious and integral
2 component to ensuring t hat a HQT spearhead s each American classroom is to ensure traditional teacher preparation and alternative certification programs (A CP s ) are rigorous and systematic in their course work and expectations as well as successful production of effective, competent, and confident teachers (Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley, 2006, p. 173). Groups such as the Carnegie Task Force on the Future of Teaching (1986), the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (1999), and the Holmes Group (1986) of education deans pressured universities and establishments which provided teacher tra ining programs to require more systematic and rigorous work from teacher candidates. The pressure applied coupled with the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) demand ed the reform and restructuring of teacher education programs that would in creas e teacher candidate knowledge of strategies to instruct students of diverse populations, improve pedagogical content knowledge, and generate a more systematic clinical experience for teacher candidates (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Darling Hammond, et al ., 2002). In do ing so, teacher education programs and institutions have attempted to fill the classrooms with teacher education graduates who are effective, efficacious, and prepared to endure and answer their own call to service (Guarino, et al ., 2006). Universities and c olleges are not alone in their quest to educate teacher s with competent and qualified teachers. States school districts and consortiums across the nation use various a lternative options such as Alternative Certification P rogram s (Morton, Williams, & Brindley, 2006) Educator Preparation Institutes, and
3 Alternative Certification Pathways (Darling Hammond, et a., 2002) to assist adults seeking careers in education but hold degrees in fields other than the education classes they wish to teach. These alternative certification program and pathway options are often referred to as ACPs These programs are meant to provide w ould be teachers with the pedagogical content necess ary to be qualified in the classroom under the NCLB mandates ( Darling Hammond, 2000 ; Flores, Desjean Perrotta & Steinmetz, 2004; USDOE, 2006; Zientek, 2006) The U.S. Department of Education for 2006 revealed the number of teacher graduates is up 7% reaching a four year high of 220,777 and the number of ACP recipients increased almost 40% from 2000 to 2004 Moreover, these teacher graduates have passed state licensing assessments at an overall 96% pass rate. Context of the Problem The challenge in providing and sustaining sufficient numbers of highly qualified teachers has been a struggle for teacher education programs and school districts alike Ingersoll (2 0 03) reported school staffing problems are not isolated to teacher supply shortages A pproximately 534,861 teachers entered schools during the 1999 2000 academic year However, 539,778 teachers either moved among schools or left their schools by the end of the year Attrition and migration the moving from one school to another, has increased by nearly 400,000 from the decade before (Boe, Bobbitt, & Cook, 1997). This attrition or migration of teachers impacts school districts nationwide Some of this staff movement is considered a result of a teachers leave education for reasons other than retirement (Ingersoll, 2001,
4 2003). The 1994 7% (204, 680) while attrition claimed some 213,000 or 7.3% of the total attrition population. Teacher shortage concerns posed by attrition and the moving from one site to another were not (Ingersoll, 2003) More currently, teacher attrition and migration statistics from the 2007 2008 school year re o f the 3,380,300 public school teachers, 84.5 percent for the 2008 2009 school year. However, those who did not remain at their school site are considered by some f movers and leavers (7.5% and 8.0% respectively) is the average national percentage of the teaching workforce, who in some way transition either into, between, or out of schools over the 2008 2009 school year. Statement of the Problem To put this teacher movement in perspective as it relates to the fiscal budget of a school district and state, if a s t ate produced a pproximately 6,000 traditional teacher education program graduates in 2008 a 7% attrition rate suggest s a little over 400 teachers would have quit teaching at the end of that school year Upon initial glance, just over 400 teachers is not an impressive number, however, if taken over a five year period, say from the time a child moves from kindergarten through fourth grade, over 2,000 teachers w ould have left the teaching profession. An illustration of the fiscal implications such loss might demonstrate is warranted: for example, a teacher in the southeast United States might attend professional development trainings and workshops as a way
5 to ga in ce rtification renewal credits. If the 400 teacher who left the district attended staff developments and were paid roughly $20 .00 an hour to attend such professional development workshop and class for the roughly 70 recertification hours necessary t he loss of 400 teachers annually or over 2,000 in five years, amounts to a substantial amount of financial resources that are not recouped or benefit ing students. Some research suggests that the efforts by universities and states to strengthen teacher pr eparation may be producing tea chers who feel better prepared, enter and remain in the teaching profession, and are rated by supervisors as more effective (Darling Hammond, et al., 2002). Other research suggests that at times teaching deprives good teachers of their motivation and sense of personal self esteem proof the success of all improvement efforts depends on the quality and Ashton & Webb, 1986, p. 2). Brissie, Hoover can be predictive of teacher attrition. A strong link connects teacher efficacy with commitment to remain in teaching (Allinder, 1994; Guskey, 1984) as well as teachers mplement innovation (Smylie, 198 8), and teacher stress ( Brown & Nagel, 2004; Parkay, G reenwood, Olejnik & Proller, 198 8). Teachers with a low sense of efficacy are more likely to drop out of the teaching profession (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982). Moreover, teacher self efficacy (or teaching efficacy) or when goals are not met. It provides them with the necessary confidence to be
6 resilient and help their students aspire to greatness as well as increase their own aspirations as teachers (Tschannen Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Purpose of the Study Research on the effectiveness of various teacher certification routes report mixed findings. Some suggest traditional teacher certification programs produce more effective and higher rated teacher s (Darling Hammond & Cobb, 1996). Other reports suggest there is no difference, in perceived effecti veness by supervisors, between traditionally trained and alternatively certified teach er s (Zeichner & Schulte, 2001). Additionally, research suggests that teacher efficacy beliefs form during early years of a new situation and are resist ant to change ( Long & Moore, 2008; Tschannen Moran Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy 1998). It was the intent of this own efficacy, or capabilities Specifically, t he purpose of this study was to examine the perceived level of self efficacy of middle school Language Arts and reading teachers as well as the areas and factors that may account for variations in these teachers reported efficacy levels Factors included number of years of teaching experience, pedagogical or teaching program preparation, and teacher demographics such as age, sex, ethnicity and school location It was hypothesized that the three variables, number of years teaching, the type of teacher preparation program, content area, and teacher demographics would be associated with teacher self efficacy. The conceptual model incl uded dependent and independent variables and is found in Figure 1.1.
7 Figure 1 Conceptual Model of the Study Research Questions The following research questions were addressed: 1 How are differences in teacher s elf e fficacy scores related to teacher preparation ? For example, did teachers who graduated from traditional preparation programs report higher efficacy levels than alternatively certified teachers? 2. How are differences in teacher s elf e fficacy scores relate d to the content area taught? For example, did Language Arts teachers have a higher level of efficacy compared to that of reading teacher s with comparable variables? 3. To what extent are differences in teacher s elf e fficacy related to years of teaching experience? For example, were tenth year efficacious compared to first and third year teachers?
8 4. To what extent can differences in teacher s elf e fficacy be associated c factors a) age, b) sex c) ethnicity and d) school location ? Research Hypothes e s 1 T raditionally efficacy will be reported as significantly higher than A lternative C ertification P athway/Program teachers. 2. R eading teacher self efficacy will be reported as significant ly higher than Language Arts teachers 3. E xperienced efficacy will be reported as significantl y higher than less experienced teachers. 4. Differences in Teacher Self Efficacy Scores can be positively and strongly associated with teacher demographics of age, sex, ethn icity, and school Title 1 status Specifically, older teachers will be more efficacious than younger teachers; male teachers will be more efficacious than female teachers; white teachers will be more efficacious than non white teachers; teachers from Non T itle 1 schools will be more efficacious than teachers from Title 1 schools Methodology The research design employed in this study was one of descriptive survey research involving a census of middle school reading and Language Arts teachers from a large school district in the southeastern United States with a student population of roughly 190,000 students. Data were collected using the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) and Teacher Demographics Questionnaire (TDQ). More specifically, thi s study was designed to explore
9 differences in teacher self efficacy based on certification type and program characteristics years of teaching experiences, and demographics. Theoretical Framework Teacher efficacy, the notion of human agency, and perceived control are central to the study of teacher efficacy. Indeed, as the field regarding teacher efficacy and studies that focused on teacher perceptions of their own abilities was researched the works of Bandura (1977) and Rotter (1966) were consistently id entified as the lenses through which the construct of teacher efficacy was viewed (Capa, 2005; Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982, Tschannen Moran et al., 1998; Vas quez, 2008). There fore, this study was g round ed in psychology and link ed to s ocial l earning t heory in general and locus of control as well as general social cognitive theories and self efficacy which are used to frame the construct referred to as teacher efficacy. man agency is their ability to influence. If the individual believes that they control the situation, they can influence the outcome; Rotter theory suggests that the person has an internal locus of control. The reverse holds true as well. If the individual believes the control to change an outcome is dependent upon the environment; person has an external locus of c ontrol. The seminal RAND Corporation teacher efficacy study (Armor et al., 1976) of control theory. The three measures that ca me out of the RAND studies include d the Teacher Locus of Control S cale, Responsibility for Study Achiev ement, and The Webb
10 Scale (Capa, 2005). added to the theoretical framework addressed here as they are without question however; t he present study did not address the loci of control cons truct with tea cher participants specifically a reciprocally dynamic interaction of personal factors, the environment, and behavior. Each of these works in congruence with each other in triadic reciprocality (or determinism) According to Bandura, reciprocal determinism is the notion that all three above interactions mutually influence a person just as a person can influence all three influenced by and influencing based upon personal factors and environment. Central to this theory is the construct of self efficacy. It is the combination of these three Self efficacy is acity to organize and execute the courses of Bandura, 19 97 p. 3) during early learning He suggests self efficacy is formed one of four ways: mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasions, and physiological states. The ways by which an individual can acquire efficacy requires the individual to either experienc e an event (mastery experienc e), compare oneself to another (vicarious experience), be exposed to the verbal judgments of others (verbal persuasion), or experience me n tal and physical states based on his or her own expectations such as anxiety, fatigue, and stress (physiological state s). Each factor informs self efficacy as a person an ticipates an event. However,
11 Bandura goes on to suggest component cognitive, social, and behavioral skills must be organized into integrated courses of acti More specifically, knowledge of the task to be performed, and a short lag time between self efficacy ratings and performance provide the greatest increase in self efficacy as the social, cognitive, and behavioral skills of the participants are able to be organized into executable courses of action that provided satisfactory results (Pajares, 2002) If self efficacy is most powerfully influenced by mas tery experiences then to be highly qualified teachers would have to continually increase their knowledge base and strategy repertoire Certainly one way to do this is by attending professional development c ourses, semina rs, and workshops where courses of action for expected outcomes are made. Mastery experiences in he notion that self efficacy may be increased over time is more plausible Therefore, teachers of varying years of teaching experience are of specific interest I t is possible that not only are the first years of teaching critical t o the long but so too are the experiences of teachers as they encounter new situations and requirements for success T he framework of other teacher efficacy researchers c ontributed to this study ( see Carleton, Firch, & Krockover 2008 ; Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982; Tschannen Moran, et al., 1998 ) and were used to identify possible connections and correlations between teacher efficacy specifically based on demographic information, preparation method, and number of years teachin g.
12 Significance of the Study Pajares (1997) talks of t eacher efficacy has become an important construct in teacher education encouraging how teacher efficacy develops, what factors contribute to strong and positive teaching efficacy in varied domains and how teacher preparation programs can help teacher s develop high teacher efficacy (p. 19). Ingersoll (20 01) report ed low salaries, inadequate support from the school administration, student discipline problems, and limited faculty input into school decision making all contribute to higher rates of turnover after controlling for the characteristics of both teachers Good and Tom (1985) specifically recommended that researchers focus on how teacher education programs might affect sense of efficacy However l ittle research has been conduc ted that focuses on influences (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990) Teacher enrollment projections by the National Center for Educational Statistics ( NCES, 2006) report a 26% increase in new hires for public school elementary and secondary teacher by the year 2018. New hire, as defined by the NCES, is any person who teaches in a sector or curriculum in which they did not teach previously, but not a teacher wh o move d from one school to another within the same sector. This 375,000 plus increase in new teacher hires is to accommodate the 9.9 million (or 9 %) increase in student enrollment by 2018. As a result d egree granting educational institutions may experienc e an increase in teacher education enrollment.
13 However, given that some 66% of teachers prepared through alternative school district pathways and 33% of teachers prepared throug h traditional education leave within the first 3 years of employment ( Morton, et al., 2006) it is cruci al that as a research community we have a better understanding of the confidence levels teacher s maintain in t he work place experience based on their preparation. Moreover, it is also imperative that as a teacher education body, we employ methods that are effective over the span of a career. That is to say, as a pr ofessorate, we must prepare teachers with skills necessary to adapt to curriculums while simultaneously not losing efficacy in their abilities to teach The fi ndings of this study may be helpful for a wide audience including educational policy makers, administrators, pre service and in service teachers, teacher preparation faculty and school districts. Factors found significant in efficacy might in turn, help teacher educators b etter prepare teachers for not only their beginning years, but also for the extent of their careers Still too, findings from this study might influence teacher induction programs as it could provide a framework for ways to better support and promote efficacious teachers. The experiences of own efficacy evolution, the voiced lack of efficacy from college students and fellow teachers dr o ve the questions asked How can teacher educators better prepare graduates fo r the challenges they face with content instruction, pressures of high stakes assessments, and national mandates. During that first year several opportunities to quit and change ca reer paths were presented, but like so many fellow teachers, the gestalt of the profession was larger than the sum of it s
14 parts. Indeed, high perseverance usually produces high performance Assumptions of the Study Due to the nature of this study the following assumption s were made. 1 Efficacy Scale (TSEFS) accurately capture d the characteristics sense of self efficacy. 2 The construct of efficacy was accurate for this study Limitations Every study has limitations The first i nvolve d rel iance on teacher self reported data Reported data may be inaccurate based upon p articipants views ; the data may be reported as under or overestimated (Pajares, 2002) Another limitation was the use of on line polling as participants may not have been comfortable with technology or may have worried that the results were not confidential and therefore may not have answered truthfully. Definition of Terms The following terms wer e used in the study and are defined alphabetically. Alternative C ertification Pathway or Program The pathway or program a teacher candidate follows for preparation and training for teacher certification beyond a traditional four year universit y or college education program. For purposes of this study, the Alternative Certification Program (or ACP) self reported by teacher participants was a program offered by the school district of this study to teachers who did not hold a valid state certification content area for which they sought credentialing.
15 Ethnicity The ethnic membership of a person as identified by the participant and matched in categories to that of the school district: Asian, Black, Hispanic, Indian, or White Mastery E xperience T he most powerful source of efficacy information one can receive Successful performance tends to raise s elf efficac y and failures tend to lower it (Bandura, 1982) Middle S chool Middle schools are defined as s chools providing instruction using middle school (grades 6 8) and junior high school configurations (grades 7 9). This category also includes schools serving a single grade in the 6 8 range (e.g., a 6 th grade center) As well as combination schools that provide regular or other instruction in grade groupings that include more than one of the other school type categories (e.g., PK 8, 6 12, K 12, etc.) In the case of this study, combination schools will be the two K 8 schools within the district. Physi ological S tate D efined as the s ource of self efficacy that produces an effect when a psyche is such that it can alter and influence a judgment An example would be if a person is experiencing stress, fatigued, or ang e r. These are moods that alter the belief in their ability (Bandura, 1977)
16 Self efficac y T organize and execute a course of action required producing (Bandura, 1997, p.3). Sex T he sex of a person as self reported on the survey instruments as male or female Social Cognitive T heory A theoretical framework to predict and explain the changes in participants based on different modes of treatment. It suggests that human behavior is a reciprocally dynamic interaction of personal factors, the environment, and behavior (Bandura, 1986) SpringBoard (SB) A district wise implemented scripted curriculum for all 6 8 th grade Language Arts d year of adoption with the school district. Teacher E fficacy This is a T t hat they can influence how well (Guskey & Passaro, 1994, p. 628). S ense of E fficacy S cale (TSES ) This scale is also referred to as the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale This is a teacher efficacy measure developed by Tschannen M oran and Woolfolk Hoy in 2001 This measure is either a 24 item or 12 item Likert type survey
17 instrument with a nine point scale or three subsections Chapter Three provides reliability and validity information on this measure. Verbal P ersuasions Source of self efficacy producing an effect based on exposure to verbal judgments made by another ( Bandura, 1977 ). Vicarious E xperiences Source of self efficacy that produces an effect based on social comparisons and observations of person with qualities deemed similar to those of the person whose efficacy is in question ( Bandura, 1977 ). Summ ary The construct of teacher efficacy has been measured in numerous ways and in various contexts over the last 30 years. Grounded in the field of psychology, the elusive construct of self efficacy is impactful to all facets of a s sense of her/his own efficacy in the classroom and with students influences not just student achievement, but also a teacher own satisfaction and commitment to the field. As teacher educators, it is critical that we prepare our graduates for the realities of the teaching world. The ability to increase and maintain efficacy in the face of national mandates requiring highly qualified teachers as well as the ability to deal with other pressures on teachers is the basis of teaching success Rese arch suggests that efficacy is created early in a career and not easily inf luenced over time. The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived levels of self efficacy of middle school Language Arts and reading teachers at
18 various stages in their teac hing careers in an attempt to inform the practices of teacher preparation.
19 Chapter Two Review of the Literature It is the intent of this section to the present study to the ongoing dialogue in the literature, and to provide a Creswell, 1994, p. 37). Given that social cognitive and social learning theories are the psychological groundwork upon which self efficacy resides, a brief discussion of social cognitive and social learning theories is necessary This discussion is expanded with s a d escription of the construct of self efficacy. A re view of the literature involving studies which have with specific attention paid to teacher preparation programs, and number of years teaching is presented A key component of this study will be the integration of Tsc hannen Moran et al., (TSEM) A senses of efficacy are presented along with description of the TSEM and scale Overall, this chapter provide s backgrou nd and context for understanding teacher self efficacy studies, documenting the importance of the efficacy construct as it relates to teacher preparation. Literature Search Method Broad searches of literature on teacher efficacy and middle school were cond ucted using several search strategies. C omputerized reference databases
20 including Education Full Text; ProQuest Dissertatio n s Abstracts and International; JSTOR; Web Wilson: Academic Search; and ERIC focusing on articles or research reports published from 1980 to 2009 were used. D escriptor Keywords to narrow the search of extraneous materials included at least one of several terms related to teachers and their confidence or efficacy (i.e., sense of self efficacy, teacher efficacy, certification pe dagogy, teaching certification methods, reading teachers, Language Arts teachers, secondary education, teacher preparation, teacher education, and middle school teachers ). A second method utilized Google and allowed the researcher to collect all related material cited in recent reviews of literature as well as World Wide Web documents from Organizations and government websites. A third search method involved snowball citations. That is, publications were read and cross checked for references perhaps overlooked or missing from database queries. Social Theori es of Learning Henson (2001) and Vasquez (2008) discuss the construct of teacher efficacy and state that the majority of research involving teacher efficacy is grounded in the so cial cognitive theory work of Bandura (1986). Indeed, the vast amount of articles reviewed framed their research based on s ocial c ognitive t heory. While the works of Bandura were utilized by researchers across the nation, a nother framework was used to fram e one of the first teacher efficacy measures. The work s of Rotter ( 1954, 1966) discusses the construct of control referred to as locus of control and focuses on whether a person deems control to be internally driven or externally driven. Both theories are intermingled in self efficacy reports and are therefore reviewed here.
21 Social Cognitive Theory In his theoretical framework to predict and explain the changes in participants based on different modes of treatment, Alfred Bandura (1 971 ) attempted to fuse a divergen ce between theory and practice suggesting that human behavior was thought to be acquired and regulated i n terms of cognitive processes. However, there was growing interest in the notion that performance based procedures were effecting physiological changes. S ocial cognitive theory ( Bandura, 1986) suggests human behavior is a reciprocally dynamic interaction of personal factors, the environment, and behavior. There is a mutual reliance upon each of these triadic elements inform ing and influencing how a person will in turn, influence his/her environment and how the environment will influence the person in retu rn. Suggesting that performance attainments informs and alters their environments and their self of reciproca l determinism suggests that the beliefs one holds about oneself based on human behavior, environment, and personal factors are mutually interact and serve as determinants of each other. Bandura does not imply that these factors influence each other equally or simultaneously. Instead, the strength of the influence depends upon the activity, the circumstance, and the individual Behavior and personal factors share a two directional relationship. Although personal factors influence behavior, behavior can, in turn, influence
22 personal characteristics, or factors such as expectations, beliefs, and cognitive competencies (Bandura, 1986). Finally, the factors of behavior and environment are mutually connected because both are producers and products of their environ ment. Social Learning Theory Utilizing the three basic concepts of behavior potential, expectancy, and reinforcement value, the social learning theory is intended to measure and predict behavior (Rotter, 1954). Rotter (1966), described locus of control as the process by which individuals acquire expectancies of internal or external control over desired outcomes. If a person deems control of an outcome to be within their control or something he/she can influence, then that person is thought to hav e an internal locus of control. Dichotomously, if a person believes that events are beyond their control and outcomes will be a direct result of the environment, then the person is said to have an external locus of control. Self Efficacy Social cognitive t under which self efficacy resides. The construct of self efficacy dates back to 197 1 when the seminal work of Bandura suggested that most people learn behaviors by observing others and then modeling the b ehaviors they perceive to be effective. This type of observational learning contrasts noticeably with the process of learning through direct reinforcement. He characterized this phenomenon as efficacy (DeMoulin, 1993). In this notion of self efficacy, eople avoid activities that they believe exceed their coping capabilities, but
23 they undertake and perform assuredly those that they judge themselves capable of managing (Bandura, 1977 p. 194 ). Sources of Self Efficacy According to Bandura (1997), there are four main sources of information upon which individuals base their self efficacy: mastery of experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasions, and physiological states. Mastery experiences. Asserted as the most powerful of the four sources, this concept offers the most realistic information for an individual, or learner. Thr o u gh experience an individual recognizes necessary skills/conditions essential to success. Having that knowledge increases their self awareness of ability or outcomes. As learners master new skills, they tend to increase their expectations of ability (Bandura, 1997). Individuals who perceive themselves as successful tend to have higher self efficacy while those who are not successful have lower efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Vicarious experiences. Considered the second most powerful of the four sources, this concept proposes influence to efficacy based on the experiences of others. When a learner watches or vicariously attends to a model, the learner is able to anticipate his or her ability based on the experiences of the model. The more closely the learner identifie s with the model, the more powerful the experience. The learner s efficacy level is increased when they observe a task performed with success (Bandura, 1997). It is noteworthy to mention that the failure of a model has a more negative effect on the self ef ficacy of a learner, or observer, when the observer judges themselves as having comparable ability to the model. If, on the other hand, observers judge their capability as superior to
24 the model s capability, failure of the model does not have a negative ef fect (Brown & Inouye, 1978). Verbal persuasions. This third source of efficacy involves exposure to verbal judgments of others and is therefore less powerful than the two previously mentioned sources (Bandura, 1997). A learner can be persuaded of the like lihood of success for a task. Yet, if the task is not deemed successful by the learner, it will be disregarded. Still too, verbal judgments can play an important part in self belief development (Zeldin & Pajares, 1997); for if the task is deemed successful by the learner, it will produce a positive influence on the learner (Bandura, 1997). Physiological states. (1997) sources of influence on efficacy. Physiological states include notions that anxiety, stres s, fatigue, and other emotional states will impact the perception of ability on an individual. Individuals can influence and even alter their thinking arousal in stressful and tax ing situations as an ominous sign of vulnerability and Eff ects of S elf efficacy on B eliefs It is important to note that the i ntegration of efficacy information influences learners b eliefs because they are developed b y cognitively processing diverse sources of information. Bandura (1997) goes on to suggest that the effects of self efficacy on the beliefs of teachers is thought to be most powerful during the early learning of tasks and that varying tasks require differe nt sources and performance s of efficacy. Learners weigh and integrate multidimensional
25 information while making judgments regarding their efficacy in a very personal and uniquely individual process. In this weighing process, the value of each source of information and how to combine the sources change for each individual and for different situations (Bandura, 1997). Given that each source of information will not have the same performer or task; it is questionable as to whether efficacy can increase over time considering each new source of information potentially requires a new task. Meaning, as a teacher experiences an event and makes a decision the decision is based on a multitude of information from various sources. The outcome can not be repeated beca use the situation and sources of information will never again be identical to those previously experienced by the teacher. Interaction of the T wo T heories Learning theory of Personality. O f particular interest for this study is Postulate 5 A person s experiences (or his interactions with his meaningful environment) influence each other. Otherwise stated, personality has unity. New experiences are a partial function of acquired meanings, an d old acquired meanings or learnings are changed by new experience ( Rotter, 1954 ). T h is s uggests that as a teacher or personality increases in years of experience, the perception of their control is changed. Bandura says that essentially your schema provides confidence and efficacy for expected outcomes and Rotter says that new experiences change old understandings and meanings. Th is means that experienced teachers might in fact have a low self efficacy because of a lack of schema for the new experience and its meaning. Bandura
26 (1997 ) argue d that even though self efficacy and locus of control are often viewed as the same construct, they in fact c orrespond to entirely different theory, locus of control construct refers to the degree to which an individual believes the occurrence of events, or reinforcements, is contingen t on his or her own behavior. Locus of control is an outcome expectancy that, according to in dicate a sense of empowerment and well being. For example, a teacher may believe that high student performance is entirely dependent on his/her ability to teach the curriculum (high locus of control), but feel hopeless because they believe they lack the sk ills to help their student produce superior academic performance (low self efficacy). Teacher Efficacy The construct of teacher efficacy is generally grounded in the psychological frames of both Bandura (1986) and Rotter (1966) and is determined by many va riables (Capa, 2005). Wheatley (2005) suggests that in their ability may in fact underestimate, overestimate, or accurately measure the true efficacy of the teacher. Meaning students who perform well or achieve, may unintentionally affect the teacher by projecting an overestimated sense of ability might internalize the event as their having done a poor job. Herbert, Lee,
27 that 224). Nonetheless, the elusive construct is defined and regar ded for this study 137). More recently, Tschannen Moran et al (1998) define teacher efficacy as, action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular identified as a p commitment (Coladarci, 1992; Evan s & Tribble, 1986; Glickman & Tamashiro, et al. 1990), teacher absenteeism (Imants, & Van Zoelen, 1995), and teacher stress (Bliss & Finneran, 1991; Parkay, et al. 1988). Also reported to impact teacher self efficacy are differences in teacher preparation and certificatio n attainment (Darling Hammond, et al. 2002; Silvernail, 1998; Tourn aki, Lyublinskaya, & Carolan, 2009; Zeintek, 2007), Measures of Teacher Efficacy Studies of teacher self efficacy date back to the 1970s with RAND (Armor et al., 1976). Since th en researchers have based their studies on two locus of control theory.
28 RAND S tudy With theoretical connections to Rotter (1966) and l ocus of c ontrol, RAND Corporation ( Armo r, et al. 1976) published findings that included two efficacy items in their self administered, open ended question survey instrument coupled with face to face interviews of classroom teachers, reading specialists, and principals (n=81of 83). The two items to measure teacher efficacy we re: (1) the most into a single teacher efficacy measure. This measure was designed to identify the degree to which teachers consider environmental factors as beyond the control the teach er has in the classroom (exter nal locus of control) or within the control the teacher has in the classroom (internal locus of control). Though some have attempted to expand the construct of teacher efficacy by developing longer and more comprehensive meas ures, the RAND study and questionnaire remain regarded as one of the first teacher efficacy measures (Brouwers & Tomic, 1998; Carleton, et al., 2008; Pajares, 199 6 ; Tschannen Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 1998). Responsibility for Student Achievement Guskey (1981) developed the Responsibility of Student Achievement failures and successes by providing separate subscales for positive (R+) and negative (R ) performance outcom es. The RAS shares the aim of the locus of
29 control scales by attempting to measure beliefs about internal versus external responsibility (Guskey, 1991 ). Test and re test r eliability and validation rates involved 215 elementary and second ary teacher partici pants from a large metropolitan area that maintain ed schools in ru ral, urban, and suburban areas. Factor analysis revealed roughly 70% of the variation in scores were attributable and explained by R (+) and R ( ) factors. Teacher Locus o f Control Rose and Medway (1981) developed a 28 item forced choice scale called the Teacher Locus of Control (TLC) scale specifically to measure elementary Responsibility for Student Achievement (RSA) scale created by Guskey (198), or external perceptions of control (or locus) as well as has two subscales added together for a final score. Higher scores in dicate greater internalization of classroom control or tendency to accept responsibility for classroom events. Four administrations of the measure occurred (n =183 elementary school teachers). Validity and reliability we re reported on the final administrat ion of the instrument to 89 female fourth grade teachers from a school district with student population of approximately 50,000. Correlations between the two subscales were significant but moderate (r = +.33, p <.04). While t he measures created by Rotter (1966), Guskey (1981), or Rose and Medway (1981) have been used extensively in the literature (Tschannen Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) of control, d other researchers created measures based on
30 S ome measures did not gain application and acceptance with researchers (see Ashton & Webb, 1986: Ashton V ignettes) while others did ( see Gibson & Dembo, 1984: Teacher Efficacy Scale). Still contributions made by Ashton and Webb to the field have been foundational in the development of other, more complex measures by providing support for teacher interview and correlational data for at least two efficacy dimension: teaching efficacy (GE) and personal teaching efficacy (PE) ( Ashton & Webb, 1982 1985 ; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Guskey, 1987 ). Ashton and Webb Vignettes Bandura ( 1995 1997 y expectation as social cognitive learning theory the Ashton and Webb (1986) scale revealed the factor centering on general perceptions of the consequences of teaching as expectations that reflect the personal ability of the teacher to bring about desired second RAND item. Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) Building o n the work of Ashton and Webb (1982; 1986) Gibson and Dembo (1984) developed the TES to not only provide construct validation suppo rt and measurement for the construct of teacher efficacy as well as its dual dimensions but also examine relationships between teacher efficacy and
31 observable behaviors (such as flexibility and verbal ability). In order to validate the construct of teacher efficacy it had to be distinguished from other variables that might affect student achievements. Therefore, Gibson and Dembo conducted a tri phase investigation: Phase 1 factors analysis, Phase 2 multi trait mul t i method analysis, and Phase 3 classroom ob servations. The pilot study involved a 53 item scale administered to 90 teachers. Items with poor validation were removed resulting in a 30 item 6 point Likert format scale ranging from Phase 1 analysis used the 30 item scale and was administered to 208 elementary (K 6) teachers. Factor analysis revealed that the two factors factor model of self efficacy) were only moderately correlated (r = .19) suggesting that the two factors are r elated but independent constructs. Results state Factor 1 accounts for 18.8% of variance and Factor 2 accounts for 10.6% of variance, totaling 28.8% of variance. Phase 2 was conducted to identify if teacher efficacy could be differentiated from other cons tructs and if it converged when gathered from different sources in different ways. Using four different measures each given at a different administration, this phase used 55 graduate education student participants at a California state university. The meas ures were the TES from Test (Coleman, et al., 1966) and the finding Useful Parts and the Planning Test (adapted from French, Ekstrom, & Price, 1963). R eliability for the TES and Verbal Facility Test were .72 These results verify a distinction between the two constructs of verbal ability and flexibility and that of teacher efficacy.
32 Phase 3 focused on classroom observations of 8 teachers (4 high efficacy and 4 low efficacy) from 2 of the 13 sch ools and participant base from P hase 1. Participants were selected based on Phase 1 factor scores. Only participants who fell in the top 6% of Factor 1 and bottom 22% of Factor 2 were considered (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Measures used were the teacher use of time measure and a question answer feedback sequence measure adapted from Good and Brophy (1973). Interrater reliability for the seven observers ranged from .73 to .91 time (p. 572). teacher efficacy scales that range from Science Teaching Efficacy (Riggs & Enoch, 1990); classroom management (Emmer & Hickman, 1990); and in the context of special education (Coladarci & Breton, 1997). Although the TES has been widely adapted or used, sta tistical and conceptual problems remain (Tschannen Moran, et al., 1998) Issues with Gibson and Dembo TES. Gibson and Dembo (1984) reported that Factor 1 represent a teachers sense of personal teaching efficacy (PTE, alpha = 0.78), and they reported it to efficacy outcome expectancy. When the RAND items were added to the fac tor analysis,
33 reall y try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated In a later investigation, Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) used a 16 item version of the TES coupled with a 4 other items that focused on teacher preservice preparation to measure the perceived teaching efficacy of 182 liberal arts majors from a large university enrolled in a teacher education program. Gibson and Dembo used principal factor, and because as many factors should be extracted a s variables (www.visualstatistics.net) Woolfolk and Hoy reanalyzed the data envalues greater than one and scree plot. Three factors were reported explaining 32.8% of the variance, compared to 28.8% as reported by Gibson and D embo. Woolfolk and Hoy identified a third, overlooked, factor: one for teaching efficacy and two for personal efficacy. The personal efficacy factors were now broken into personal responsibility for positive outcomes and personal responsibility for negativ e outcomes. Guskey and Passaro (1994) focused on the wording used for the TES were positive and had were negative and had an external ocus (p. 630). Though identified as an anomaly by Guskey and Passaro, they were correct in that the wording may confound the findings. Using 238 experienced K 12 classroom teachers with an average 10.4 years teaching experience and 59 preservice teachers (n=342), Guskey and Passaro
34 Prior to administering the altered assessment, Guskey and Passaro (1994) used the original 16 Gibson and Dembo (1984) items that were identified as significant factor loadings, plus three addition al items that Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) found to yield significant factors loadings, and the two RAND items (n=21 items). Items were then altered by rewording the orientation of seven of the 12 personal efficacy items and four of the 9 teaching efficacy item s. For example, the personal internal orientation (P usually, many time s the tea cher, All items were reassembled in the same order in the Woolfolk and Hoy (1990) study. With a 92% return rate from the teachers and 95% from the preservice teachers, comparisons of subsamples were run. Analysis re sults confirmed internal and external dimensions instead of personal and teaching efficacy dimensions. Guskey and Passaro hasten to point out that both sets of researchers, Gibson and Dembo as well as Woolfolk and Hoy, identified the same distinctions; it was in the identification of teaching versus personal distinction that obstructed the identification of internal versus external orientation. Bandura Teacher Self Efficacy S cale Teacher efficacy is situation specific (Bandura, 1997). Therefore the teacher self efficacy scale is a 30 item instrument with seven subscales: efficacy to influence decision making, efficacy to influence school resources, instructional efficacy, disciplinary efficacy, efficacy to enlist parental involvement, efficacy to enl ist community involvement, and efficacy to create a positive school climate.
35 Each item is measure d on a 9 point scale anchored by the following: notion, very little, some influence, quite a bit, and a great deal (as cited in Capa, 2005). Unfortunately, val idity and reliability information regarding this instrument is not available. Tschannen Moran and Woolfolk Hoy Scale Developed by Tschannen Moran, Woolfolk Hoy and Hoy (1998) the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale previ ously called the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale, is offered as another model for understanding the relationship orientations. The Tschannen Moran et al., (1998) integrated mo del of teacher self efficacy includes two dimensions: teaching tasks and context, the second dimension is the teacher perception of teaching competencies. This model focuses on teacher performance in the classroom context ; teaching specific subjects to students in a specific setting. Reduced three times, t he instrument current long and short forms reflect how Tschannen Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy have honed the measure based on participants responses to better accurately reflect teacher perceptio ns Originally, the 52 item measure was issued to 146 preservice and 78 inservice teachers using a 4 point response scale of not at all, somewhat, important, and critical After principal axis factoring with varimax rotation, ten factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than one with and created the revised 32 item TSES
36 A second performance study containing 70 preservice and 147 inservice teachers yielded eight factors with eigenvalues of greater than one accounting for and scree assessment, Tschannen Moran and Woolfolk Hoy reduced the items down to 18 item s and three factors (or subscales): efficacy for student engagement (8 items), efficacy for instructional strategies (7 items), and efficacy for classroom management (3 items) as the measure s subscal es. Reliabilit y alphas were 0.82, 0.81, and 0.72 respectively ( Tschannen Moran & Hoy, 2001). According to Tschannen Moran and Hoy (2001) to gauge construct validity against existing measures in the field, Study 2 participants also responded to the RAND it ems, the Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) 10 items adaptation of the Gibson and Dembo (1984) TES, the pupil control ideology form (Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1967), and the work alienation scale (Forsyth & Hoy, 1978). Total scores on the TSES were positively related to both the RAND items (r = 0.35 and .28, p <.01) as well as the Gibson and Dembo PTE and GTE factors (r = 0.48 & 0.30 p <0.01 respectively). To better ensure against skewedness, correlations were run a 798). After being field tested in a psychology class, where 17 teachers and 2 teacher educators provided feedback, the final 36 item instrument was ready. The TSES was presented to the 410 third study participants (103 preservi ce and 255 inservice teachers). The same analys e s were run as previously. Four factors were identified with eigenvalues greater than one, accounting for 58% of the Study
37 2 instruc tion, management, and engagement were discovered The researchers removed the 8 items with the highest loading on each factor. Subscale reliabilities were 0.91 for instruction, 0.90 for management, and 0.87 for engagement and intercorrelations between subs cales were 0.60, 0.70 and 0.58 respectively. Finally, the long (24 item) and short (12 item) measures were subjected to two separate factor analys e s for both preservice teachers (n = 111) and inservice teachers (n = 255). Running the same analysis as with the other studies, the varimax rotation revealed three strong factors for both inservice and preservice teachers. Because the preservice factor structure was less distinct, a single factor was determined to be most appropriate when principal axis factorin g called 0.85 (long and short forms) on the one factor accounting for 57% and 61% of the variance respectively. A long and short form test for construct validity was run by asse ssing the correlation of the new measure and the same measures as with Study 2. Test score results for the TSES were positively related to both the RAND (r = 0.18 and .53, p<0.01) and Gibson and Dembo PTE (r = 0.64, p<0.01) and GTE (r = 0.16, p<0.01) facto rs of the TES. S ummary of Teacher Efficacy Measures Teacher efficacy studies over the past 40 years have been grounded in the psychological framework of Bandura (1977) and Rotter (1966) and have yielded over dozens of efficacy measures each attempting to elicit and yield data as well as insight into human perceptions and belief systems. For purposes of this study, the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) developed by
38 Tschannen Mora n, Woolfolk Hoy and Hoy in 1998 was used This instru ment has been offered as another model for understanding the relationship between Teacher Experience Research discussing a teacher s time in the experience identifies and reports as either a grouped range of years, such as 1 5 years being a new or novice teacher or years are listed individually School three or fewer years experience in the district. Beginning, First year, and Novice Teacher s The terms beginning, first year, and novice teachers tended to be used interchangeably within the research (Capa, 2005; Carleton, et al., 2008; Glickman & Tamashir o, 1982; Woolfolk Hoy & Burke Spero, 2005). For example, Capa (2005) used the term firs t year teacher to discuss her find ings of perceived sense of self efficacy and reported th r ee variables as being significant in the perceived sense of self efficacy of 6 17 first year teachers in Ohio. Carleton et al. (2008) used a category of five or fewer years to describe Standards Based Integrated Science Instruction (SISI) institute. Glickman and Tamashiro (1982) also grouped participants into three categorie s ; five years of experience, those who dr opped out prior to completing five years in the profession, and those who had signed first year teaching contracts. This lack in uniform definition makes comparison of measures that focus on new, novice, beginning, and fir st year teachers difficult.
39 finding that preparation program s predicted to yield a .34 standard deviation difference in the efficacy levels of first year teachers is important to this study as it suggests the sub components within the variabl e (coursework, teacher education faculty, and field experiences) are vital elements to a first year teachers efficacy. Indeed, Howerton (2006) reported that of the 15 teachers in his study 71% of novice teachers with 1 5 years teaching experience believed they were prepared to teach reading teachers with 6 15 years experience scored (54%) while only 50% of the veteran teachers believed themselves as prepared to teach beginning reading str ategies and sk ills to struggling readers. The training these secondary participants experienced was to assist and challenge proficient readers, not to teach beginning literacy. Moreover, given that many alternative certification pathway participants genera lly do not hold field experiences prior to beginning of their teaching careers, sense of self efficacy may therefore be impacted. Veteran Teachers Tschannen Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2007) reported that career teachers (n=181), those who had taught for four or more years, self reported higher overall efficacy compared to novice teachers (n=74) on two of three subcategories: instructional strategies and classroom management. However, no significant difference was report ed between the two groups on the third s ubcategory: student engagement. Both participant groups believed themselves to influence classroom management. This is not surprising given mastery experience to try
40 various strategies for both subcategories are vital. A teacher must try a strategy to know if it will work in a particular content with a particular group of students. Summary of Teacher Experience Due to inconsistent definitions of incremental teaching experience s the measurement of novice teachers it is difficult to extract results generalizable across categories; participants, who might fit into the teaching experience bracket of one researcher might not fit into a comparable teaching experience bracket of anot her researcher. However, w hat can be said is tha t c areer or veter an teachers with over three years of experience were more confident in their use of classroom management and content strategie s than teachers with less than three years experience. Teacher Preparation Capa (2005) discusse d the n ational legislative need for highly qualified impact on education as being at two levels: K 12 students receiving q uality educational services and post secondary levels where educators are trained and become highly qualified. Teacher education and preparation programs face the daunting task of ensuring graduates not only absorb and internalize the content curricular knowledge for which they will be held responsible, but also the preparation for the trials and tribulations, obstacles and challenges which might also be encou ntered by the neophyte educator. These non content items include behavior management district paperwork and expectations, confidence, parent involvement and relationships, and the schoo l milieu or culture How a teacher educator is prepared and trained will impact how classroom situations a re handled, internalized, and answered ( Henke, Chen, &
41 Geis, 2000) How the experience is perceived by the teacher impacts future interactions and exp eriences (Bandura, 1977). As such, the preparation the educator is afforded in the three subcategories or sub scales, of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale ; Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, and Classroom Management, will impact perceived and subsequently report ed teacher efficacy. This section addresses teacher preparation from programs and training options. Darling Hammond (2003) and others (see Henke, et al., 2000) identified teacher preparation as influe ncing w hether a teacher migrates to another school or completely leaves the profession. Using Baccalaureate and Beyond data, Henke et al., (2000) report ed 29% of new teachers who did not engage in any student teacher experiences during their educational training left within their first 5 years of teaching. This is 14% more than those who had conducted student teaching a part of their preparation program. Henke, et al., (2000) also reported 20% of new ly hire d teachers across the nation had self reported working in a field other than education between graduating from college and becoming teachers. In a six and a half year longitudinal study conducted in a large school district in Texas, Adams (1996 ) reported of the just over 2,300 teacher participants, those who were alternatively certified or prepared teachers (n= 733) were less likely to leave the teaching profession than traditionally prepared teachers (n=1,594) H owever, due to the nature of the Cox regression analysis conducted by Adams, explanations regarding possible reasons as to why the differences b etween the two groups of certification types were not discussed clearly in his report.
42 Traditional Four Year Programs Traditional four year pr eparation programs involve three primary components: liberal arts education, professional program of study, and practical experience (Capa, 2005) Each four year teacher preparation program even those endorsed by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) have varying degrees of compliance to and with the three components and slight variation in the amount of outcome expectations. Liberal Art s Education This subcategory of traditional education often focuses on the single co ntent or subject matter of interest for the educator. For example, this liberal arts category would involve elementary ed ucation content courses, grades 7 12 mathematics courses and exceptional student education to name a few This category involves the c ontent knowledge expected to be later taught to K 12 students. Professional s tudy Often referred to as foundations courses, the focus of this subcategory is on non content coursework or pedagogy These courses assist the teacher candidate in developing the foundational framework necessary to succeed in the classroom beyond content. Example courses in this category include educational psychology, teaching methods, and introduction to teaching (Cap a, 2005) Practical experience This final co mponent is hinged upon practica or field experiences the teacher candidate engages in prior to graduation. During this experience component, the candidate receives a variety of experiences depending on the liberal arts program upon which the candidate entered. For example, some traditional programs require Elementary Education majors t o
43 complete a series of at least three practica or field based internships while other traditional programs require candidates experience a minimum of two field based or practicum internships. T hough the professional study, content knowledge and practical experiences will be varied based on course of study o r program each teacher candidate pursues, the professional study courses and preparation expectations as well as rigor may be similar Each program ultimately capstones with at least a baccalaureate degree in education Alternative Teacher Certification Pathway or Programs Alternative certification programs and pathways (ACP) vary from state to state as well as within university settings and have become a priority to many states and school districts a s a way to fulfill the need for classroom teachers (Darling Hammond, 2003). ACP options differ from traditional teacher preparation programs as they often take the form of paid internships where districts train their own teacher candidates, or for profit c ompanies that offer compressed programs with quick turn around times or master s degrees (Flores, et al., 2004) However, d ue to inconsistent pathway definitions, identification of alternative pathways can be difficult to measuring in terms of their effectiveness (Tournaki, et al., 2009) Other example s of an alternative pathway can be the M A rts in T eaching (MAT) and (M. Ed ) programs which some accredited institutions offer In some cases, these program s are designed to 2006, p. 41 ) and are considered alternative in their design because the teacher
44 candidate completes the set number of course credits and modules that offer teachers to gai n experience through student teaching under the management of a mentor or college faculty member while simultaneously enrolled in courses that provide theoretical and methodological knowledge and training. Therefore, as with m ost of A lternative Certification P rograms a bachelor s degree and passing score on basic sk ills test s are required (Finn & Madigan, 2001). T eacher candidates transition to teaching as a second year student and generally have several years work experience in either the priva te or public sector (Flores, et al., 2004). MAT and M. Ed programs offered through universities are often designed to approximate the initial certification program requirements offered through traditional undergraduate programs and therefore, it is importa nt to note in these cases, alternative does not mean lacking rigor. Indeed, MAT and M. Ed programs, as well as other university based programs where rigor and expectation have been established d emand more from their students than district delivered ACP pro grams with coursework and field experiences that mirrors traditional preparation ( M. L. Morton, Personal Communication, June, 10, 2010) Still too, for purposes of this study, Alternative Certification refers to the district sponsored program which supports teachers as they enter the profession with the content but not necessarily pedagogical knowledge necessary for state certification. R elatively new to the alternative certification route for teacher certification are Educator Preparation Institutes (EPIs). EPIs provide an alternate route to teacher certification for mid career professionals and college graduates who were not education ma jors ( Florida Department of Education, FLDOE, 2010)
45 Educator Preparation Institute programs have over arching guidelines established by the state and are designed to offer instruction in conjunction with other ACPs. EPIs also offer individual classes as p art of professional development for established teachers, substitute teachers, and paraprofessionals. Students with a baccalaureate degree from a regionally accredited college or university may enter an EPI program, which consists of competency based inst ruction, to prepare students to take the state t eacher certification e xam covering both the p rofessional p reparation a nd e ducation c ompetence s Students must also demonstrate g eneral k nowledg e and subject area competence. However, g eneral k nowledge and s ubject a rea instruction is not covered by EPI programs as subject area s vary depending on students baccalaureate preparation ( FLDOE, 2010 ). Summary of Teacher Preparation Teachers today have a variety of preparation and training programs from which to select Each program offers a unique entity to the student. For example, traditional preparation programs are often housed in the curriculum and instruction departments of colleges of education a s are the Master o f Arts in Teaching (MAT) programs allow gra duate level coursework for would be teachers who hold bachelors in other areas and often mirror undergraduate preparation Alternative certification programs and pathways provide teachers on the job training while attending pedagogy, classroom management, and content area courses at night and during the summer. However there is a lack of systematic expectations and requirements across alternative certification options, accredited colleges and university preparation programs yet each type of
46 program offers c andidates who complete the requirements a opportunity to take Influence of Preparation on Efficacy been well document (Capa, 2005; Darling Hammond, et al., 2002; Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982; Tournaki et al., 2009) participant level and line of inquiry posed by researchers regarding preparation programs have differed. For example, Glickman and Tamashiro focused on teaching within the field or who had recently left the field. Darling Hammond et al concentrated on teachers with fewer than 4 years experience. Research participants in the Capa study were pre service teachers, and finally, Tournaki et al focused on graduate stude nts in their final semester of coursework. These aforementioned studies are presented below in greater detail. Glickman and Tamashir o. Glickman and Tamashiro (1982) surveyed 129 bachelor degree earning graduates from a traditional teacher education institu te in the southeastern United States. The sample consisted of three groups: graduates of the 1975 class who had taught for five years (n= 49), 1975 graduates who dropped out from the profession prior to five years (n= 30), and graduates of the 1980 class w ho had secured a first year teaching assignment (n= 50). Grade level representation equaled 40% elementary, 20% middle school or junior high, and 40% high school. This particular study focused on three measures: perceptions of self efficacy, ego developmen t, and problem solving fluency. Finding s revealed b oth the first and fifth year teachers were significantly higher in efficacy
47 levels, tending to think they influenced student lives more than teachers who resigned prior to their fifth year of teaching [F (2, 129) =7.44, p<0.05 ] First and fifth year teachers also reported significantly higher levels of ego development than the former teacher participants [ F (2, 129 ) = 6.90, p<.05 ] However, neither group significantly differed in their reporting of problem solving fluency. These findings might suggest that during the first 5 years of teaching, self efficacy levels are not perceived to be significantly different. Furthermore, Glickman and Tamashiro believe teachers who leave the profession have lower percepti ons of self efficacy Darling Hammond, Chung, & Frelow Using a sample of 2,956 New York City beginning teachers, Darling perceptions of preparedness. They found the mean rating of teacher education program graduates to be significantly higher than the ratings of teachers w ithout years of experience, Darling Hammond, et al., also reported that teachers who felt better prepared were statistically more likely (p<.001) to believe they could impact or r each all their student s as well as make a difference in the life of the student s These reported findings suggest a teacher sees him or herself as more prepared and therefore believes he or she can affect and make a difference in the life of a student if t hey have successfully completed a teacher education program. Tournaki, Lyublinskaya, and Carolan Tournaki, et al., (2009) used the Danielson Observation Scale and the Teacher Efficacy Scale ( Danielson, 2008; Gibson &
48 Dembo, 1984) to measure teacher effect iveness and teacher efficacy of 83 graduate students during their last semester of coursework in New York City. Data was categorized into one of three sections or pathway affiliations. Viewed as a traditional pathway (TP) this option is used when teacher c andidates are admitted into a master s degree program having been eligible for initial certification based on undergraduate work. The candidates have up to 5 years after undergraduate completion to enter and complete this program. Identified by Tournaki et al (2009) as one of two possible alternative not fulfilled undergraduate initial teaching certification. After 100 preservice training hours, the candidate is eligible for NY s tate 2 year certificate. Should the candidate not find full time employment, a completion of a student internship is required. R eported as an accelerated version of Pathway 2, this option requires urs of course work 2009, p. 100). A 3 year certification is awarded after program completion After two pre arranged classroom observations conducted roughly 2 to 3 weeks apart by the same observer, Tournaki et al (2009) participants were each asked to complete the TES and a demographic questionnaire. No significant effects of pathway on the three instruction score (F (2, 72) = 0.52; 2.40; 3.11, ns respectively). Also, no significant relationship was reported between pathways and personal/teacher efficacy levels.
49 Summary of Influence of Preparation on Efficacy varying preparation programs. Some programs stem from a traditional four year teacher accredited in stitutions while other programs provide second career options for non teacher trained individuals through state d istrict and university pathways. The training involved for each teacher candidate var ies along with the program Some require studen t teaching experiences, others involve intensive 10 12 week student teaching the two semesters after completing coursework others provide minimal experience in classrooms, and still too, other programs do not require any student teaching as the teachers are full time district teachers by day and student s by night. Implementation and Use of Curriculu ms there is no national curriculum in the United States, states, school districts, and association s require or recommend that certain standards be used nternational A ffairs O ffice 2009, p. 1) As such, the literature fields were searched to identify research involving the use of reading and Language Arts curriculum progr am and teacher efficacy scales. However, no studies were found that focused specifically reading and Language Arts curriculum programs and teacher efficacy Therefore, discussed below are the two middle school curricular options employed by the school district from which teacher participants were invited. These two curricular options, one reading and one Language Arts are discussed below as they might have influence d the teaching self efficacy perception of a teacher participant in this stud y.
50 Structured Reading Curriculum The s tate, in which the participants lived, required each school district to submit a comprehensive research lan specifically outlining how each district will addres s student achievement. Each plan is a contract with the s tate and is to be adhered to by all employees. The middle school reading curriculum to be used by faculty is determined based on individual student state assessment score s and is considered structured. This means that while it is not scripted, the or structure to follow. For example, lowest scoring reading students are scheduled into an uninterrupted 100 minute doub le blocked Language Arts and reading class. The structure of the class must include but is not limited to include whole group explicit instruction, small group differentiated instruction, independent reading practice monitored by the teacher, a focus on in formational text at a ratio matching the state mandated assessment, and infusion of the state standards ( FLDOE, 2010). Reading teachers are only required to use this structure if their rosters of students have earned one of the two lowest scores on the sta te mandated assessment. If a student has earned one of the three other possible scores (3 5) then the teacher is permitted to use professional discretion to the meet needs of a student providing the teacher follows the state approved standards (FLDOE, 2010 ) As a result, R eading teachers have the structure of specific elements that must be addressed but are not held to prescriptive and explicit lesson requirements
51 Scripted Language Arts Curriculum One of many scripted curriculums on the market, SpringBoard (SB) is a product of The College Board, and provides 6 th 12 th grade students and teachers with the online resources and print materials necessary to provide the intellectual opportunities that a student might experience in high school advanc ed placement coursework or during the first year of college ( A. Wuckovich, Personal Communication July 7, 2009 ) m athematics courses, SpringBoard is purported to be comprehensive enough to be used as a core curriculum while also flexible enough to be used initially with other programs to ease the transition into total curriculum replacement. As of 2008, the program was rgest school districts ( The College Board, 2009 ) The use of SpringBoard as a curriculum is now in its second generation phase after receiving revision suggestions from the teachers and administrators who use d it and pro fessional development resource facilitators who assist ed those teachers and administ rators in its initial implementation stage SpringBoard is a monitored program that has district level resource professionals as well as SB consultants visit school sites monthly and all 6 12 Language Arts teachers within the county are required to adhere to the SB curriculum. Westat (2008) reported d ata from the 2006 2008 school years of implementation, or the first generation which compared SpringBoard users with non SpringBoard users from the same school districts. Findings from this nation wide study suggest that comparison teachers were more likely to indicate that they had the resources they needed to meet the needs of thei r students than
52 SpringBoard teachers. However, in terms of teacher efficacy, Westat reported SB teachers a greed or strongly agreed to the statements that all students can achieve the state stand ard s and the SB teachers felt able to help the student s who ar e included in their classes compared to non SB teachers ( n =85, 79 respectively ) When focusing solely on SB participants, 87% agreed the teaching d [ they ] 7). Summary of Implementation and Use of Curriculums The school district in this study employs the use of two different curriculums. Language Arts teachers are required to use a scripted curriculum SpringBoard, that is in its fourth year and second phase of implementati on. Reading teachers in the district are required to use structured programs provided to them by the district on the condition that they have students who have earned the lowest two state assessment grades. Teacher Attrition School Context Ingersoll (2001, 2003) writes that teacher attrition is often examined from an individual characteristic level. That is, the reasons why teachers leave or depart from the profession are viewed from an individualistic standpoint and are then grouped together based on themes. In an effort to expand the field of research, Ingersoll focused on teacher attrition from a sociological perspective which suggested that teacher or school staffing problems should be examined at the organizational, or school, level. Ingersoll t herefore researched teacher attrition and migration (or leaving one school location for another) from a level
53 that places the characteristics of the teachers in context of their respective organizations. In doing so, he corroborated what others found that teachers tend to leave or depart from teaching in a U shaped pattern in which they leave early (Ingersoll, 2001, p. 502), and then increase again in number as retirement age, o ver 50, approaches. Teacher resiliency could be higher for teachers between 30 and 50 years of age. Data from the 1990 1991 SASS and 1991 1992 TFS suggests nationally, the overall teacher attrition and migration turnover rate was 13.2% (7.2% for migration and 6.0% for attrition) when the school or o rganizational context was taken into consideration (Ingersoll, 2001). When reporting the top three reasons for teacher turnover, Ingersoll listed the most frequent a s poor salary (45%), second highest reason repo rted was lack of student motivation (30%) and the third most reported reason for teacher turnover as reported by Ingersoll was retirement (27%). This data is relevant to the current study as student motivation tivate his or her student s is related to that teacher s loci of control and the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale Student Engagement subscale used in the study (see Chapter Three for instrument specifications) Summary of Teacher Attrition Whether leaving a school or leaving the profession, the reasons that teachers leave are varied. Some leave near the beginning of their careers while others leave toward the end with little movement out of the field is reported during middle years. Once teachers commit themselves to the profession, they
54 were reported as staying until retirement. This suggests that the self efficacy levels of experienced teachers might be higher than that of less experienced teachers. Surveys The history of using surveys to gather data can be traced back to Egyptian times when data regarding population counts and surveys yielded information covering a variety of areas: number of children, crop type and production amount (Borg & Gall, 19 83) In the field of education, school districts (and other administrative bodies) use survey data to gather information for evaluative and exploratory purposes such as the perceived effectiveness of district wide programs or faculty understanding of schoo l level curriculum implementation (Nardi, 2003) Survey research is often used when a population is too large to observe naturally, as it allows participants to reveal experiences in a systematic, replicable, and objective way (Nardi, 2003) Traditional Su rveys The consideration of surveys in the field of education often involves the analysis of relationships and the characteristics of a population (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). School districts in particular often explore and evaluate aspects of the school system itself such as building maintenance, school climate or culture, curriculum, and job satisfaction (Borg & Gall, 1983). The methods of reaching participant s and acquiring information have changed over the past decades shifting from larger direct administration of a group with follow up contingency personal interviews, to the mailing out of individually typed names and addresses on letters and telephone surve ys (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). This global shift
5 5 away from face to face interactions allowed researchers to increase the number of surveys administered as well as response rate (Dillman, 2007). Researchers became able to reach any number of eligible partici pants by mailing out a survey complete with postage for a return reply Some researchers suggest traditional mailed paper surveys have a better response rate than online polling because participants have increased confidence about the anonymity (Nardi, 200 3, Wiersma & Jurs, 2009). As such, the use of traditional mail services remains a viable method for survey delivery to this day ; however they do include a cost to the researcher. An online survey was deemed to be the best method for the current study. Onli ne Surveys The number of responses a study garners is a real and persistent problem within questionnaire studies (Wiersma & Jurs, 2009). A practical alternative to the traditional distribution of surveys is one of online distribution (Dillman, 2007). H eat h, Lawyer, and Rasmussen ( 2007) report no differences in the proportion of students who completed online end of term course evaluations to those who completed pen and paper end of term course evaluations. Heath, et al., (2007) also reported that participants who completed the online evaluations were more likely to leave longer supplemental qualitative comments than participants who filled out the pen and paper version. Other advantages of online polling include absence of printing and First Class Mail costs as well as a decrease in response time (Wiersma & Jurs, 2009). A popular online survey clearing house is SurveyMonkey. Though research exists involving the use of web based surveys and how to increase
56 response rates (see Archer, 2007 2008 ; Coo k, 2000) searches conducted within educational literature databases such as Education Full Text, SAGE Full Text Selection, and ERIC did not glean research regarding the specific use of SurveyMonkey as a process and gathering tool ; information to either sup port or dismiss the use of the clearing house was not found The district in which this study took place implemented the use of SurveyMonkey for all administrative and professional development questionnaires and surveys during the 2008 2009 academic school year As such, all returning district middle school teachers were expected to be relatively awar e of the function and anonymity associated with SurveyMonkey. Furthermore, the College of Education through which this study was conducted also employed the use of SurveyMonkey on a regular basis as a method to gather data from students, faculty, and staff The ease of use and the f amiliarity teachers within the district had with SurveyMonkey helped make this particular web based survey clearinghouse ideal as participant involvement might have been increase d as a result of familiarity (Archer, 2007) Surve y Summary As noted above, the use of surveys in educational research has changed over the decades. The online data clearinghouse, SurveyMonkey, was selected as the collection agency for this study because of its large scale and global access appeal SurveyMonkey also provided the anonymity essential for ethical collection of data with which participants were familiar and comfortable. This query method provided not only an economically affordable and ecologically responsible option, SurveyMonkey also helped to better ensure comfort and familiarity which are critical to a successful return rate.
57 Chapter Summary This chapter provides a review of the literature regarding the concept of self efficacy as well as the instruments that have been employed to me asure the concept. Also within this chapter is a review of the studies that involved similar components with the current study. Finally, this chapter includes a discussion of the literature found that incorporate the types of curriculum teachers in the stu dy implement ed program options, and literature that discusses teacher preparation options as well as attrition.
58 Chapter Three Methodology This chapter explains the pilot study, description of sample, data collection, descriptions of dependent and independent variables, and the instruments used to measure the variables for this efficacy for teaching reading and Language Arts study Also included in this chapter are the research design, distribution method of the survey instruments, and discussion of non respondent biases as well as an explanation of validity. Purpose of the Study Research on the effectiveness of various teacher cer tification routes report mixed findings. Some suggest traditional teacher certification programs produce more effective and higher rated teacher s (Darling Hammond & Cobb, 1996). Other reports suggest there is no difference, in perceived effectiveness by su pervisors, between traditionally trained and alternatively certified teacher s (Zeichner & Schulte, 2001). Additionally, research suggests that teacher efficacy beliefs form during early years of a new situation and are resist ant to change (Long & Moore, 20 08; Tschannen Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy 1998). It was the own efficacy, or capabilities. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceived level of s elf efficacy of middle school Language Arts and reading teachers as well as the areas and factors that may account for variations
59 in these teachers reported efficacy levels. Factors included number of years of teaching experience, pedagogical or teaching program preparation, and teacher demographics such as age, sex, ethnicity and school location It was hypothesized that the three variables, number of years teaching, the type of teacher preparation program, content area, and teacher demographics would be associated with teacher self efficacy. Research Questions The following research questions are addressed: 1. How are differences in teacher s elf e fficacy scores related to teacher preparation ? (For example, how do teachers in traditional teacher educatio n programs compare to teachers with alternative certification program preparation ?). 2. How are differences in teacher s elf e fficacy scores related to the content area taught? (For example, do Language Arts teachers have a higher level of efficacy compared to that of a reading teac her with comparable variables ?). 3. To what extent are differences in teacher s elf e fficacy related to years of teaching experience? (For example, are eighteenth re efficacious compared to first and fourth year teachers?) 4. To what extent can differences in teacher s elf e fficacy be associated location? (For example, are older teach ers more efficacious than younger teachers? Are females more efficacious than males? Are teachers from schools with non Title1 status more efficacious than those from Title 1 schools?).
60 Research Hypotheses efficacy will be reported as significantly higher than Alternative Certification Pathway/Program teachers. efficacy will be reported as significantly higher than Language Arts teachers efficacy will be repor ted as significantly higher than less experienced teachers. 4. Differences in Teacher Self Efficacy Scores will be positively and strongly associated with teacher demographics of age, sex, ethnicity, and school Title 1 status. Specifically, older teachers will be more efficacious than younger teachers; male teachers will be more efficacious than female teachers; white teachers will be more efficacious than non white teachers; teachers from Non Title 1 schools will be more efficacious than teachers from Titl e 1 schools. Research Design The research design employed in this study was a descriptive survey research design (Nardi, 2003). The efficacy beliefs of all middle school Language Arts and reading teachers and factors influencing those beliefs were investig ated using a survey instrument distributed via the on line survey clearinghouse, SurveyMonkey. This study was designed to explore differences in certification type and program characteristics based on middle school reading and Language Arts teacher demogra phics listed above sense of self efficacy
61 Pilot Study The purpose for implementing this pilot study was three fold: to become adept with the use of SurveyMonkey, the distribution vehicle for the survey and questionnaire, to determine if the survey directions are clear, and be sure participants can navigate the SurveyMonkey website. The surve y instrument for the pilot study was the same as that of th e larger study: Tschannen Moran, Woolfolk (TSES) and the Teacher Demographic Questionnaire (TDQ) Appendix A contains both measures in Survey Monkey format In addition, the pilot study provided data on the content validity of the Teacher Demographics Questionnaire (TDQ). Pilot study responses were used to determine if items elicit appropriate and salient responses as suggested by Borg and Gall (1983 ); response rates are more likely to be increased the more salient items are to the participants. Information gleaned from the pilot study, such as follow up methods with Subject Area Leaders and Reading Coaches, provided helpful assistance in gainin g a greater response rate for the larger study. Pilot sample. The pilot sample consist ed of twenty middle school reading and Language Arts teachers from two schools in the northwestern section of the same county as the larger study. Given that the same su rvey instruments for the larger study were used in both the pilot study as well as the larger study, pilot participants were removed from the email invitation list for the larger study.
62 Study Population Teachers. The teacher participants of this study ta ught reading and or Language Arts at one of 48 middle, junior, or combination schools in the district. Middle schools consisted of grade s 6 8, junior high school included grades 7 9, and combination schools included grades K 8. Reading and Language Arts teachers in the school district who taught sixth seventh, or eight grades, or any combination of the three grade levels was included as a potential study participant. With the exception of pilot study participants, al l middle, junior, and combination scho ol Language Arts and reading faculty, as identified by a district human resources department was sent the participation invitation, and link to the survey instrument and questionnaire. Data c ollection Data for this study were collected from all middle sc hool reading and Language Arts teachers across a school district from a large school district in the Southeastern United States. This study was considered a census (Borg & Gall, 1983) as all the members of a group were invited to participants, not simply a random selection from the group. More specifically, this census involve d teachers as participants from middle school s (grades 6 8) combination schools ( grades K 8) and junior high schools ( grades 7 9) across one of the largest school districts in the nat ion educating approximately 40,000 students in 2008 2009 academic school year. SurveyMonkey. The population school district for this study implemented the use of SurveyMonkey for all administrative and professional development questionnaires and surveys d uring the 2008 2009 academic school year. Returning district middle school teachers should have been relatively aware of
63 the function and anonymity associated with SurveyMonkey. Inquires searches centered on SurveyMonkey as a process and gathering tool did not reveal i nformation to either support or oppose the use of the clearing house. Specifically, searches were conducted within educational literature databases such as Education Full Text, SAGE, and ERIC as well as inquiries within SurveyMonkey itself. Ho wever, given both the school district and the university through which this study was conducted both employ ed the use of SurveyMonkey on a regular basis, the data gathering clearing house was used. Statistical Power The statistical power is the ability of a test to detect an effect, if the effect actually exists (Cohen, 1977). Specifically, the test is the long term probability of the identification of a type II error and thus rejection of the null hypothesis (Cohen, 1977; 1992). A type II error occurs when test results report no treatment effect in the sample/population when in fact there is a real effect. The probability of making a Type II error (or ), and power is represented as 1 or the probability that Type II errors will be avoided (Cohen, 1977). A statistical test is conducted in either retrospect (post hoc) or prospect (a priori) of analysis Statistical power for this research study was determined a priori to identify the required sample size necessary to achieve statistical power. Statistical power investigates the relationship among the four components presented below: 1. The standard effect size (effect size and variation/variability) 2. Sample size (N) 3. Test size (significance level )
64 4. Power of the test (1 ) Standard effect size Standard effect size (ES) is the extent to which an alternative hypothesis is true in the population (West, 1985). Effect size attempts generally, effect size is not determined in advance of the study. However, based on the results of the pilot study, an estimated ES of .50 was applied to the larger study. The observed effect size of the pilot study was used to determine realisti c criteria for ES which was appl ied to the larger study. Sample size. When sample size is larger, variation (standard error) becomes smaller and thus makes standardized effect size larger. A standardized effect size thereby increases statistical power (West, 1985). In general, sample siz e is the most important component affecting statistical power (Cohen, 1992). Based on the 2009 2010 data set report acquired from the population school district the sa mple size for this study was 624 Test size. Identified by the researcher, this number i s the criterion level for rejecting the null hypothesis (Wiersma & Jurs, 2009). For most educational research, the levels used are .05 and .01. For purposes of this proposed study, the significance level was set at .05. This means that if data were reveale d to be at the p >.05 level, the researcher fail ed to reject each null hypothesis being tested. Power of the test. power for a statistical test as .80. This means t he researcher should be confident that roughly 80 times out of 100, the null hypothesis will be rejected when an effect does exist (West, 1985). The power analysis approach is based on the
65 researcher having an alternative hypothesis in mind asking; what is the probability that an experiment with a particular sample size would result in a statistically significant result if an alternative hypothesis were true. To determine the Power necessary for the proposed study, multiple power analyses were performed ex amining whether the proposed sample size/expected survey response rate would be adequate to detect the hypothesized differences in self eff icacy among the various groups. Power calculations for the various hypotheses were performed using the 6 group ethnic ity variable and the interval years of teaching variable to set parameters for the other tests because these analyses were the most demanding in terms of the sample size needed to detect different effects across groups. With a minimum of 400 responses to t he survey, the probability was 80 percent that the study would detect a relationship between the most variable independent variable and the most variable dependant variable at a two tailed .05 significance level. That is, once 400 responses were obtained, the study was adequately powered to detect group differences of 0.5 in any of the self efficacy scale scores and associated hypotheses offered regarding teacher preparation, sex, course assignment, certifica tion type, or years of service. Given that the r esults indicate adequate power to detect differences using the most demanding grouping scheme, there should have been be adequate power for the other hypothesis testing. A lso referred to as the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale, w as developed by Tschannen Moran, Woolfolk Hoy and Hoy in 2001 in an attempt to create a measure that captures the multifaceted dimensions of teacher efficacy. T wo
66 versions of the TSES ) exist with 2 4 item Likert type survey. Both instruments have a nine point scale offering participants the options of 1 Nothing, 2 Very Little, 5 Some Influence, 7 Quite A Bit, and 9 A Great Deal and three subsections: Efficacy fo r Instructional Strategies (hereafter referred to as her self efficacy is subscales. Construct validity as reported by Tschannen Moran et al., (1998) the Total TSES long form reliability alpha as .94 and a short form reliabi lity alpha as .90. Tschannen Moran et al., conducted a factor analysis after the ir second administration of the instrument and indent ified reliability alphas of the three subsections for both the long and short forms (See Table 1). Classroom Management rel iability alphas .90 & .86; Instructional Strategies reliability alphas .91 & .86; and Student Engagement reliability alphas were .87 &.81. For loading purposes, the TSES short form subcategory questions corre spond in the following manner. Teacher sense of efficacy connected to the subcategory Student Engagement loads on questions 2, 3, 4, and 11. The subscale for Instructional Strategies loads on questions 5, 9, 10, and 12. T he final subscale of Classroom Management loads on the questions 1, 6, 7, and 8 Exa mple items from each of the three subscales include:
67 How much can you do to motivate students who sh ow low interest in school work? (Student Engagement) How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies? (Instructional Strategies) How much can you d o to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? Table 1 Construct Validity for Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale M SD Long Short Long Short Long Short TSES 7.1 7.1 .94 .98 .94 .90 Student Engagement 7.3 7.2 1.1 1.2 .87 .81 Instruction Strategies 7.3 7.3 1.1 1.2 .91 .86 Classroom Management 6.7 6.7 1.1 1.2 .90 .86 Note Short form reliabilities are presented in bold Reliability factor analysis and correlation analysis conducted by Tschannen Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) revealed that both and the total scores for both form s Therefore, both the Total score and Subscale scores were addressed in this analysis. Discussions with the supervisor from the school Assessm J. Hildebrand, Personal Communication, May 30, 2009). Given that the TSES long form contained 24 items and the Teacher
68 Demographic Questionnaire (discussed below) had 12 questions, the total went item or short TSES in addition to the TDQ Teac her Demographics Questionnaire The Teacher Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix A) was created in SurveyMonkey to elicit responses that reflect ed preparation method, and certification, as well as more traditional demographic factors such as age s e x ethnicity and school location The Teacher Demographic Questi onnaire (TDQ) involved 12 items that obtained infor mation about each participant; eight questions were closed form allow for information to be added. The eight questions addressed the ls assigned to teach for current academic year (such as advanced, regular, Full Inclusion Student Education FUSE, English Language Learner ELL), certification attainment, school location, certification type, preparation experience and the extent to which the participant believes efficacy level is a result of preparation method. The remaining four questions on t he TDQ were open form and requested the and how long they had been teaching Questions number ed 11 and 12 on the TDQ asked the participants to identify the factors perceived to either positively influence their ability (Question 1 1) and negatively influence (Question 12) their ability to teach. Distribution of Measures At the time of this study, the school district in which participants worked was undergoing leadership changes within the district Office of Assessment and
69 Accountab ility (OAA). Such a change in administration resulted in delays as the new director had to become familiar with the protocol of the OAA As a result, the researcher worked closely with the OAA to expedite the approval of the study. As expected that both th e Internal Review Board and Office of Assessment and Accountability approved the study by the end of September 2009 (See Appendix D and Distribution Timeline below ). Timeline of Measure Distribution August Speak with Lynn Dougherty Underwood and Lisa Cobb over study with Reading coaches and SALs respectively. September Assessment and Accountability and the University Internal Review Board Send out reminder email to Lynn and Lisa regarding how grateful I am they will give me 15 minutes at the October meetings. October Meet with Language Arts Subject Area Leaders at monthly meeting Meet with Reading Coaches at monthly meeting Email potential par ticipants informing them of the survey and to be expecting it in mid November. November Initial emails to participants based on informed consent responses survey link and password will be included. December First week in December o first follow up emails blanket email sent to all potential participants Second week in December o second follow up emails go out o email SALs and Reading coaches thanking them for their continued support Third week in December o third follow up emails informing potential par ticipants last week of collection January Send out blanket email thanking those who participated Send out thank you email to SALs and Reading Coaches
70 February Announce winner of cash lottery on February 14 th Carlton et al., (2008) reported that grade 4 9 science teacher self efficacies increased between fall and spring semesters (see review of Carleton et al study in Chapter Two ). The study reported that teachers under estimated their abilities during pre scho ol planning which in turn decreased the perception they each maintained regarding their self efficacy thereby influencing self reports The report goes on to state that the second self efficacy reporting time (months later after the professional developmen t), the efficacy scores of participants were requirements and content knowledge was not as difficult as had been expected thereby resulting in increased teacher self efficacy levels. As a former teacher the most confident time of the year, as it related to teaching confidence and ability, was right before Winter Break. At that time students were best understood, and they responded to teaching challenges better during that time than in e arly fall or spring. Still too, late fall, just after Thanksgiving Break and before Winter Break was always the calming time ; having just returned from a short refreshing break and looking forward to the three weeks before Winter Break. By emailing the participants with the survey link and informed consent in mid November, there were approximately 20 days before Winter Break for teachers to complete the survey Archer (2008) reported that of the 40 needs assessments sent out the surveys were left open fo r an average of 14.2 days Survey response rates increased by 87% (moving from 48.1% to 89.9%) with a third follow up to the initial distribution (Borg & Gall,
71 1983). Although Borg and Gall allowed for 20 days between initial distribution and first round o f follow up mailings to achieve the response increase, the current study had a total of 20 days to conduct the entire distribution and foll ow up collection given that after Winter Break teachers and students generally begin a shift in school wide testing m entality that may not have supported a desire for participants to take part in the study. Approval to attend the Subject Area Leaders (SAL) and Reading Coach monthly meeting was obtained from both content area district supervisors. At both meeting s the sc ript (Appendix B) was read and the rese arch study was explained as was the Informed Consent process A call for a ssistance to promote the research at the school sites by the Language Arts SAL s and Reading Coaches was issued Given that the Language Arts SA Ls were also teachers they were informed to not assist in anything other than informing the participant to address questions issues, or concerns to the researcher directly via the email address provided on the consent letter The Informed Consent letter an d district level research approval/compliance letter was also supplied at the SAL and Reading Coach meeting as a visual along with the verbal information. In late October, all potential participants were emailed using a blanket email from within the schoo l districts email client. The email informed the teachers of the importance of their volunteering to be a participant in the study and a date to expect the survey. Then, in mid November, another email regarding the study was sent out to all potential parti cipants. This time, the email invited the teacher to participate in the survey and supplied a general internet link to SurveyMonkey along with the password needed to access the measure
72 (Appendix C). As per protocol from the Office of Assessment and Account ability, the general link to SurveyMonkey was provided client in an attempt to increase participant reassurance in the confidentiality of the study. Study participants answer ed a two part optional question requesting a name and contact email address should they want to participate in an offered cash lottery. Lottery incentive use is growing in popularity as the use of electronic surveys has grows (Porter & Whitcomb, 2003). Data Management Data was held in electronic format during the collection process. Only administrators for SurveyMonkey and the researcher had access to the data. Upon completion of the collection process the data were downloaded onto a portable external hard drive that wa s encrypted with password protection and kept in a locked filing cabinet when not in use. When not in use for aggregation (e.g. SAS programs and output analysis) and write up, all electronic files associated with the data and generated by the data were pas sword protected and stored on an external drive and sto red in a locked filing cabinet. Description of the Variables Dependent variables. Dependent variables were the self reported teacher efficacy scores as (Tschannen Moran et al., 1998) and assess ed capability to attain teaching tasks in a particular context. This variable was determined by the Tota l score for efficacy as w ell as each efficacy subscale
73 score for each of the three areas: Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, and Classroom Management. Independent v ariable s. Independent variables were age, sex, ethnicity, years of teaching experience, content taught, sc hool location, teacher preparation program, as well as the qualitative positive and negative factors perceived by participants as influencing their ability to teach. Age was self reported and based on the year of birth partic for the survey The sex of a participant w as self reported on the survey as a male or female via a multiple choice. The ethnic membership of a person as identified by the participant and matched in categories to that of the district: Asian, Black, Hispanic, Indian, White Multiracial and Other The item was in multiple choice form with a write The question inquiring about experience was written as two distinct items. One requested the number of years teaching an ywhere and the other requested the number of years the participant had taught at their current site. The answer option were the same for both questions: less than 1 year, more than 1 and less tha n 3, more than 3 and less than 7, more than 7 and less than 10 and more than 10. The content are a taught such as Language Arts reading, or any combination of the two w as self reported by each participant via a matrix of choices with multiple answers p er row or check all that applied format. Location of the school was s elf reported by the participant who selected from a drop down box with the name of each middle school, junior high, combination school and charter school with eligible participates in the district. Teachers select ed from multiple choice option of a four year Traditional ducation program, Alternative Certification Program (ACP)
74 Masters of Arts in Teaching while teaching program, Masters of Arts in Teaching program as a full time stud ent 5 year Masters Program, Educator Preparation Institute, or ther ory allowed for narrative comment, clarification, an d the like. A list of positive factors from which the participants select ed all that applied to their perception of the factors that positively influence d his/her ability to teach was provided This item also allowed for narrative comment in the event that a factor was missing, or the participant wanted to clarify or expound on a previously identified factor as well as identify factor s not included in the list. Also provided was a list of negative factors from which the participants could select all that applied to their perception of the factors that negatively influence d his/her ability to teach This item also allowed for narrative comment in the event that a factor was missing, or the participant wanted to clarify or expound on a previously identified factor as well as identify factors not included in the list. Threats to Validity Internal Validity In order to identify potential participants, a demographic report which revealed all personnel within the d istrict was acquired However, d ue to the nature of school and district job descriptions and thus district level coding, some 6 th grade Language Arts and or reading teachers may have been overlooked. For example, i n some schools within the district, 6 th gr ade teachers taught multiple subjects, such as Language Arts reading, and geography yet they were coded at the district level as 6 th grade geography teachers. In isolating sixth, seventh, and eighth grade Language Arts and reading teachers all other subj ect areas
75 were removed As a result, if a teacher was listed as a sixth grade geography teacher yet also taught reading and Language Arts he/she was removed. Another threat to the validity study might have been non response biases based upon refusal. Tho ugh the study was approved through the Internal Review Board at the colleg e level as well as through the Of fice of A ssessment and A ccountability at the district level and the researchers contact information was on the Informed Consent as well as in the email invitations sent to each potential participant, a respondent may have elect ed to not inform the researcher as to his or her refusal. Moreover, a participant may not have been comfortable using technology or with the amount of anonymity they might receive. One way to curb non response was immediate responses to participants via email answering any questions posed as well as offering to publish the findings of the report to anyone interested who participated in the study. School location was added as a demographic independent variable to better ensure that non respondent bias was not present (Kano, Franke, Abdelmonem, Bourque, 2008). For example, if 60% of the surveys were completed but they were done so by tea chers at rural middle schools, the data are not generalizable to the broader population. Moreover, by knowing which schools responded attention was focused on the SALs at those schools, reminding them of the importance of the study and requesting assista nce. It was interesting to note the response rate of school participants given that Kano, et al., (2008) reported urban schools had a higher survey nonresponse rate than rural but less than suburban schools (33.5%, 12.7%, 53.8%) respectively.
76 External V alidity Threats to external validity include d a possible low response of returns not equaling the 400 necessary for power making which would have made the findings not generalize to the larger study population or other schools districts. Also, though all m iddle school reading and Language Arts teachers were invited to participant in the study, participation was voluntary and may not be generalized back to the larger body of knowledge. Analysis Research literature on teacher self efficacy and teacher educat ion programs also utilize many of the analyses employed for this study (Carleton, et al., 2008; Capa, 2005; Tschannen Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001, Vasquez, 2008). The level of significance level was set at .05. Therefore, any inferential or descriptive statistics with a p value less than .05 identified by the technology based Statistical Analysis System (SAS) program was considered s tatistically signi ficant Analysis for the four research questions involved simple descriptive a nalysis to gain a better unders tanding of the shape of the data (see Table 2 ) Given that i ssues of non Hatcher, & Stepanski, 2005). Identificat ion of a normal, skewd, or kurtosis distribution as well as measures of central tendency we re necessary to interpret the findings and possibly seek other analysis methods Bivariate relationships were examined Difference (HSD) method as well as s c attergrams Scattergrams were gene rated during correlational analysis to visually inspect the relationship between the
77 variables. Multiple regression analysis was used for the four th question which involved categorical variables such as participant sex, ag e, ethnicity, and school Title 1 status/location Research Question One : How are D ifferences in T eacher S elf E fficacy S cores R elated to T eacher P reparation? Analysis for this question was based on descriptive and inferential examination. Descriptive analysis involved the mean, standard deviation (SD), skewedness, and kurtosis of the variables in each subsection of the TSES Inferential analyses involved an ANOVA to examine the degree of a relationship between teacher self efficacy and preparation prog Significant Difference (HSD) multiple comparison tests were ran where grouping variables were revealed as significant by ANOVA results. Research Question Two : How a re D ifferences in T eacher S elf E fficacy S cores R elated to the C ontent A rea T aught? This question required both descriptive and inferential analysis. Descriptive analysis entailed the mean, standard deviation (SD), skewedness, and kurtosis of the variables in each subsection of the TSES Inferential analyses consisted of ANOVA to examine the degree of relationship between the variables of Language Arts Reading, and Both Research Question Three : To W hat E xtent are D ifferences in T eacher S elf E fficacy R elated to Y ears of T eaching E xperi ence? As with the previous two question s the use of both of descriptive and inferential analysis was employed Descriptive analysis involved averages and standard deviations (SD) of the variables in each subsection of the TSES As
78 discussed above, the e xperience variable was split into two distinct questions. The response options for the variable experience were also grouped into categories of less than 1 year, more than 1 year and less the 3, more than 3 and yes than 7, more than 7 and less than 10, and more than 10 years. As such, the variables were no longer continuous but rather categorical and a Pearson Product Mo ment Correlation Coefficient was no longer the appropriate analysis tool. Therefore, ANOVAs were run to determine if the difference in means were tests were also run to determine where the effects resided. Research Qu estion Four : To W hat E xtent C an D ifferences in T eacher S elf E fficacy B e A ssociated with P D emographic F actors a) A ge, b) S ex, c) E thnicity, and d) S chool L ocation? Analysis for this question fe ll into descriptive and inferential analyses. Descriptive analysis involve d the mean, standard deviation (SD), skewedness, and kurtosis of the variables in each subsection of the TSES. Inferential analyses consist ed of multiple regression analysis to probe the effects of certain covariates on efficacy scores. Variables for the multiple regression analysis were dummy coded to allow for the SAS program to interpret them with a referent group (Cody & Smith, 1997) The multiple regression with semi squared correlations were run in an attempt to look at how each one of the demographic factors influenced the efficacy and how much it might forecast efficacy.
79 Table 2 Research Questions and Analyses Simple Descriptive Stats. Ind. Two Tailed T Test ANOVA PPMCC Tukey Multiple Regression Research Question 1 X/* X/* Research Question 2 X/* X * Research Question 3 X/* X Research Question 4 X/* X/* Note. X indicates analyses planned in design,* indicates the analyses run. See Chapter 4 for explanation of analysis alterations. Summary Using the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale and Teacher Demographic Questionnaire, all the Language Arts and reading teachers at the middle school s (grades 6 8) junior high schools (7 9) and combination schools across the district were invited to participa te in this efficacy score (dependent variable) was analyzed using the statistical computer pedagogical preparation or training program, and demogra phic information (independent variables). Analyses consisted of descriptive statistics, Analyses of
80 and multiple regressions with a p value established at p< .05
81 Chapter Four Results In this chapter data results of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) and Teacher Demographic Questionnaire are presented with each of the research questions Also presented in this chapter are d iscussion s that specifically address P ower, representativeness of respo nse sample, non response bias, descriptive information regarding the participants of the study and analysis of data The four research questions and analysi s techniques used (See Table 2 ) were: Research Questions 1. How are differences in Teacher Self E fficacy scores related to teacher preparation? 2. How are differences in Teacher Self Efficacy scores related to the content area taught? For example, did Language Arts teachers have a higher level of efficacy compared to that of a reading teacher with co mparable variables? 3. To what extent are differences in Teacher Self Efficacy related to years of teaching experience? For example, are eighteenth efficacious compared to first and fourth year teachers?
82 4. To what extent can differenc es in Teacher Self Efficacy be associated location? Purpose of the Study Research on the effectiveness of various teacher certification routes report mixed findings. Some s uggest traditional teacher certification programs produce more effective and higher rated teacher s (Darling Hammond & Cobb, 1996). Other reports suggest there is no difference, in perceived effectiveness by supervisors, between traditionally trained and al ternatively certified teacher s (Zeichner & Schulte, 2001). Additionally, research suggests that teacher efficacy beliefs form during early years of a new situation and are resist ant to change (Long & Moore, 2008; Tschannen Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy 1998). It was the own efficacy, or capabilities. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceived level of self efficacy of middle school Language A rts and reading teachers as well as the areas and factors that may account for variations in these teachers reported efficacy levels. Factors included number of years of teaching experience, pedagogical or teaching program preparation, and teacher demogra phics such as age, sex, ethnicity and school location It was hypothesized that the three variables, number of years teaching, the type of teacher preparation program, content area, and teacher demographics would be associated with teacher self efficacy.
83 Power Data collection of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale survey (TSES) and Teacher Demographics Questionnaire (TDQ) took place over two weeks at the end of November, 2009. Of the 624 school district employees eligible to complete the survey, 423 were s ubmitted through SurveyMonkey yielding a 67% rate of return. Participants were not required to respond to one question in order to advance to another question. Indeed, data revealed participants either completed both or only one portion of the surveys. Eli gible responses for this study are defined as those who completed both surveys, the TSES and the TD Q Therefore, of the 423 responses, 394 completed both portions of the survey and were included in analysis and this chapter. Meaning, analysis was conducted to determine if the TSES scores from the 29 participants who did not complete the surveys were statistically different from the 394 who did complete the survey. More specifically, a s discussed in Chapter Three a return of 400 or more surveys was necessar y for this study to maintain adequate power. To determine if exclusion of the respondents with missing demographic data would bias the results of the study, a two tailed independent t test was run to compare the samples from the Teacher Sense of Efficacy S cores (TSES) for the 29 participants who did not provide Teacher Demographics Questionnaire information against the 394 participants who did complete both portions of the survey. However, to clarify how the t test should be specified, an equality of varian ce test to evaluate if the variance of the dependent variable for the 29 cases was significantly different than the variance of the dependent variable observed among the 394 cases was run.
84 The F statistic provided by the equality of variance test demonstra te d how the t test should have be en specified (equal or unequal). With three of the dependent variables of interest (Total, Student Engagement, and Classroom Management), the results of the equality of variance tests indicated there were no significant dif ferences in the variance of the non response and response groups; that of those missing demographics and all other participants. The t test was therefore specified as assuming equal variance (p=.1136, .3033, and .5251 respectively). However, for the subsca le Instructional Strategies, the p value for the equality of variance test was significant (p=.0046) and indicated that the t test should be specified using unequal variances Having established how each t test of the dependent variables should be specified (equal or unequal variances) these tests were performed to evaluate whether there were significant differences in the dependent variables (Total, Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, and Classroom Management). The results of these tests indicated no significant differences between the two groups; therefore, the exclusion of the 29 cases with missing demographic information would not systematically bias the findings ( see Table 3 ).
85 Table 3 Participant/Non Participant Response Comparison Group 1 Group 2 p value Total 88.70 (11.07) 89.31 (13.47) n/s Student Engagement 26.94 (4.99) 27.07 (5.67) n/s 31.06 (3.93) 31.17 (5.55) n/s Classroom Management 30.70 (4.38) 31.10 (4.72) n/s N 394 29 Note. Test specified using unequal variances. *p<.05 Non Response Bias The district report from which the original participants were invited provided demographic details similar to those of the demographic variables provided by participants for research question four (age, sex, ethnicity, and site location). As such, a nalysis was run using these four demographic variables of concern to identify if the 394 pa rticipants differed from the 624 invited school district participants. The hypothese s tested were: H o the p opulation surveyed does not differ from the invited population. H a the population surveyed differs from the invited population. A c hi s quare ( X 2 ) goodness of fit statistic determine s the p value associated with that statistic A low p value indicates rejection of the null hypothesis or that the data do not follow the hypothesized, or theoretical, distribution The X 2 goodness of fit analysis for this study revealed that in total over 50% from each demographic category (age, sex, ethnicity, and Title 1 site
86 eligibility location) responded to the survey. However, those who responded within each category differed statistically from those who did not (see Table 4) For example, just under 63% of the survey respondents from the district responded to the surv ey but only 12.72% o f them were under the age of 30 (known district population under the age of 30 was 20.19% ). In the case of ethnicity, the survey asked participants to identify themselves the same as they did for the school district however, eight parti cipants self reported multiracial backgrounds compared with zero reported by the district report. Given that race changes for some people over time (J. Kromrey, Personal Communication, October 4, 2010), these eight responses were kept for goodness of fit a nalysis. Similarly, the district reported three Indian participants while four survey participants self reported Indian ethnicity ; these too were also kept for analysis Kano et al, (2008) discusses the response rate s were higher for urban than rural but l ess than suburban responses (33.5%, 12.7% & 53.8% respectively). The district in which this study took place did not consistently use the terms urban, rural, or suburban to describe the geographic location of schools or the student populations within each school. For the district of this study, the reported student free and reduced lunch status percentages were used. Schools that reported a less than 40% student population eligible for Schools that reported a 40% student population eligible for free/reduced lun ches Title 1 schools that reported a 75% and above student population that qualified for free/reduced lunches and received federal funding as well as district recognition of Title 1 s The
87 expected percentage of responses f rom Eligible 2 school sites was 34. 30% while the observed percentage of responses was 28.68 resulting in a X 2 value of 10.3435 as statistically different between those observed and those known or expected ( p>.05 ). Therefore, the null hypothesis that the populations were the same was rejected. The only demographic characteristic analyzed by the good ness of fit test that did not trigger a statistically significant difference between expected and observed responses were those for sex. Female participants wer e well represented with 88% while only 11% were males. Sources of Non Response Given that educators are a professional population, the notion that non responses occurred due to disinterest or neutrality in opinion (Wiersma & Jurs, 2009) is a concern and the source or sources for non response must be investigated. Reasons for non responses might include, but would not be limited to; a teacher moving content areas and therefore no longer eligible to participate, a teacher might have elected to take a leave of absence after the district report was generated for this study, the computer the teacher was using may have needed software updates resulting in an inconvenience to said teacher. Still in addition a teacher may have simply elected not to participate. Although the X 2 goodness of fit analysis revealed statistically significant differences between the known and expected population responses compared with those of the observed responses, effect size analysis suggested that between a small to medium effect would be observed (see Table4). That is to say, if the effect sizes of the demographic factors compared were medium to large (. 25 or higher) the findings from this study would be suspect. However,
88 Given that the effect size for the demographic factors ana lyzed ranged from w for goodness of fit effect woul d be small to medium. As such, keeping the 63% response rate in mind, the findings from this study should be interpreted with the knowledge that a strong representation was captured but the responses did not mirror those expected for a non statistical bias.
89 Table 4 Non Response X 2 Goodness of Fit Statistics Demographic Factors Known Population Sample X 2 Value Effect Size N % Age under 30 20.19 50 12.72 Age 30 39 33.01 128 32.57 Age 40 49 21.96 95 24.17 Age over 50 24.84 120 30.53 Total 100 394 100 16.8837 ** .200 Female 84.94 347 88.07 Male 15.06 47 11.93 Total 100 394 100 3.0196 .008 Eligibility 0 23.40 117 29.70 Eligibility 1 42.30 164 41.62 Eligibility 2 28.68 113 28.68 Total 100 394 100 10.3435 ** .162 Asian .79 5 1.27 Black 18.25 46 11.68 Hispanic 9.84 41 10.41 Indian .47 3 1.02 Multiracial 1.27 8 2.03 White 69.68 290 73.60 Total 15.762 ** .200 Note: Percentages of total for each category are reported in each column first and frequencies are in parenthesis. p< 05, ** p<.001
90 Checking Assumptions Analysis of Variance Measure Prior to conducting any analysis of the data, the data were analyzed for assumptions using SAS v. 9.2. Assumptions for ANOVAs used for this analysis stated (See Glass & Hopkins, 1996, p. 403): 1. The E ij J populations are independent 2. Have a normal distribution with a population mean (expectat ion) of 0 3. Have a 2 It was assumed that each participant took the scale and survey on their own only once and not in a group thus securing independence of observation. Normality of population distributions are numerically displayed for each of the preparation methods in the A ppendices portion at the end of this research report (see Appendix E I ). D eviation from normality was identified, plots for each independent variable were reviewed and although some variables were above the recommended |1| for kurtosis, the findings are re latively robust for violations of normality based on the sample size (Steven, 2007). The Shapiro Wilk test for normality revealed statistically significant differences for some variables as stated above, the sample size afforded robustness. Specifics of s kewness and kurtosis as part of each ANOVA analysis. Give n that the design of the ANOVA was balanced and variance for the Total TSES or any of the three subscale scores for any of the three research questions that used ANOVA analysis, h omogeneity of variance was assumed
91 Multiple Regression Analysis Similar to the assumption checking procedures for the ANVOA measures, analysis of the data for Multiple Regression analysis were also analyzed for assumptions using SAS v. 9.2. Glass and Hopkins (1996) state that multiple regression analysis assumptions ar e: 1. The Y scores are independent and normally distributed at all points along the regression line. 2. X axis and Y values on the vertical axis there is a linear relationship between the Y at all points along the straig ht regression line. 3. As with the ANOVA assumptions, it was assumed that each participant took the scale and survey on their own only once and not in a group thus securing independence of observa tion. Also, sample size increased the robustness for violations of normality as each was greater than 40 (Steven, 2007). Normality of population distributions are numerically displayed for each of the variables involved in the multiple regression in the ap pendix (see Appendix U X ) (see Osborne & Waters, 2005) The plot s of residuals for homosedacity or uniform dispersion of data were reviewed and no pattern was detected (see Appendix Y AB ). Both ANOVA and Regression reported findings should be interpreted with confidence that the populations are within a normal range.
92 Research Findings Presented below are the descriptive statistic results from the collection of data for each research que stion. Analyses of findings related to each research question are also presented below. Research Question One : How are D ifferences in T eacher S elf E fficacy S cores R elated to T eacher P reparation? The Teacher Demographic Survey offered seven response choices asking participants to select how teaching certification was attained. Answer options ranged from Traditional Alternative Certification Program, or ACP (9 1), Educator Preparation Institute (15), Master of Arts in Teaching while teaching as a P art T ime s tudent (37), Master of Arts in T eaching P rogram as a Full T ime (33), 5th year Masters Program (11), and Other (24). Of the participants who answered their tr aining and preparation e Childhood Leadership, Bachelors of Science (not Art) backgrounds. Refer to Figure 2 f or graphic illustration of preparation type and number of participants
93 Figure 2 Percentages of Participants by Preparation Method Illustrated in Table 5 the simple statistics show the participant with the th n =11, M= 92.18). The second highest reported scores came n =24, M= 91 .54). Participants who reported an Educator Preparation Institute (EPI) preparation method indicated the lowest Total TSES score ( n =15, M=82.27). Reported means for the two subcategories Student Engagement and Instructional Strategies follow the same
94 patte rn until the third subcategory, Classroom Management. In this last means than participants from the 5 th the EPI category reported the lowest scores across the scale. Table 5 Means and SD Scores by Preparation Type Total TSES SD Student Engagement SD Instructional Strategies SD Classroom Management SD 0 Other ( n =24) 91.54 12.93 28.42 5.66 32 3.66 31.13 + 4.74 1 ( n =183) 88.60 11.46 27.16 4.81 30.66 4.03 30.78 4.04 2 ACP ( n =91) 87.99 9.61 26.67 4.29 31.09 4.02 30.23 3.58 3 EPI ( n =15) 82.27 9.6 25.6 4.0 29.53 3.36 27.13 3.07 4 MAT Part Time ( n =37) 89.46 10.45 26.68 5.28 32.59 3.23 30.19 4.67 5 MAT Full Time (n=33) 90.01 11.39 27.42 5.09 31.15 3.77 31.48 3.83 6 5 th Year ( n =11) 92.18 + 12.75 28.82 + 5.10 32.27 + 3.80 31.10 5.15 Note: + indicates the highest mean score reported for that scale (Total, Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, or Classroom Management). Highest possible value for Total was 108 while subcategories were 36 points each. Given that the predictor variable, preparation type, was nomi nal and the criterion variable, TSES score was interval for this research question an ANOVA was the appropriate analysis run in search of interactive or main effects present as a result of the teacher preparation variable on reported TSES scores et al. 2005). Normality of population distribution is numerically
95 displayed for each of the preparation methods in Appendix E. One noted observation was that each preparation category had negatively skewed population distributions except for EPI (skewness=.99). This suggests the scores are higher across the populations with the exception of EPI participants who reported lower scores. The Shapiro Wilk test for normality revealed statistically significant statistics for several of the preparation types within the scales ( See Appendix E). The TSES Total scale had statistically significant population distributions significant population distributions for the subscale Student Engagement were identified for Tradition The subscale category Instructional Strategies revealed significant distributions in each preparation type except 5 th also indicated each preparation method was significant except Educator s Preparation Institute and 5 th Inspection of the responses via box plots (see Appendix F I), suggested a possible ceiling effect might have been involved for 5 th but not for any of the three subscales. This mea ns that on average participants who reported a 5 th Year Masters program as their preparation methodology also bel ieved they were efficacious. T he distributions were robust; therefore analysis of variance me asures were run. ANVOA results showed no significant interaction between the type of preparation or training a teacher received and the corresponding TSES Total score (see Table 6 ). Given that the TSES Total score was a composite based on
96 the three subscal es, ANOVA analyses were also run on the subcategories of Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, and Classroom Management. No significant interactions were detected between the two TSES subcategories of Student Engagement and Instructional Strategies and teacher preparation. However, the subcategory Classroom Management did register as having a significant difference from the independent variable of preparation or training program ( f= 2.42 p =.026 ES= .191 ). This means that the average difference between the reported scores from at least two categories within the preparation variables were statistically different and yielded between a small and medium effect size ANOVA results for the subcategory Classroom Management warranted the post hoc applic Hopkins, 1996; Vogt, 2007) multiple comparison measure to test all possible pairwise comparisons between the seven preparation options and Classroom Management scores. The significant overall ANOVA identified in the subcategory Classroom Management was from the difference between the means of only three preparation categories. Efficacy beliefs of teaching ability were noted between three preparation style groupings: Full time Master of Arts in Teachi ng (MAT) and Educator Pr eparation Institutes graduates reported a mean difference of scores of 4.351 ( p education and Educator Pre paration Institute graduates (M= 3.648, p < .05), and participants fro paration Institute graduates (M = 3.992, p < .05). In each of these three groupings, the TSES Classroom Management mean from EPI participants was lower than the
97 Classroom Management mean from the compared preparation grouping (see Table 6) This suggests participants with EPI coaching were less efficacious than those with traditional Bachelor in Education, Full Time MAT graduates, and those whose preparation was beyond identification the categories provided on the surv ey. More specifically, the Classroom Management subscale score of an MAT Full Time prepared teacher was on avera ge 4.35 points higher than an EPI prepared participant while the score from the same subscale for a participant average 3.99 points higher than an EPI prepared participant. Finally, a traditionally prepared participant produced a Classroom Management subscale score on average 3.65 points higher than tha t of an EPI trained respondent.
98 Table 6 Preparation Method ANOVA and Tukey Results Sum of Squares df F Value P Value ES Prep ID # Tukey MD Simult 95% Conf. Limits TSES Total 1078.39685 6 1.48 0.1843 .15 Student Engagement 135.313317 6 .98 0.4396 .122 Instructional Strategies 189.729032 6 2.08 0.0546 .178 Classroom Management 238.987555 6 2.42 0.026 .191 5 3 4.3515 .06091 8.0939 0 3 3.9917 .0361 7.9472 1 3 3.8481 .04204 6.8758 Not e. n = 39 4 p <.05 Prep ID # correlates to the identification number issued to preparation category. 0= Other, 1= Traditional Bachelor, 2=ACP, 3= EPI, 4= MAT Part Time student, 5= MAT Full Time student, 6= 5 th Research Q uestion O ne S ummary A nalysis suggested no significant difference in Total TSES score or the two subcategories Student Engagement and Instructional Strategies. The research hypothesis that participants from traditional preparation programs would report higher efficac y scores than those from ACP programs was true however the differences were not statistically significant. Furthermore, the null hypothesis that no significant differences between preparation types and TSES scores was rejected based on ANOVA and Tukey Pos t Hoc analysis that indicated significant differences in the scores reported for the subcategory of
99 Classroom Management. Participants with graduate and advanced graduate education preparation as well as participants with Full Time Master of Art in teachin g preparation reported higher teaching efficacy scores than participants Time Master of Art in teaching, Alternative Certification Program, or Educator Preparation Institute preparation. Research Question Two : How are D ifferences in T eacher S elf E fficacy S cores R elated to the C ontent A rea T aught? The second research question addressed in this study centered on how differences in Teacher Self Efficacy scores might have been r elated to the content areas of Language Arts and R eading. Participants were asked to identify all the courses and grade levels each was assigned for the 2009 2010 academic school year. Courses included all general education classes for reading and Language Arts that the district offered Included in the course offerings were, English Speakers of other Languages (ESOL) and Exceptional Student Education (ESE) co teach classes. Frequency results indicated that 211 teachers taught R eading, and 314 teachers were responsible for Language Arts curriculum. It was also concluded during further investigation that 139 teachers were responsible for both types of content. Reanalysis concluded that 72 teachers answered as a Reading teacher, 175 answered as a Language Arts teacher, 139 answered as both with no duplications while 8 teachers reported no content instruction responsibility (see Table 7 ). Of these eight no content teachers, five supplied commentary, which corroborated their Language Arts and or Reading content instructional experience. The re maining three teachers did not provide any indentifying information. However, each was provided as an
100 originally invited participant from the district supplied Reading and languages arts database and therefore can be considered to have been a Reading or La nguage Arts teacher As such, the eight participants were separated out into their own Simple descriptive statistics of means and standard deviations revealed Reading teachers as reporting higher TSES Total s cores than Language Arts teachers ( M= 89.50 and M= 88.75 respectively). Teachers not responsible for either Reading or Language Arts reported the lowest TSES scores (83.75). Table 7 Means and SD Scores by Content Area Total SD Student Engagement SD Instructional Strategies SD Classroom Management SD Neither ( n =8) 83.75 8.36 25.13 5.38 32.3 2.9 28.5 2.98 Reading ( n =72) 89.50 + 11.28 27.6 4.61 31.1 4.28 30.81 + 3.99 Language Arts ( n =175) 88.78 11.14 27.04 4.60 31.03 + 3.96 30.70 4.21 Both ( n =139) 88.47 11.02 27.11 + 5.04 31.02 3.78 30.34 4.06 Note: + indicates the highest mean score reported for that scale (Total, Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, or Classroom Management). Highest possible value for Total was 108 while subcategories were 36 points each. Normality of population distribution is numerically displayed for each of the content area s in Appendix J Analysis of population distribution revealed negatively skewed results based on reported scores of participants from both Reading and Language Arts content areas across each scale. Participants from
101 scales and were the only group to have a negative kurtosis reported for the subscale of Classroom Management. This suggested the reported scores by content were high but that teachers responsible for both content areas did not follow a normal curve, rather, they were more flat in their responses than their counterparts. Originally, an independent two tailed T test was planned for analysis to detect if the means between the two content areas were statistically different. However, with the content variable containing four parts titled, either Reading Language Arts and oth the t test was no longer the appropriate statistic to run (Glass & Hopkins, A better suited F statistic designed for multiple variables was selected. ANOVA measures did not identify any significant interactions between the p redictor variable of content area taught and the criterion variable (see Table 8 ). Table 8 ANOVA Results for Instructional Content Sum of Squares d f Mean Square F Value P value ES Total TSES 50.72701 2 25.363 0.20 0.8148 .045 Student Engagement 16.634 2 8.317 0.37 0.694 .061 Instructional Strategies 0.288 2 0.144 0.01 0.991 .010 Classroom Management 14.392 2 7.196 0.42 0.654 .065 Note n = 39 4 ANOVA results for instructional content did not identify any significant interactions between Content and TSES
102 Research Q uestion T wo S ummary In response to r esearch q uestion t wo h ow are differences in teacher s elf e fficacy scores relate d to the content area taught, the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. Meaning, analysis revealed no significant difference in the Total or subcategory scores reported by participants based on content area taught. This indicates that Reading teachers reported scores sim ilar to Language Arts teachers and similar to teachers of both Language Arts and Reading R esearch Question Three : To W hat E xtent A re D ifferences in T eacher S elf E fficacy R elated to Y ears of T eaching E xperience ? Ingersoll (2001, 2003) discusses teacher migration versus attrition. With this consideration, t eaching experience was reported and analyzed in two ways: the number of years they had taught Anywhere and the number of years they have been teaching at their C urrent Site. This was done in an attempt to identify if accumulati ve teaching experience impacted teaching efficacy scores more than school organization characteristics. Responses for each of the two questions were categorized into the same segments of tim e and coded the same as the Anywhere variable. See Figure 3 for frequency distributions of teaching experience participants by grouping. The teaching experience Anywhere responses per grouping were: Five reported having taught less than one year, 50 having taught between 1 and 3 years, 101 having taught between 3 and 7 years, 47 having taught between 7 and 10, and 191 responded having taught for more were: 37 teachers reported te aching their first year at that school site, 124 had been teaching between 1 and 3 years at that site, 127 identified between 3 and 7
103 years at their present site, 47 teachers had been at their current site for between 7 and 10 years, and 59 teachers have b een at their present site for over 10 years. Both variables wer e re ported by all 394 responses. Figure 3 Number of Respondents by Experience Category Anywhere responses Simple descriptive statistics revealed mean Anywhere Total score was 3.94 ( 1.17) placing the average total years of experience a teacher held as more than 3 but less than 7 overall years. Revealed by mean scores across experience groupings, teaching efficacy appeared to increase with the number of overall years teaching experience a pa rticipant reported (See Table 9 ). Participants with More than 10 years teaching experience reported an average Total TSES score of 10 points more compared to participants with less than 1 year teaching experience. Reporting a Total mean response score of 99, out of 108, participants from the Less than 1 year category not only reported the lowest mean Total TSES score, they also reported the lowest minimum and lowest maximum values of the scale. It should be noted
104 that, participants in the Over 1 0 years of Anywhere experience category scored on average, the highest for each portion of the TSES while teachers with less than 1 year experience scored the lowest average in each portion of the TSES. T able 9 Mean TSES Score b y Teaching Anywhere Experience Anywhere ID # Total TSES SCORE SD Student Engagement SD Instructional Strategies SD Classroom Management SD 1 Less than 1 year ( n =5) 79.40 13.96 25.00 5.79 27.4 2.88 27.00 5.87 2 More than 1 less than 3 years ( n =50) 84.46 9.66 25.96 4.09 29.6 3.54 28.90 3.88 3 More than 3 less than 7 years ( n =101) 87.86 10.47 26.92 4.50 30.60 4.12 30.35 3.63 4 More than 7 less than 10 years ( n =47) 88.81 11.44 26.98 5.14 31.11 4.19 30.72 4.50 5 More than 10 years ( n =191) 90.47+ 11.20 27.55+ 4.99 31.78 + 3.72 31.14 + 4.12 Note: + indicates the highest mean score reported for that scale (Total, Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, or Classroom Management). Highest possible value for Total was 108 while subcategories were 36 points each. Normality of population distribution analysis revealed participants with less than 1 year experience reported consistently low or platykurtic scores across
105 scales except Instructional Strategies T he distribution of scores for participants with between 1 and 3 years experience were platykurtic in each scale except Student Engagement suggesting these scores were also consistently low. Population distribution of participants with between 3 and 7 years experience revealed negatively skewd, or higher scores, though consistently flat or platykurtic across scales. Participants from both the 7 to 10 years experience and over 10 years experience had negatively skewd distribution of scores across each scale t hat suggests scores were also reported high. Analysis was run using the SAS PROC GLM in lieu of ANOVA in the event of variance, again were run in the event that the PROC GLM identified statistically significant ANOVA differences between means. Analyses revealed statistically sign ificant differences in the mean of reported teaching experience Anywhere and the TSES Total scores ( f = 4.21, p=.002), as well as the subscales of Instructional Strategies ( f =4.96, p =.0007) and Classroom Management ( f = 4.15, p =.0026). ied statistically significant differences in means for each of the three TS ES categories above between the More than 10 Y ear s teaching experience category and those who reported between 1 and 3 Y ears experience Anywhere. Specifically, a significant differ ence between the mean scores from participants in the Between 1 year and 3 years teaching experience category compared to the mean scores of teachers from the More than 10 years teaching experience category Total TSES scores averaged 6.006 points higher
106 f or the average More than 10 years teaching experience participant compared to the average participant score from Between 1 and 3 years experience. Similarly, the average Instructional Strategies subscale score of a More than 10 years teaching veteran avera ged 2.1801 points more than the average of a Between 1 to 3 year participant. More than 10 years veteran teachers also reported average Classroom Management subscale scores 2 .2361 point higher than those of their less experienced peers with between 1 and 3 years teaching experience (see Table 10 ). Table 10 ANOVA Results f or Teaching Experience Anywhere Sum of Squares d f F Value P Value ES Anywhere ID # Tukey MD Simult. 95% Conf. Limits TSES Total 1998.573 4 4.21 .0024* .207 5,2 6.006 1.265 10.747 Student Engagement 129.523 4 1.41 .230 .119 Instructional Strategies 294.625 4 4.96 .0007** .224 5,2 2.1801 0.5024 3.8578 Classroom Management 270.347 4 4.15 .0026* .205 5,2 2.2361 0.4797 3.9925 Note n = 39 4 ** = p <.001 Anywhere ID# correlates to the identification number issue d to the Anywhere experience category. 1=Less than 1 year, 2= More than 1 year and Less than 3 years, 3= More than 3 years and Less than 7 years, 4= More than 7 years and Less than 10 years, 5= More than 10 years teaching experience. Current s ite responses T he average teacher was represented by the category of Between 1 and 3 years, but very close to between 3 and 7 years. The
107 most populated C urrent experience category was More than 3 and L ess than 7 with 127 respondents. Highest mean TSES scores were reported by teachers with more than 7 and less than 10 years at a site (M=92.83). Unlike the teaching experience Anywhere variable, the trend to increase teaching efficacy as years of experienc e increases did not c arry on past the 10 year mark. Lower reported mean scores after the 10 year mark was evidenced as a trend in each of the subscales as well (See Table 11 ). Participants who were in their first year at a site reported the lowest average scale scores ; the highest reported Total TSES score for a first year teacher at a site was 102 points out of a possible 108 points ; no participants in the less than 1 year site experience category returned a maximum score on the survey
108 Table 11 Mean TSES Score by Teaching Current Site Experience CURRENT ID # Total TSES SCORE SD Student Engagement SD Instructional Strategies SD Classroom Management SD 1 Less than 1 year ( n =37) 85.49 10.70 26.38 4.27 29.73 4.27 29.38 3.95 2 More than 1 less than 3 years ( n =124) 86.74 10.62 26.47 4.65 30.46 3.71 29.81 4.03 3 More than 3 less than 7 years ( n =127) 90.06 10.57 27.45 4.94 31.46 4.05 31.14 3.79 4 More than 7 less than 10 years ( n =47) 92.83+ 11.60 28.52+ 5.12 32.30 + 3.71 32.02 + 4.04 5 More than 10 years ( n =59) 88.61 11.72 26.92 4.70 31.32 3.74 30.37 4.58 Note: + indicates the highest mean score reported for that scale (Total, Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, or Classroom Management ). Highest possible value for Total was 108 while subcategories were 36 points each. Normality of population distribution analysis revealed negatively skewd and platykurtic distribution across scales from participants with less than 1 year experience at their current site (see Appendix L ). Respondents with between 3 and 7 years current site experience reported a negatively skewd but leptokurtic distribution of scores across scales ranging from .22 to 1.098. This suggests participant scores from this category were positive and high with a peak in the dis tribution. Distribution of scores for the category of participants with between 7 and 10 years site experience were negatively skewd for each scale as well as platykurtic with the exception of Classroom Man agement subscale (0.148).
109 As was reported for the Anywhere, analysis was run using the SAS PROC GLM in lieu of ANOVA in the event that Bonferroni or Least Square Means were Rourke, et al., 2005). SD multipl e comparison technique was also ran As illustrated in Table 12 reported statistically significant mean differences were identified for TSES Total ( df 4, F= 3.98, p <.05) as well as the two subcategories Instructional Strategies ( df 4, F= 3.43, p <.05) and Classroom Management ( df 4, F= 4.08, p <.05) but not for the subscale Student Engagement ( f = 1.97, p significant difference in means between the 4 th and 1 st and 4 th and 2 nd groupi ngs of experience. That is to say, teachers at their Current Sites for less than 1 year and teachers at their site for between 7 and 10 years had on average a statistically significant difference Total scores ( mean difference = 7.343). Teachers with between 1 and 3 years experience at their current site on average scored 6.088 points less on the Total Sense of Efficacy Scale than the average score of their peers who reported between 7 and 10 years teaching experience at that current site. The same three gro ups of teaching at Current Site participants were identified as having statistically significant difference in mean scores. The subscale category Instructional Strategies had significantly different mean scores between average scores of the less than 1 yea r participants with those of the average scores for 7 to 10 year participants ( mean difference = 2.568). Also identified as statistically significant were the average scores of the Between 1 and 3 year site experience participants compared to the average sc ores of the 7
110 to 10 year participants ( mean difference =1.838). Teachers with 7 to 10 years teaching experience at a site scored on average 2.6 point higher than first year teachers at the site and more than 1.8 points higher than teachers with between 1 an d 3 years on site teaching experience on the Instructional Strategies subscale. ANOVA results for teaching efficacy as it related to Classroom Management identified significant differences in mean scores. More specifically, significant difference between the average scores of participants in the less than 1 year experience as a site compared to peers with between 7 and 10 years teaching experience at a sit e with a mean difference of 2.6429 Average scores of respondents with between 1 year and 3 years C urrent S ite experience were significantly different from the mean scores of teachers with between 7 and 10 years experience at their C urrent S ite ( mean difference =2.2068) These findings sugg est teachers with between 7 and 10 years teaching experience at a site on average score d 2.6 points higher on Classroom Management efficacy measures than peers with less than 1 year experience at a site. Those same veteran teachers with between 7 and 10 ye ars experience at a site scored on average 2.2 points higher than colleagues with between 1 and 3 years experience at a site.
111 Table 12 ANOVA Results for Teaching Experience at Current Site Sum of Squares df F Value P Value ES ID # Tukey MD Simult 95% Conf. Limits TSES Total 1892.78 6 4 3.98 .0035* .201 4,2 6.088 0.970 11.206 4,1 7.343 0.776 13.910 Student Engagement 179.754 4 1.97 .0985 .14 Instructional Strategies 207.016 4 3.43 .0090* .187 4,2 1.8382 0.0155 3.6609 4,1 2.5681 0.2294 4.9068 Classroom Management 265.923 4 4.08 .0030* .204 4,2 2.2068 0.3122 4.1013 4,1 2.6429 0.2120 5.0738 Note n = 394 ID# correlates to the identification number issue d to the Current Site experience category. 1=Less than 1 year, 2= More than 1 year and Less than 3 years, 3= More than 3 years and Less than 7 years, 4= More than 7 years and Less than 10 years, 5= More than 10 years teaching experience. Research Q uestion T hree S ummary Originally designed to be a correlation analysis to answer the question to what extent are differences in Teacher Self Efficacy related to years of teaching experience, analysis for research question three turned to an ANOVA as the variable of teaching experience was categorical and not continuous. However,
112 the question did not change. Findings from analysis suggested the null hypothesis has been rejected: differences in teaching efficacy score s were attrib uted to years of teaching experience (s ee Table 10 ). More specifically, ANOVA results indicated a significant difference in the reported mean efficacy scores of teachers with more than 10 years Anywhere teaching experience compared to teachers with between 3 and 7 years Anywhere teachin g experience on the Total scale, Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management subscale levels (F= 4.21, 4.96,4.15 respectively at a p <.05 level). Tukey post hoc analysis revealed these significant differences were in th e teaching efficacy areas of overall Total efficacy as well as the TSES subscales Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management. Though not a part of the original research question, the question of teaching experience at a Current Si te relationship to teaching efficacy scores was one of natural extension and interest An alysis that focused on Current S ite teaching experience, revealed the rejection of the null hypothesis: there are statistically significant differences in teaching efficacy scores relat ed to the current site experienc e of participants (See Table 12 ) Specifically, ANOVA results indicated statistically significant differences between means scores for the Total scale as well as for the Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management subs cales (F = 3.98, 3.43, 4.08 respectively at p<.05 level). Tukey HSD post hoc analysis reveled differences were between the mean scores of three groups of participants. These significant differences were also reported for the same scales and subscales betwe en teachers with 7 and 10 years at a site compared to those with less than one year as well as the 7 to 10 year veterans
113 compared to those with between 1 and 3 years Current Site experience. The significant results were i dentified on the Total efficacy sca le as well as Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management subscales. Research Question Four : To W hat E xtent C an D ifferences in T eacher Self E fficacy B e A ssociated with P D emographic F actors a) A ge, b) S ex, c) E thnicity, and d) S chool L ocation? The use of descriptive simple statistics as well multiple regression analysis were run using the four independent predictor demographic variables of age, sex, ethnicity, and school/site location. The dependent criterion variables of Total TSES sco re and the three subscales of Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management were also used in regression analysis Discussed below are the descriptive data for each of the four demographics variables followed by multiple regression analysis findings. Age. Requesting birth years in lieu of absolute ages, prompted a question of whether a participant had reached their birthday as of the time of survey completion A participant who had reached a birthday would move forward a year and p otentially into another age bracket. Similarly, not having reached a birthday would potentially not move them forward resulting in a less accurate representation in the age brackets. To better ensure consistency, participants were placed into brackets base d on age as of midnight, December 31, 2009.This provided more accurate age reporting across the population. The same brackets as those of others who conducted a national perspective study focusing on teacher attrition (see Boe et al., 1997) were used: < 30 30 39, 40 49, and > 50 years old. Each group contained no fewer than 50 p articipants (See Figure 4).
114 Figure 4 Total Participants by Age Group Population distribution statistics revealed one participant entered a birth year of 1919. Given that this participant did not provide any contact information, the outlier date was removed. As a result, the total number of participants with usable data was 393. Skewness and kurtosis analysis revealed that some age bracket populations were in violation of normality distributions (See Appendix U ). Across scales and age groups, the population distribution of data was negatively skewd with the exception of I nstr uctional Strategies for 30 to 49 year old participants. This suggests that participants between 30 and 49 years old reported higher scores than those younger than 30 and older than 49. All distributions with the exception of Student Engagement scores from 40 49 year olds and the Total, Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management scores of 30 39 year olds were platykurtic ranging from .015 to 1.151. Meaning the scores were flat and not curved in their dispersion across participants.
115 As illustrated i n Table 13 the three categories of Total, Instructional Strategies, and Classroom Management received the highest average scores n = 120, M= 90.58, 32. 0, 30.97 respectively) while ere the most efficacious in the Student Engagement subcategory (n=95, M=4.76). The largest age group, the score of 82.24 with the smallest standard deviation suggesting the least amount of variation in scores amo ng 30 to 39 year old participants. Participants in this same age bracket also reported the lowest subscale scores for S tudent Engagement with a mean of 26.59 and the second lowest standard deviation (SD=3.81) score among participants. The two subcategories of Instructional Strategies (M=30.46) and Classroom Management (M=29.86). Based on the mean scores reported, older teachers were more efficacious than younger teachers thereb y allowing the research hypothesis for this question to be rejected.
116 Table 13 Mean TSES Scores by Age Total TSES SCORE SD Student Engagement SD Instructional Strategies SD Classroom Management SD Less than 30 years old ( n =50) 87.26 10.81 26.94 4.64 30.46 4.39 29.86 3.85 Between 30 and 39 years old ( n =128) 82.24 9.97 26.59 4.57 30.85 3.81 30.80 3.83 Between 40 and 49 years old ( n =95) 87.80 11.58 27.22 + 4.76 30.51 3.94 30.07 4.29 More than 50 years old ( n =120) 90.58 + 11.75 26.61 5.13 32.0 + 3.73 30.97 + 4.29 Note: + indicates the highest mean score reported for that scale (Total, Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, or Classroom Management). Highest possible value for Total was 108 while subcategories were 36 points each. Sex. Of the 394 participants, 47 identified themselves as males leaving the remaining 347 as females. This 88% female dominated response field is similar to the reported 87% female population of eligible participants found across the school district from which the census was taken. Descriptive statistics revealed female participants reported a higher average for each of the four scale components (See Table 14 ). Reported differences in scores for the four categories ranged from 1.05 for Total scores to a differen ce in averages of .04 for the Classroom Management subcategory. Though the research hypothesis that males were significantly more efficacious than females was addressed in the multiple regression section below, the means and standard deviations in Table
117 14 rejected the null as the mean scores for women in each measure was higher than that of the average male scores. On average, females had higher teaching efficacy. Table 14 Mean TSES Scores by Sex Sex ID # Total TSES SCORE SD Student Engagement SD Instructional Strategies SD Classroom Management SD 1 Males ( n =47) 87.77 10.67 26.53 4.61 30.72 3.89 30.51 3.96 2 Females ( n =347) 88.82 + 11.13 27.16 + 4.83 31.11 + 3.94 30.55 + 4.12 Note: + indicates the highest mean score reported for that scale (Total, Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, or Classroom Management). Highest possible value for Total was 108 while subcategories were 36 points each. Population distribution statistics revealed both males and females had non normal distributi on acros s scales (see Appendix V ). Male data revealed statistically significant differences in the distribution of scores for the subscales Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management. Both sexes reported negatively skewd, or high, efficacy scores across sca les while females reported platykurtic, or flat with little variation in scores, Ethnicity. identity and qu alitatively provided their ethnic identification. These seven respondents were merged into the respective category that fit the definition as determined by the school district. For example, two respondents listed Native American as their ethnic identificat ion; they were subsequently added to the
118 sified ry. These assignments resulted in the six identity categories used for analysis, White (73.6%), Black (11.6%), Hispanic (10.4%), Multiracial (2.03%), Asian (1.27%), and Indian (1.02%). Displayed in Table 15 the simple statistics analysis for TSES scores revealed the highest Total and Student Engagement TSES average scores were from Hispanic participants ( n =41, M= 92.22 and 28.71 respectively) The highest average for Instructional Strategies scores were reported by Asian participants ( n = 33; M=33.0) and Black respondents scored the highest for Classroom Management ( n =46; M= 31.98). Although the highest scores for the categories varied, the lowest average scores were consistently reported by Multiracial participants ( n =8; M=76.88, 21.8 8, 28.75, 26.25 resp ectively).
119 Table 15 Mean TSES scores by Participant Ethnicity Total TSES Mean SD Student Engagement Mean SD Instructional Strategies Mean SD Classroom Management Mean SD Asian ( n = 5) 90.40 15.24 27.6 7.50 33.0+ 4.47 29.8 3.92 Black ( n =46) 91.28 10.89 28.76 4.24 30.54 3.82 31.98 + 4.03 Hispanic ( n =41) 92.22+ 10.43 28.71+ 5.02 32.12 3.33 31.39 3.52 Indian ( n =4) 86.5 13.17 26.25 5.56 30.25 3.86 30.0 4.55 White ( n =290) 88.12 10.87 26.74 4.67 31.04 4.02 30.34 4.07 Multi ( n =8) 76.88 10.42 21.88 4.39 28.75 2.76 26.25 5.06 Note: + indicates the highest mean score reported for that scale (Total, Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, or Classroom Management). Highest possible value for Total was 108 while subcategories were 36 points each. As illustrated in Appendix W analyses for the normality of population distribution revealed that data from Asian participants was negatively skewd and leptokurtic for each scale with the exception of Classroom Management which had a positive skewness (0.8 49). This suggests Asian participants reported low Classroom Management efficacy scores. Black participants reported negatively skewd data as well with the exception of Instructional Strategies which had positively skewd data (0.127). Hispanic participants reported negatively skewd data that was platykurtic across scales with the exception of Instructional Strategies (0.356). Data from Indian respondents was both positively skewd and
120 leptokurtic across all scales. White participants revealed negatively skew d and platykurtic data for each scale with the exception of the Total scale with a slightly leptokurtosis distribution. Data from Multiracial participants was negatively skewed for Total and Student Engagement scales but positively skewed for Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management. Kurtosis of the data from Multiracial participants was leptokurtic for the first three scales and platykurtic for Classroom Management. The higher scores reported by Multiracial participants on the Total and Student En gagement scales compared with lower scores reported for Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management suggests Multiracial participants were more efficacious in engaging and motivating students as well as the o verarching concept of efficacy than in the managing of their classroom and use of varying instructional strategies. School location. Participants selected the variable school location from one of 56 site options. Eligible sites were defined as being a public middle school, charter school, or acade my that served grades 6 8 students. At least one response was received from each middle school in the school district but no responses were received from any of the charter schools or academies. In total, 11 school sites did not have any participants. One site was involved in the pilot study and therefore was asked not to participate. The other 10 sites were either charter schools or academies within the school district and although invited to participate, elected not to do so. Upon conference with the scho ol district assessment and accountability office, it was revealed that faculty members of charter schools and academies historically do not check their district email
121 accounts and therefore, would not be aware of any invitation for participation. In total, 45 of 56 sites district wide participated in the study. Though some of the individual school site WebPages did describe the geographic demographics of the school population, such was not the case across the school district. In fact, the school district i tself did not consistently use urban, rural, suburban or other geographic terms to distinguish schools. S chools were therefore chunked into one of three categories based on the district reported percentage of students eligible for Free/Reduced lunch servic es for the 2009 2010 school year. Of the 45 participating sites, each was given an identification number and classified into one of three Title 1 eligibility groupings. Groupings were determined by the district reported percentage of students who qualified for free and reduced lunches. Schools that reported a less than 40% n = 133 ). Schools that reported a 40% student n = 157 ). Title 1 schools that reported a 75% and above student population that qualified for free/reduced lunches and received federal funding as well as district recognition o n = 106 ). Identification per site is presented in Appendix AC along with the number of responding participants by site. Descriptive statistics were analyzed to determine normality of the distribution. Participant s from schools that had populations of 40% and less eligible for free/reduced lunches reported the highest TSES scores (n= 223, M=89.23) while teachers from Title 1 schools with 75% of their student population
122 eligible for free/reduced lunches reported the lowest Total TSES scores ( n = 113, M=87.66). Participants from Eligible 0 school sites also reported the highest Student Engagement efficacy scores ( n= 58, M=27.38). Highest averages for both subcategories, Instructional Strategies and Classroom Managemen t, were submitted by Eligible 1 participants (M=31.19, 30.79 respectively). However, the lowest recorded TSES score of 55 (out of 108) was reported by a participant at an Eligbile1 school. Respondents from Eligible 2 schools reported the lowest efficacy sc ores for each of the categories except Student Engagement (see Table 16 ). Table 16 Mean TSES Scores by Site Location/Eligibility Total TSES SCORE SD Student Engagement SD Instructional Strategies SD Classroom Management SD Eligible 0 ( n = 117 29. 70 % ) 89.23 + 11.25 27.38 + 4.94 31.13 3.98 30.72 4.20 Eligible 1 ( n = 14 7 41.6 2 % ) 88.66 10.27 26.67 4.37 31.19 + 4.20 30.79 + 3.61 Eligible 2 ( n = 113 28.68% ) 87.66 11.11 26.72 4.73 30.86 3.71 30.09 4.13 Note: + indicates the highest mean score reported for that scale (Total, Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, or Classroom Management). Highest possible value for Total was 108 while subcategories were 36 points each. Along with simple descriptive statistics, tests for normality were also run. Kurtosis and skewness for each section within the Title 1 Eligible category was reviewed ( s ee Appendix X ). Prior to multiple regression analysis of the
123 demographic variables of age, sex, ethnicity, and site location, categorical independent variables were assigned dummy variables or codes as required by SAS v 9.2 (Cody & Smith, 1997) that equate to either zero (0) or one (1). All zeros within the coding were considered a member of the referent group to which each other independent variable w as compared. Participant s less than 30 years old were selected as the referent Age variable group. Each of the other Age categories were assigned the dummy code one. The selection of the Less than 30 years old as the referent group was done based on research that suggested younge r teachers were more efficacious than older teachers (see Boe et al., 1997, Howerton, 2006). The independent variable Sex was dummy coded with females as the referent group, or zero, while males received the dummy code of one. The female participants recei ved the referent assignment as they did in other studies (see Boe et al., 1997, Tournaki et al, 2009). Research reviewed for this study reported ethnicity as artificially dichotomous; white and non white (see Capa, 2005 and Tournaki et al., 2009). As such the data here was coded with white being the referent group and non white as the dummy variable group of one. School location or site Title 1 non eligibility was assigned based on the research of Capa (2005) where student participants were either non fre e reduced lunch recipients or free/reduced lunch recipients. Therefore, the referent group for this multiple regression was non Title 1 eligible sites (Eligible 0) while Eligible 1 and Eligible 2 sites were assigned the dummy variable one. In all, five eth nicities, three ag e brackets, one gender, and two Title 1 eligibility were assigned a dummy variable of 1 while the intercept referent group represented White females under the age of 30 who work at non Title 1 eligible work sites.
124 All data were analyzed by regression analysis to determine how much the variance of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale score reported by participants using the regressors age, sex, ethnicity, and site location attributed to participant dividual regression analyses were also run using each of the subscales, Student Engagement, Instructional Strategies, and Classroom Management as criterion variable s to identify how much of the variance would be attributed to the predictor variables (age, sex, ethnicity, or site location). Results indicated regression analysis for TSES Total scales was a rather poor fit (R 2 = .061 ES=.0652 ) but the relationship was significant (F 11, 382 =2.26, p < .05). Meaning, on average, 6% of the TSES score variance was attributed to the independent variables of age, sex, ethnicity, and site location (See Table 17 ). Meaning, 94% of the variance in TSES Total and subscale scores were contributed by factors other than those investigated in the current study. Upon review, three variables were identified as statistically significant each within the Ethnic category: Hispanic participants ( p = .0125), Multiracial participants ( 10.03, p=.0183 ) and Black participants ( p=.0292 ). Meaning, with other variables held constant, on average Hispanics scored 4.4 points higher than white participants, black participants scored 3.9 points higher tha n white participants, and Multiracial participants scored 10.03 points less than the white participants. However, to determ ine how the 6% explained variance was explained by a particular variable, only one predictor variable while holding all the others constant, a squared semi partial correlat ion analysis was run (see Table 17 ). The uniqueness of these indices revealed that
125 o f the three variables identified as statistically significant, each only accounted for less than 1.6% (or .04272) of the R 2 6%. The remaining 0.01848 of the TSES Total scor e. Lending support to the findings reported here that on average, African American and Hispanic teachers are more likely than White teachers to report higher self efficacy scores and by extension might be more likely to survive in the profession (Adams, 1996) g One noteworthy fact is that the number of White participants totaled 290 that was nearly 74% of the total population while the Black participants had the next highest responding ethnicity with 46 participants or 11.6%.of the responses. This example illuminates the 61% response difference between these two ethnic groups and suggests the ethnicity with fewer participants rates scored higher than those from the participant group with a larger number of responses. By extension, this also suggests participants from each ethnicity other than the referent White group might have reported hi gher scores than participants from the White ethnic group.
126 Table 17 TSES Total Multiple Regression Parameter Estimates Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Model 1 2945.901 267.81 2.26* Error 382 45185 18.286 Corrected 393 48131 Total Root MSE 10.87593 R 2 0612 Dependent Mean 88.69797 Adj. R 2 0342 Coeff Var 12.26175 Variable DF Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > |t| Squared Semi partial Corr Type II Intercept 1 87.71679 2.30603 38.04 <.0001 Eligible 1 1 0.34864 1.62502 0.21 0.8302 0.00011312 Eligible 2 1 1.64615 1.32063 1.25 0.2133 0.00382 Male 1 0.62241 1.74395 0.36 0.7214 0.00031304 Between 30 and 39 1 0.75562 1.81528 0.42 0.6775 .00042583 Between 40 and 49 1 0.29372 1.92801 0.15 0.8790 0.00005704 Over 50 1 3.31481 1.83531 1.81 0.0717 0.00802 Indian 1 2.67458 5.58236 0.48 0.6321 0.00056413 Black 1 3.93440 1.79686 2.19 0.0292 0.01178 Asian 1 3.17852 4.95992 0.64 0.5220 0.00101 Multiracial 1 10.02915 3.99739 2.51 0.0125 0.01547 Hispanic 1 4.40134 1.85734 2.37 0.0183 0.01380 Note: Intercept or referent group included white females under the age of 30 from non Title 1 schools. *p<.05
127 Multiple regression analysis conducted on TSES subscale Student Engagement data revealed a slightly better fit (R 2 =.069 ES=.0743 ) yet the regression remained weak with only 6.9 of the variance attributed to the regressor variables (F 11 382 = 2.58, p< .05). On average, student engagement scores were 2.4 points higher for B lack participants than those of W hite participants (see Table 17 ). Hispanic participants reported an average of 1.9 points higher on this subscale than W hite participants. Participants who reported a Multiracial ethnic background scored an average of 4.6 points less than W hite participants on this subscale (See Table 18 ). Squared semi partial correlation examination recognized that the variables identified as statistically significant u nder multiple regression analysis accounted for 5.4% that of the nearly 7% explained variance. More specifically, on average 2.3% of the variance was explained by Black participants while Multiracial and Hispanic participants explained for a little more or less than 1.5% respectively of the remaining 3.09. %. In total, all but 2.29% of the variance was attributable to the independent variables of ethnicity, specificall y Black, Hispanic, Multiracial and White.
128 Table 18 TSES Student Engagement Multiple Regression Parameter Estimates Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Model 11 626.896 56.99055 2.58* Error 382 8430.17 22.06851 Corrected 393 9057.066 Total Root MSE 4.69771 R 2 .0692 Dependent Mean 27.08629 Adj. R 2 .0424 Coeff Var 17.34351 Variable DF Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > |t| Squared Semi partial Corr Type II Intercept 1 27.12605 0.99606 27.23 <.0001 Eligible 1 1 0.63801 0.70191 0.91 0.3639 0.00201 Eligible 2 1 0.81708 0.57043 1.43 0.1528 0.00500 Male 1 0.18264 0.75328 0.24 0.8086 0.00014324 Between 30 and 39 1 0.52395 0.78408 0.67 0.5044 0.00109 Between 40 and 49 1 0.16167 0.83278 0.19 0.8462 0.00009183 Over 50 1 0.62062 0.79274 0.78 0.4342 0.00149 Indian 1 0.70122 2.41123 0.29 0.7714 0.00020607 Black 1 2.39985 0.77613 3.09 0.0021 0.02330 Asian 1 0.99397 2.14237 0.46 0.6429 0.00052450 Multiracial 1 4.57985 1.72662 2.65 0.0083 0.01714 Hispanic 1 1.91124 0.80225 2.38 0.0177 0.01383 Note: Intercept or referent group included white females under the age of 30 from non Title 1 schools. *p<.05 :
129 Regression analysis conducted on the dependent variable Instructional Strategies continued the misfit trend (R 2 = .049 ES= .0515 ) however, the relationship was not a statistically significant one (F 11, 382 = 1.79, p >.05). Nearly 5% of the variance was accounted for when holding the independent variables constant (see Table 19 ) however, 93% of the variance in scores for this subscale r emained unexplained. Further analysis revealed participants over 50 years old scored on average, 1.6 points higher than part icipants under 30. Squared semi partial correlation examination identified that on average, only 1.4% of R 2 was attributed to being over 50 years old (see Table 18 ). The remaining 3.47% of the explained variance was distributed among the independent variables.
130 Table 19 TSE S Instructional Strategies Multiple Regression Parameter Estimates Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Model 1 2945.902 267.809 2.26* Error 382 45185 18.286 Corrected 393 48131 Total Root MSE 10.876 R 2 .0612 Dependent Mean 88.698 Adj. R 2 .0342 Coeff Var 12.262 Variable DF Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > |t| Squared Semi partial Corr Type II Intercept 1 30.33732 0.82434 36.80 <.0001 Eligible 1 1 0.16288 0.58090 0.28 0.7793 0.00019573 Eligible 2 1 0.06556 0.47208 0.14 0.8896 0.00004801 Male 1 0.06315 0.62341 0.10 0.9194 0.00002555 Between 30 and 39 1 0.45168 0.64891 0.70 0.4868 0.00121 Between 40 and 49 1 0.07465 0.68920 0.11 0.9138 0.00002920 Over 50 1 1.57202 0.65607 2.40 0.0170 0.01429 Indian 1 1.67332 1.99552 0.84 0.4023 0.00175 Black 1 0.40241 0.64232 0.63 0.5314 0.00097713 Asian 1 2.29154 1.77302 1.29 0.197 0.00416 Multiracial 1 1.83284 1.42894 1.28 0.2004 0.00410 Hispanic 1 1.24846 0.66394 1.88 0.0608 0.00880 Note: Intercept or referent group included white females under the age of 30 from non Title 1 schools. *p<.05.
131 Regression analysis of the final TSES subscale, Classroom Management, was not a good fit either (R 2 =.0622 ES=.0663 ) even though the relationship between the predictor variables, (Age, Sex, Ethnicity, and Site Location) and the criterion variable (the Classroom Management subscale), was statistically significant (F 11, 382 = 2.30, p <.05). With other variables held constant, Black par ticipants averaged 1.9 points higher on the Classroom Management subscale than White participants (see Table 20 ) However, Multiracial participants reported an av erage of 3.6 points lower than W hite participants for this subscale. Additional examination of regression scores revealed that with all other variables held constant, B lack participants on average accounted for 2% of the variance and participants with Multiracial ethnicity accounted for n early 1.5% variance (see Table 19 ). The remaining 1.3% of the 6.2% explained variance is unexplained. Moreover, of the variance explained by the regressor participant age, sex, ethnicity, and school location, 93.8% of the variance remains unexplained.
132 Table 20 TSES Classroom Management Multiple Regression Parameter Estimates Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Model 11 626.896 56.991 2.58* Error 382 8430.17 22.069 Corrected 393 9057.07 Total Root MSE 4.6977 R 2 .0692 Dependent Mean 27.086 Adj. R 2 .0424 Coeff Var 17.343 Variable DF Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > |t| Squared Semi partial Corr Type II Intercept 1 30.25342 0.85359 35.44 <.0001 Eligible 1 1 0.12649 0.60151 0.21 0.8336 0.00010856 Eligible 2 1 0.76351 0.48884 1.56 0.1191 0.00599 Male 1 0.50292 0.64554 0.78 0.4364 0.00149 Between 30 and 39 1 0.82789 0.67194 1.23 0.2187 0.00373 Between 40 and 49 1 0.20669 0.71367 0.29 0.7723 0.00020592 Over 50 1 1.12218 0.67935 1.65 0.0994 0.00670 Indian 1 0.30004 2.06635 0.15 0.8846 0.00005176 Black 1 1.93696 0.66512 2.91 0.0038 0.02082 Asian 1 0.10700 1.83595 0.06 0.9536 0.00000834 Multiracial 1 3.61646 1.47966 2.44 0.0150 0.01467 Hispanic 1 1.24164 0.68751 1.81 0.0717 0.00801 Note Intercept or referent group included white females under the age of 30 from non Title 1 schools. *p<.05.
133 Multiple regression analysis revealed that, with the exception of Instructional Strategies, each scale had statistically significant variables identified within them but none of the variables provided a good linear fit. Meaning while holding each predictor variable constant, none of them were able to account for more than 7% of the variance for each scale. Factors that Influence Teaching and Teacher Feedback This portion contains teacher narrative responses to two questions: 1) Which of these factors positively influence your ability to teach, and 2) Which of these factors negatively influences your ability to teach. Factors available for selection included experience, sch ool administration, your age, formal education, school culture, class size, student motivation, parent involvement, staff development/continuing education, available materials, planning time, and other teachers. Directions for both questions asked the resp ins. All all possible units of measure. Data presented below was quantita tive and qualitative in nature. It was therefore, conflated where possible and grouped into chunks of meaningful information. Positive Factors Responses in Table 21 identified positive factors participants perceived as impacting their ability to teach. The table also separates the frequency of each factor by sex and Title 1 status. The category of factors participants believed positively affecting their ability to teach that had the highest frequency was n =335). While the category with the low est reported positively
134 n and as the most positively impactful factor that influenced their teaching. ( n =40 and 25 respectively). When broken into Title 1 Eligibility categories by sex, males n = 16) while Eligible 1 male n = 16) to have impacted teaching most positi ) as the most impactful category on their teaching. When sectioned out into Title 1 eligibility eligibility 0, 1, or 2 status ( n= 173, 41, 81 respectively). The least frequently identified factor ( n =148 ) for males and females was n= 16, 132 respectively). When broken into Title 1 Eligibility groupings by sex, males from all three school types, Eligible 0 Elig ible 1, and Eligible 2, n = 8, 3, 5 respectively) as the least positively impacting ) as the least impactful positive factor on their teaching. When sectio ned out into School Title 1 eligibility females from Eligible 0 schools paralleled males at n = 178) while female participants from impact ful of the teaching ( n= 22, 27)
135 Table 21 Positive Factors Influencing Ability Positive Factors ELIGIBLE Males Females Grand Total % Total % Experience 0 15 173 + 188 56. 1 1 9 + 41 + 50 14.9 2 16 + 81 + 97 28.9 Total 40 + 295 + 335 + 85.0 School Administration 0 14 116 130 59.4 1 5 30 35 16.0 2 10 44 54 24.7 Total 29 190 219 55.6 Your Age 0 8 78 86 581. 1 3 24 27 18.2 2 5 30 35 23.6 Total 16 132 148 3 7.6 School Culture 0 14 128 142 61.2 1 9 + 34 43 18.5 2 7 40 47 20.3 Total 30 202 232 58.9 Forma l Education 0 10 98 108 53.5 1 7 28 35 17.3 2 11 48 59 29.2 Total 28 174 202 51.3 Class Size 0 15 129 144 59.2 1 6 34 40 16.4 2 10 49 59 24.3 Total 31 212 243 61.7 Student Motivation 0 11 131 142 62.2 1 7 33 40 17.5 2 7 39 46 20.2 Total 25 203 228 57.9 Parent Involvement 0 10 93 103 62.8 1 6 22 28 17.1 2 6 27 33 20.1 Total 22 142 164 41.6 Staff Development 0 9 126 135 55.3 1 6 32 38 15.6
136 Positive Factors ELIGIBLE Males Females Grand Total % Total % 2 13 58 71 29.1 Total 28 216 244 61.9 Other Teachers 0 16 + 147 163 61.3 1 7 36 43 16.2 2 9 51 60 29.7 Total 32 234 266 67.5 Available Materials 0 13 131 144 59 1 5 35 40 16.3 2 9 51 60 24.6 Total 27 217 244 61.9 Planning Time 0 14 134 148 61.2 1 5 35 40 16.5 2 8 46 54 22.3 Total 27 215 242 61.4 Note + indicates highest frequency in that category. Though n = 335, the total percentage is not equal to 100% as participants were able to identify more than one item The Other Positive Factors Twenty seven of the 394 participants entered narrative information into banded int o seven categories, responses were ultimately conflated into five overarching categories: personal characteristics, personal experience, knowing your students, support structures, pedagogical freedom, and research. Provided in Table 22 and discussed below are examples of each category. See Appendix AH for participant responses.
137 Table 22 Theme Number of Comments Personal Characteristics 10 Comments Personal Experiences 7 Comments Knowing Students 3 Comments Support Structures 3 Comments Research 2 Comments Pedagogical Freedom 2 Comments Total 27 comments Personal characteristics. Originally two separate categories classified as desire, and personal characteristics, this one category was created because the descriptors or response entries provided by participants detailed the personal enthus iasm responses that fit into this category. Personal experience. Also originating as two categories and later merged into one, this category housed responses that involve parental experience and previous experience
138 influencing their teaching ability. Similarly, two participants (one as an extension of a parent comment and one as a separate respondent) originally grouped under previous experience grouped into this larger pe rsonal experience s category. Knowing students. As its title suggests, this category focused on supplied Only one of the three submissions was part of a larger response. Support structure. This category included the mention of family, mentors, and other school faculty as support and positive factors influencing teaching ability. All three partic ipants mentioned only the factor that fit in this category and Research. Two responses involved the mention of research. Each respondent simply wrote the word as its entry and neither entry was par t of a larger submission. Pedagogical freedom. Two participants fit into this category based upon o Negative Factors Responses identified in Table 23 represented negative factors perceived by participants as impacting th eir ability to teach. The table also separates the frequency of ea ch factor by sex and school Title 1 status. Nearly 200 of the 394
139 participants (50.76%) identified Student Motivation as a primary factor that participants from each of the Title n = 8, 1, 13 for males at Eligible 0, 1, 2 schools respectively and n =94,29, 50 for females at Eligible 0, 1, 2 respectively. Negative fact ors identified the least often by each sex for each school site grouping are listed in Table 23 In terms of the least frequently selected negative factors participants viewed to impact their teaching ability, responses across Title I status sites by males and females were minuscule. At Non Title 1eligible school sites, the solitary response representing males n n n n n =1) as the negat ive factor s that im pact teaching ability. Similarly only one male participant from Eligible 1 school sites reported were less varying in their perception; n =1 ) was the less frequent factor selected by participants while again only one male participant from Eligible 2 sites reported n n =1) as the negative factors impacting teaching ability. Females were better represented a t Eligible 0 school sites. L ike their male counterparts, females n =7) as the negative factor that impacted their ability to instruct This frequency of 7 was almost as high as the 8 females from eligible 0 schools who reported with the least frequency to impact their teaching ability. Only one female participant from Eligible 1 sites agreed n =1) as a
140 negative factor. Females respondents from Eligible 2 sites agreed that n =2) was a negative factor. Table 23 Negative Factors Influencing Ability Negative Factors ELIGIBLE Male Female Grand Total % Total % Experience 0 1 9 10 47.6 1 1 3 4 19 2 2 5 7 33.3 Total 4 17 21 53.3 School Administration 0 1 42 43 49.4 1 2 16 18 20.6 2 6 20 26 29.8 Total 9 78 87 27.4 Your Age 0 1 9 10 55.6 1 2 2 4 22.2 2 1 3 4 22.2 Total 4 14 18 45.7 School Culture 0 2 45 47 43.1 1 2 15 17 15.6 2 8 37 45 42.3 Total 12 97 109 27.6 Formal Education 0 1 1 20 1 1 1 20 2 1 2 3 60 Total 2 3 5 .01 Class Size 0 5 72 77 51.7 1 2 25 27 18.1 2 11 34 45 30.2 Total 18 131 149 37.8 Student Motivation 0 8 + 94 + 102 51.3 1 5 + 29 + 34 17.1
141 Negative Factors ELIGIBLE Male Female Grand Total % Total % 2 13 + 50 + 63 31.6 Total 26 173 199 + 50.5 Parent Involvement 0 6 80 86 52.4 1 3 23 26 17.7 2 8 44 52 31.7 Total 17 147 164 41.6 Staff Development 0 2 7 9 50.0 1 1 1 2 11.1 2 2 5 7 38.9 Total 5 13 18 4 .5 7 Other Teachers 0 3 34 37 51.3 1 3 10 13 18.1 2 4 18 22 30.1 Total 10 62 72 18.3 Available Materials 0 4 56 60 50 1 3 24 27 22.3 2 6 26 32 26.9 Total 13 106 119 30.2 Planning Time 0 6 74 80 54.7 1 6 26 32 21.9 2 5 29 34 23.2 Total 17 129 146 37.1 Note + indicates high est frequency in that category. Though n = 199, the total percentage is not equal to 100% as participants were able to identify more than one item The Other Negative Factors in portion allowed participants to list more than one written factor on a line as well as duplicate previously ch ecked off factors from a preceding survey question. In total, sixty seven
142 categories using a Constant Comparative (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2005) method of reading and re reading the na rratives in search for evolving themes (see Appendix AI for participant responses). Identified themes were color coded and each new theme was added as it emerged. Once the 11 categories were identified, they were then conflated into three overarching level s: State/District Level, School Level, and Class Level (See Table 24 ). The first of the three tiered levels was the S tate/ D istrict L evel which comprised of narratives fitting into a curriculum, policy, or assessment category. The second category, S chool L e vel, was the largest including subcategories such as technology, planning time, meetings, school culture, professional development and paperwork. The final level was that of C lass Level which included parent involvement and student topics.
143 Table 24 The Tiered Level Theme Frequency District/State District/State Policies 9 Curriculum 7 Assessments 3 School Planning Time 12 Paperwork 10 Meetings 6 School Culture 4 Technology 3 Professional Development 2 Class Parent Involvement 7 Students 4 Total 67 District/State level. Of the seven responses included within the Curriculum category of this tier, two participants mentioned that a curriculum was being used; two entries specifically mentioned the school Language Arts curriculum by name. Three respondents revealed the use of testing and/or grades as negative factors in teaching. District and state
144 level p olicies was the top this tier of themed responses. This tier included nine responses that included but was not limited to the pairing of inexperienced teachers of exceptional student education with content teachers, miscommunication and conflicting information from district level perso nnel to school level staff as well as inconsistencies between district rhetoric and school level support of teachers and administration, and a perceived lack of support from district personnel to not discip line students Finally in this S tate/ D istrict Lev el was the concern of were provided by participants as negative factors. School level The S chool L evel tier held the greatest variety of responses conflated into themes as well as the most frequencies of s uch themes. Meaning, teacher responses in this tier were vast in assortment as well as frequency. For example, a written in by respondents with 12 participants citing it as a negative factor impacting teacher ability. This supports the findings of Slaton, Atwood, Shake, and Hales (2006) who reported the amount of time afforded to experienced teachers for planning, collaboration, and knowledge building was insufficient for effectiveness. Added second most frequently to this category was, teacher s pondents identified negative factor s that impacted their ability. The two in their frequency by respondents. The largest in terms of response subcategories, this sec tion of S chool L evel negative factors provided an
145 immense area of information to better help colleges of education and alternative certification programs better prepare teachers in the workforce and for the workforce Class level. Class level is a subcategory of the larger category which focuses on factors that Reading and Language Arts influence their ability to teach and include two themes, parent involvement and students. Therefore, factors added by respondents that fit into this category influence teachers at a classroom level more than at a school, district or state often demonst rate to teachers. For example, not respectful or s ins for the subcategory involved student factors in some c
146 S ummary of Findings Table 25 Summary of Significant Findings by Research Question Research Question Total TSES Student Engagement Instructional Strategies Classroom Management 1 Preparation Type X 5 3, 0 3, 1 3 2 Content Area n/s n/s n/s n/s 3 Experience Anywhere X X X 5 2 5 2 5 2 Experience Current Site X X X 4 2, 4 1 4 2, 4 1 4 2, 4 1 4 Demographic Factors Age X Over 50 years old Sex Ethnicity X X X Hispanic Black Multiracial Hispanic Black Multiracial Hispanic Black Multiracial Site Location Note X indicates scale where statistically significant differences were revealed. Variables are identified by label for ethnicity and age categories. Research questions 1 3 have Independent variable identification numbers that correspond to appropriate identif ication labels discussed within the chapter.
147 Summary of Research Findings Illustrated in Table 25 are the findings from this study. Research Q uestion O ne: H ow are differences in teacher s elf e fficacy scores related to teacher preparation ? A nalysis suggested participants from each of the preparation groups did not significantly differ in their perceptions of ability in total efficacy or on two of the three subscales and categories; the exception was Classroom Management. Highest mean efficacy scores were reported from respondents with 5 th year to name a few). Classroom Management data analysis suggested participants with graduate and advanced graduate education preparation as well as participants with Full Time Master of Art in teaching preparation reported higher n, Part Time Master of Art in teaching, Alternative Certification Program, or Educator Preparation Institute preparation. Analysis of findings in response to R esearch Q uestion T wo: H ow are differences in teacher s elf e fficacy scores relate d to the content area taught? N o significant difference in the Total or subcategory scores were identified by participants and thus not identified by analysis. Therefore, t he null hypothesis failed to be rejected. Findings for R esearch Q uestion T hree : T o what extent are differences in teacher s elf e fficacy related to years of teaching experience ?
148 Findings were reported in two experience levels. Average t eaching experience A nywhere efficacy scores increased with the number of years of experience. Statist ically significant differences were identified between teachers with more than 10 years experience and those with between 1 and 3 years experience in each of the scales except Student Engagement. Current school teaching experience average efficacy scores a lso increased with number of years of experience at a school site until the 10 th year mark. Teachers with more than 10 years experience at a site had lower average scores than those with between 3 and 7 years site experience. Research Q uestion F our : T o wha t extent can differences in teacher s elf e ethnicity, and d) school location? Findings suggested on average, participants O ver 50 were the most efficacious overall as well as i n their perception of ability to deliver Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management techniques. Participants between 40 and 49 were on average the most efficacious in their perceptions of Student Engagement. The research hypothesis that older teache rs would be more efficacious than younger teachers would hold true. Males however were not more efficacious than females as hypothesized. Analysis of teacher self reported ethnicity identified non whites, Hispanic participants in particular, as having the highest average teaching efficacy score for each scale with the exception of one. Asian participants reported the highest average Instructional Strategies scores of the ethnicity categories. The null hypothesis was therefore rejected. Teacher efficacy was hypothesized to be greater at schools with non Title 1 eligibility. This
149 research hypothesis held true for two of the four scales. Non Title 1 teachers were more efficacious overall as well as with Student Engagement However, teachers at Title 1 eligible but not receiving school s were more efficacious in their ability to deliver Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management than their Title 1 eligible and receiving teaching peers As a result, t he null hypothesis that no d ifference existed was rejected. Positive and negative factors were reported based on collected quantitative information as well as narratives. As collective categories, the top e Experience ( n= 335), and Other Teachers ( n= 266) while the most negative n= 199) followed by Parent Involvement ( n= 164). Participants who elected to write in an option narrative of perce ived positive and negative factors, identified personal characteristics and personal experience as having the most impact as positive factors. Meanwhile, participants also labeled planning time and paperwork as the two most negatively impacting factors tha t influenced their teach ing abilities.
150 Chapter Five Discussion Within this chapter, a discussion of the major findings for each research question is presented. Specific attention is paid to unanticipated findings and implications of the findings for te acher education programs and school districts. A discussion regarding suggestions for increased staff development opportunities as well as clinical internships is presented along with r eco mmendations for future research. This chapter culminates with a brie f summary of the study. Purpose of the Study Research on the effectiveness of various teacher certification routes report mixed findings. Some suggest traditional teacher certification programs produce more effective and higher rated teacher s (Darling Hammond & Cobb, 1996). Other reports suggest there is no difference, in perceived effectiveness by supervisors, between traditionally trained and alternatively certified teacher s (Zeichner & Schulte, 2001). Additionally, research suggests that te acher efficacy beliefs form during early years of a new situation and are resist ant to change (Long & Moore, 2008; Tschannen Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy 1998). It was the own efficacy, or capabilities. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceived level of self efficacy of middle school Language Arts and Reading teachers as well as the areas and factors that may account for
151 variations in these teache rs reported efficacy levels. Factors included number of years of teaching experience, pedagogical or teaching program preparation, and teacher demographics such as age, sex, ethnicity and school location It was hypothesized that the three variables, numb er of years teaching, the type of teacher preparation program, content area, and teacher demographics would be associated with teacher self efficacy. Research Questions The following research questions were addressed: 1. How are differences in Teacher Sel f Efficacy scores related to teacher preparation? For example, did t have higher self efficacy than the alternative certification p rogram teachers ? 2. How are differences in Teacher Self Efficacy scores related to the conten t area taught? For example, did Language Arts teachers have a higher level of efficacy compared to that of a Reading teacher with comparable variables? 3. To what extent are differences in Teacher Self Efficacy related to years of teaching experience? Fo r example, are eighteenth efficacious compared to first and fourth year teachers? 4. To what extent can differences in Teacher Self Efficacy be associated and d) schoo l location ? Limitations of the Study Every study has limitations. The first limitation i nvolve d reliance on teacher self reported data. Another limitation was the use of on line polling as
152 participants may not have been comfortable with technology or may have worried that the results were not confidential and therefore may not have answered truthfully. For this study all Language Arts and R eading middle school teachers from a large school district of over 25,000 teac hers were invited to participate ; just under 400 ( n =394) provided useable information. As a result, the 63.1% return rate yielded findings for research questions specific to the middle school context and yielded data transferable to teacher education and preparation programs as well as school d istricts across the nation. A limitation based upon the notion that participants might have responded by over or underestimating their efficacy (Pajares, 2002) as it related to Current site teaching experience is a possibility Specifically, a possible cei ling effect may have been a factor as the findings that teachers who teach between 7 and 10 years at one school site were more efficacious than teachers in general who teach between 7 and 10 years anywhere by 2 points Side by side box plots (see Appendice s L S ) reveal that as a whole, participants responded with hi gher efficacy scores for their Current site years than their A nywhere years in each category except those who had taught at one site for 10 or more years Given that self efficacy is context specific and often decreases as the time of the performance draws near (Bandura, 1997; Ross, Cousins, Gadalla, & Hannay, 1999), t his is a possible limitation to the study as it suggests the measure used may have had low construct validity when requesting t he efficacy beliefs of participants beyond the current or future. Or it might mean that when participants think about current experiences the variables or factors that influence the
153 participants thinking are different than when they think about their over all experiences; site level factors such as school culture, might play a larger role thus confounding the findings. An additional limitation possibility is that Language Arts and Reading teachers who responded may not have been able to discern the differe nce between there content. That is to say, many teachers believe themselves to be teachers of Reading although their district assigned course was not specifically Reading As a result, the number of teachers who identified they taught both Language Arts an d Reading courses, may have in fact only taught Language Arts for the school district. Therefore, the findings of this study with specific regards to Research Question Two, may have been confounded. Finally, the true preparation of a teacher may not have been captured due to the uniqueness of each program. In other words the 24 teachers who listed held or were pursuing graduate and advanced graduate degrees yet did not fit into one of the pre assigned options. For example, a participant who held a Master not listed as a preparation option Discussion of the Findings As discussed in Chapter Thr ee, a return of 400 or more surveys was necessary for this study to maintain adequate power. To determine if exclusion of the respondents with missing demographic data would bias the results of the study, a two tailed independent t test was run to compare the samples from the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scores (TSES) for the 29 participants who did not provide Teacher Demographics Questionnaire information against the 394
154 participants who did complete both portions of the survey. The results of the independen t two tailed t tests indicated no significant differences between the two groups; therefore, the exclusion of the 29 cases with missing demographic information would not systematically bias the findings ( see Table 3). Research Question One: How are Differe nces in Teacher Self Efficacy Scores Related to Teacher Preparation? How are differences in teacher s elf e fficacy scores related to teacher preparation? For example, did teachers who graduated from traditional preparation programs report higher efficacy levels than alternatively certified teachers? The purpose of this question was to investigate possible differences among teachers who were prepared in traditional university programs, those who university, those earning alternative certification through school district sessions, and those who studied in Educator Preparation programs. The importance of this question was to determine what programs help teachers feel most efficacious. Findings from this study mirror some of the results of Tournaki et al. (2009), in that ANOVA results indicated no sign ificant interaction between teacher preparation types and overall TS ES Total, subscale Student Engagement, or Instructional Strategies scores. However, a portion of the findings reported by Tournaki et al., are contradicted as ANOVA investigation in this study did reveal statistically significant differences in the means between participant groups for the Classroom Management subscale ( F = 2.42 p =.026) Such differences suggested
15 5 the difference i n scores by preparation method was significant resulting in post hoc analysis to identify where the differences lay. Tukey post hoc analysis revealed the mean differences between preparation types for the Class room Management subscale were specific to two graduate level and one undergraduate level preparation options. More specifically, Educator Preparation Institute (EPI) graduates compared with both graduates from MAT full time programs, Bachelor in Education programs and participants from programs were statistically different with Full time MAT and Other participants scoring an average of 4 points higher than EPI graduates. Although, no significant difference was detected between graduate and undergrad uate levels beyond the EPI preparation level, the Teacher As described in Chapter Two the TSES has been positively related to both the RAND (r = 0.18 and .53, p<0.01) and Gibson and Dembo Teacher Efficacy Scale s (TES) which measures P ersonal T eaching E fficacy ( PTE, r = 0.64, p<0.01) and General sense of teaching efficacy (GTE, r = 0.16, p<0.01) (Tschannen Moran et al., 1998) Personal Teachin g Efficacy corresponds to efficacy while General sense of teaching efficacy corresponds to Coladarci, 1992) Having established the research based support for the TES compared to the TSES and the reliability rates associated with each the findings from this study suggest that teacher preparation does in fact influence perceptions of efficacy as compared to Tournaki et al (2009) reported that the teacher preparation pathway was in no
156 A possible reason significant differences were indentified was the fact that Educator Preparation Institutes are considered an alternate route option pro vided by an accredited community college, university or private college for college graduates who were not education majors and therefore lacked the pedagogical and content knowledge necessary for success The purpose of EPIs is to provide competency based instruction designed to prepare would be educators for the successful passing of state certification exams (FLDOE, 2010) However, EPI programs do not necessarily include a supervised internship as many of the participants were hired as temporary teachers who must complete the coursework and receive state certifica tion to remain teaching. EPI participants from the current study reported the lowest mean TSES scores across scales, which suggest ed participants who studied in EPI programs believed themselves a s not prepared for teaching. The other teacher participants ( n = 288 ) who received their preparation through rigorous coursework and supervised internships or those who were prepared through on the job mentoring such as ACP participants ( n = 91) were more ef ficacious in their teaching abilities. Indeed, unlike the Tournaki et al (2009) study, participants from this study who had experi enced additional course work that included field based or clinical increased efficacy toward their profession over those who did not (particularly EPI participants).
157 Teacher pr eparation programs have received criticism in the past decade for having not adequately prepared educators (see McFadden & Sheerer, 2006). However, Darling Hammond et al. (2002) reported that graduates from teacher education programs held significantly hig her feelings of preparedness than respondents who became teachers through alternative certification routes. The current study supports Darling Hammond and colleagues findings as a statistically significant difference between the means of participants fro m traditional bachelors, MAT full time and graduates from other forms of university based education methods of preparation compared to EPI prepared teachers were reported. An interesting teacher preparation method finding was that significant differences among the participant groups of MAT, traditional bachelors, and were identified against EPI participants only in the Classroom Management subscale. The research hypothesis for this question was formed on the knowledge that traditional teacher educa tion undergraduates as well as MAT graduate students generally have the pedagogical and methodological courses as well as supervised clinical experiences proving mastery experiences to better prepare them for the classroom (Flores et al., 2004). Moreover, ACP program s (and MAT students) participants generally enter the teaching workforce as a second career, thus bringing corporate, life, and world, experiences resulting in a potentially higher personal efficacy level (Flores et al., 2004) One reason Classr oom Management scores of EPI preparation program participants might have significantly differed from those of
158 preparation program participants may have been due to a lack of clinical training or field experiences or coursework similar in rigor Another possible explanation for the significant differences in Classroom Management subscale scores is suggested by Maloy, Gagne, and Verock In their study middle grade teacher candidates in their firs t year, attempted expansion of their teaching methods as the year progressed. This is to say, that if this survey were given at the end of the school year, the reported efficacy levels for EPI participants might have increased. An extension of that thought is the thought that of the participants who self reported as having attained their certification by way of ACP, none explicitly identified themselves as current ACP participants their certification option providing a clarifier suggesting they were a current ACP participant Still too, Woolfolk Hoy and Burke Spero (2005 ) reported that alternative certification teachers TSES efficacy scores decreased after being in the classroom for a year compared t o their TSES efficacy scores prior to going into the classroom. EPIs are an alternative certification option and the possibility that the realities of classroom challenges (Brown & Nagel, 2004) affected their teaching self efficacy scores. Meaning, the EPI teacher participants may have been interested in the subjects and content that they were prepared to teach but the realities of the classroom challenged them to a significant degree. Indeed, the Classroom Management subscale scores were significantly diff erent from those participants who had classroom clinical experiences prior to teaching. Darling Hammond, Hudson and Kirby (1989) reported that teachers from short term
159 programs (such as alternative certification summer institutes) were less satisfied with their preparation and thereby less committed to remaining in the profession. Teaching efficacy affords teachers the abil ity to persevere when things do no t go smoothly or when goals are not met. It provides them with the necessary confidence to be resilie nt and help their students aspire to greatness as well as increase their own aspirations as teachers (Tschannen Moran & Hoy, 2001). Give n that EPI programs are an alternative to traditional pathways into education, and for teachers who are off during summer s the option to take several courses over the summer terms is inviting, it may not be as surprising that participants from EPI programs reported the lowes t mean teaching efficacy score. It is crucial for EPI participants and graduates to receive the site a nd district level and support necessary to increase their efficacy levels and remain in the school districts that invest the time and effor t to help them persevere and stay in the profession. Research Question Two : How are Differences in T eacher S elf E fficacy S cores R elated to the C ontent A rea T aught? The purpose of this question was to investigate how the new scripted SpringBoard curriculum Language Arts programs may sense of efficacy. Crocco and Costigan claim that ( 2007 ) t he use of scripted curricula, especially within the fields of literacy and mathematics, has increased across the nation as states and school districts f Within the context of scripted curricula are those that provide teachers with prescriptive instruction that delineates every aspect of the lesson, including the words a teacher should use, the order in which the lesson should follow, and in
160 some cases, even the gestures a teacher should use as well as any ancillary materials (Crocco & Costigan, 2007). Districts across the nation have turned to scripted curriculums to assist in meeting the guidelines established by NCLB Reading First Initiative (Milosovic, 2007). Though some scripted curr icula are supported by scientific research (Westat, 2008 ) and uniformity in classrooms might help schools achieve high educational standards, the diverse cultural and will meet the interests and needs of all students (Ede, 2006). Indeed, the scientific research that supports the use of the SpringBoard curricula used by the school district in this study was supplied by the executive summary published by a research company but mu ltiple attempts by this researcher to retrieve the original published report received no response Ultimately this eskilling Costigan, 2007), or removal of decisions teachers made based on content and experi ential knowledge, reduced their feelings of professionalism toward their work and diminished the personal connections often experienced by more student centered curriculum (Crocco & Costigan, 2007). would be derived t hrough the use of commercial instructional materials. An i ndirect concern worthy of consideration too is teachers using a script might feel the need for their content knowledge and skill w as lessened. This deskilling or removing the need for a qualified educator, teaching rather than reading from a scripted curriculum may have impacted participants report ed efficacy scores. individual ized student attention, and classroom based decision making (Crocco &
161 Costigan). This is to say, efficacy scores of participants might have been lowered locus of control (Rotte r, 1954). However, as discussed in a later section, the Language Arts curriculum was in its third year of implementation at the time of this study and as such, participants might have become accustomed to using it. Of the 39 4 participants of the current s tudy 139 identified responsibility for instruction that covered both Reading and Language Arts The research question was designed to focus on Reading or Language Arts not both and responsibility for both content areas of instruction confounded the findi ngs This means if the content areas examined could had been more exclusively taught and thus divided, an interaction may have been identified. The mean differences in scores from Language Arts participants compared with Reading participants were slight ( 8 8.78 and 89.50 respectively ) Reading teachers reported higher efficacy scores compared with Language Arts teachers in each of the scales with the exception of Instructional Strategies. Several factors why higher efficacy scores reported by Reading teachers in each subscale except Instructional Strategies could be explained One possible explanation is the use of the scripted Language Arts curriculum (Springboard) which was adopted in the 2006 2007 school year The curriculum provides strategies for each lesson as well as offering a variety of other options in the event that a teacher does not feel comfortable with the strategy accompanying the lesson. Moreover, though teachers could not be forced to attend trainings, every secondary Language Arts te acher in the district was encouraged, and paid, to attend the 6 hour staff development training designed
162 to help transition teachers as they learned to use the new scri pted curriculum. Trainings were offered at various times of the day and weekends, over s ummer, as well as ongoing through the school year. In some cases, if a teacher were identified as struggling, that teacher would be encouraged to attend the trainings more than once. In addition to trainings, the school district monitored teacher progress and adherence to the curriculum by way of administration and district level led classroom walk through obser vation s on a monthly basis ( A. Wuckovich, Personal Communication followed the presupposition theory needed for successful implementation in which teachers develop themselves by putting new insights into practice, utilize reflection and collaborate with other professionals offered by Ge ijsel, Sleegers, van den Berg, and Kelchtermans ( 2001). Hare an d Heap (2001) reported the cost of losing a teacher ranges from between 25 35% of a teacher s annual salary plus benefits. Applying the pay example from Chapter One here, each teacher was paid roughly $20.00 an hour (for 6 hours) to attend the Language Art s curriculum training and there were 175 specific to Language Arts the total would be a little over $26,000 for staff development. That did not account for teachers who teach multiple content areas such as exceptional student education teachers, Reading t eachers responsible for some Language Arts curriculum Language Arts teachers other content area specialists and administrators who needed to be familiarized with the new curriculum yet who were also paid to attend the trainings Also not taken into accou nt in this $26,000 example were teachers encouraged to take the training
163 multiple times to assist with adherence to the scope and sequence provided during the first training With a district providing such support, financial incentive, and follow up expect ation, a lack of statistical difference between th e content areas was a surprise. One possible conclusion as to why no significant differences were detected suggests teachers were comfortable with the scripted curriculum to support a shift in expectation. Language Arts program being used (S. Gillis Personal Communications, February, 14, 2010). Such response to the curriculum adoption suggested this teacher who had been teaching Language Arts for all three of the adoption years was not fazed by the curriculum and was possibly secure with her own teaching practices T hough analysis three years into the Language Arts curriculum implementation prod uced no statistical difference between any of the three content categories ( Reading Language Arts and both Reading and Language Arts ) participants who were responsible for instruction of both content subjects reported the lowest Total TSES scores (88.47). This might be explained by the requirements associated with being responsible for multiple curriculums (Crocco & Costigan, 2007) Indeed, 146 participants out of 394 identified p lanning time a s a negative factor that influenced their teaching abil ity while seven participants wrote in planning time as a negative factor in the qualitative portion of the TDQ. In three instances, teachers were so emphatic that planning time was a negative factor that they selected it as a factor and wrote it as a comme nt. As it relates to teaching efficacy, Chan, Lau, Nie, Lim, & Hogan, (2008) discuss ed teacher
164 preparation having moved beyond preparing teacher candidates for the classroom and now encompassing professional functionalities such as resource utilization and working with peers In fact, participants from the current study who were responsible for multiple content might also have had resources exponentially larger than participants who taught only one content area ; recourses for which the participants were acc ountable to utilize and implement Still too, the teachers with multiple contents might be torn between multiple meetings and planning times because they had more content for which they were held accountable ( K. DeLeo, Personal Communication, January, 2010 ). For example, a teacher responsible for Language Arts and Reading might have to select only one conte nt area to attend for a monthly Reading or Language Arts meeting. Given that efficacy is context specific (Bandura, 1997) it is no wonder that efficacy levels of teachers who taught both curriculums were lower than those who taught only one content area ; they had to potentially be prepared to work with not only multiple contents, students, and parents but also resources, pee rs and administration. Quantitatively, content area taught could not inextricably explain a efficacy score. However, qualitative narratives provided by participants were helpful in shedding l of posi tive and negative factors related to curriculum and content area. Seven participants wrote in the narrative that use of curriculum w as a negative factor influ encing their ability to teach. S ome of these riculum being used and two participants specifically Language Arts curriculum by name Still too, no
165 write in comments alluded to or specifically mentioned district Reading programs. These sentiments of dislike for a co nfini ng curriculum mirror sentiments reported by Crocco and Costigan (2007). T he fact that only seven responses reported curriculum or SB as a factor was surprising. The research hypothesis that Reading teachers would be more efficacious than Language Arts teachers was grounded not only in the findings of Capa (2005) who reported that n ovice Reading teachers believed they were more prepared to teach than teachers with more years experience as well as the first ints regarding the rigidity of SB coupled with classroom walk through observations by site administration and district personnel who expected to see student artifacts as well as conformity to the program protocol However, like Crocco and Costigan (2007), it is acknowledged that although respondents from the current study might have reported what they thought was appropriate but not necessarily what they thought the data supplied by the self reports of teachers on the TSES is reliable and therefore not in question. Research Question Three : To W hat E xtent are D ifferences in T eacher S elf E fficacy R elated to Ye ars of T eaching E xperience? The importance of this question can inform districts and universities about the need to develop methods to sustain teachers as well as help discover when staff development may need to address teachers at different levels of experience. Findings from this study are contradictive as well as supportive of the existing research in the fie ld. First, the findings here support the research of others suggesting teachers with more than three years experience have higher
166 efficacy levels than those with less than three years experie nce (Tschannen Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007 ) and overall teaching e xperience (or for this study, teaching A nywhere experience) has a positive effect on teaching efficacy (see Flores et al., 2004; Tournaki et al., 2009). Nevertheless, multiple comparison analyses in this study detected significant differences in the effica cy scores of teachers with less than one year experience and those with between 3 and 7 years experience which is unsubstantiated by the findings of others (see Glickman &Tamashiro, 1998). Specifically, Glickman and Tamashiro reported higher efficacy score s for fifth year teachers over first year teachers but no statistical difference between the two groups was identified. The fifth year teachers from the Glickman and Tamashiro study would have fallen into the three to seven year group for this study on the data from this study identified a statistically significant and higher difference in mean scores from the three to seven year group compared with first year teachers Tschannen Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) recommended research be conducted that focuses on the efficacy beliefs of teachers in response to a change in leadership at the school The current study did not focus on leadership or school culture, the notion of a new administration altering the perception an experienced teacher holds of his/her own teaching efficacy was of interest. Ingersoll (2001) discusses the notion of migration from one site to another and that such movement could be viewed as a change in lea dersh ip As such, one reason that teaching efficacy levels in this study did not follow the pattern of increasing over time across all time categories of teaching experience is perhaps due to a change in leadership.
167 Th e findings of this study add to the existent body of research by distinguishing that the teaching efficacy increased over time at one site location only up to a certain point and then it decreased. Findings reported in this study revealed participants who taught at the same site for between three and 10 years reported increasing levels of teaching efficacy over the time periods but efficacy scores decreased once the 10 year mark was reached. Though t his supports the statements of Brown and Nagel (2004) that a natural ebb and flow in the manag ing of student conduct occurs in the classroom and it tends to improve over time t he downward trend of efficacy after ten years at a site could relate to a number of possible ideas. One idea as to why teaching efficacy scores for teachers at the 10 years and more mark decreased based on years experince at a Current Site is perhaps that teachers begin to see their loci of control as shifting to external and not internal. just suggests that at least this teacher saw that she had no control in the way she had to deliver her curriculum instruction. Perhaps, she subsequently believe s she has little impact over the outcomes of student success In this case it was the curriclum however; a shift in loci of control can be due to any number of reasons For example, a change in school leader ship or in creased accountability demands (Ingersoll, 2003, Pajares, 2002). Additional thoughts as to why teaching scores decreased for teachers who remained at one school site for 10 or more years are the notions of teacher burn out and apathy Still too, teachers with 10 or more years experience might have had a tendency to be more cogniza nt of the practices with which they have
168 success and those with which they do not The result of experienced teachers being contextual ly awareness of their own to abilities and limiations, their responses on the TSES might have been more accurate which in turn suggests organizational factors beyond the independent variables of this study were involved such as collective efficacy or school attitude Finally, a n explanation of such efficacy shifts over time is connected with determinism as discussed by Pajares (2002) is about behavior and the theory supposes that behavior inf luences, and is influenced by the personal factors one maintains as well as the environment. As it pertains to the current study, if teaching efficacy shifts over the year, it would do so because of the participants environment (how one perceives their environment) and though their personal factors have not really changed, the understanding participants ha ve of their role as educator does (Maloy, et al. 2009). In other words, familiarity with the situation seems to Experience was identified by the most participants as having a positive influence on their ability to teach ( n =335 ). In some cases, as revealed in the narrative portion of the TDQ measure, the experience came from being a parent, and in other instances, the participant s identified with their students, that the participants had experienced something similar in their own lives with that of the students. This m ean s that r elate ability in the form of experience was a major cont ributor toward participant teaching efficacy. Participants who commented they had school aged students also believed they were more efficacious.
169 Still too, the notion o f transforming experiences ( Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1997) might influence the teaching efficacy of participants. Transforming which forever alters their efficacy level. Pajares u ses the example of a doctoral s study and the confidence in ability that ensu es is dramatic enough to transform efficacy perception in areas unrelated to education. Such events might have included perhaps competing in a marathon, or some efficacy perception. Research Question Four : To W hat E xtent D an D ifferences in T eacher S elf E fficacy B e A ssociated with P D emographic F actors a) A ge, b) S ex, c) E thn icity, and d) S chool L ocation? Age Ingersoll (2009) reported the median age of teachers across the age in this study reported an average TSES score of 87.80 ( SD=11.58) while participants between 30 and 39 reported the lowest total efficacy score (M= 82.24 SD= 10.81) W ith the exception of Student Engagement m ean scores were highest in each of the scales for participants over the age of 50 Multiple regression analysis i dentif ied a statistically significant difference in scores for participants who reported their age as older than 50 on the Instructional Strategies subscale than participants under the age of 30 with those over 50 years of age scoring an average of 1.5 poi nts higher Still too, t he reported efficacy scores of those under 30 year old teacher participants were quite similar to those reported by teacher participants from the
170 40 49 year old category (M=87.29 and 87.80; SD=10.81 and 11.58 respectively) H owever teacher participants between the ages of 30 and 39 reported the lowest average of Total TSES scores with the smallest standard deviation (M= 82.24, SD= 9.97) Thi s suggests that although they reported lower efficacy scores, the 30 39 year old teachers we re less deviating in their scores across the age group than their older (or younger counterparts). Further consideration suggests that the 30 39 year old participants might have been more secure in their knowledge of what they can, cannot, will, or will no t accomplish by way of teaching efficacy. Sex Regression analysis revealed that although males on average scored .6 points lower than females on the TSES, sex was not a statistically significant factor in the prediction of efficacy scores. This mirrors Tournaki et al. (2009) who studied three pathways teachers embarked upon to earn certification and the level of efficacy teacher candidates from each pathway exhibited. In their study, males reported lower efficacy scores than females. Data from this study also reported the mean TSES score of females ranged from 1.05 to .04 points higher that that of males. Thus, the hypothesis that males would score higher was incorrect. Furthermore, Tuettemann and Punch (1994) reported female efficacy and sense of achieve ment significantly lessened the stress females reported while m ales did not experience any stress relief with increased efficacy. An extension of this thought might be that an increase in teaching efficacy does not affect stress levels; rather participant sex might produce an unidentified effect on efficacy.
171 A further extension suggests that perception of ability ( Bandura, 1993) a teacher holds about him/her self may place greater stress on themselves to perform or achieve Bandura suggests ability is view ed in two lights (perspectives); as an acquirable skill and as an inherent capacity. Individuals who view ability as an acquirable skill seek the growth that provides knowledge acquisition; and view mista kes as learning opportunities. Those who view abilit y as an inherent capacity fear failure and view performance as diagnostic; mistakes pronounce areas where deficiency lie. This notion of ability may have ha d an affect on the participants; perhaps their loci of control were impacted by ability being percei ved as acquired or inherent. Ethnicity The link between culture and self efficacy remains unclear (Pajares, 2002). This study sought to help explain the differences in teacher efficacy scores by ethnicity in a hope to clarify said variances. However, r egr ession analysis revealed that only 6.1% of the scores could be attributed to ethnicity. This means that ethnicity not explaining the different efficacy scores among participants. H ispanic participants reported the highest averaged efficacy scores for the Total and Student Engagement scales, Asian participants reported the highest averaged score for the Instructional Strategies subscale and Black participants reported the highest ave rage efficacy scores for the Classroom Management subscale The research hypothesis that White participants would report higher efficacy scores compared to non White participants also proved false. Point of fact, three of the non White ethnicity categories reported higher mean efficacy scores than White participants.
172 School l ocation Of the 45 participating sites, each was given an identification number and classified into one of three Title 1 eligibility groupings. Groupings were determined by the district reported percentage of students who qualified for free and reduced lunches. Schools with a student population of less 1 ineligible schools ( n = 21). Schools that reported a student population of 40% to n =8). Title 1 schools that reported a student population of 75% and above who qualified for free/reduced lunches and received federal funding as well as distric t recognition n = 16). Identification per site is presented in Appendix AC along with the number of responding participants by site. F indings reported participant Total TSES mean scores were highest for non Title 1, or Eligible 0, teachers This support s the alternative hypothesis presented in C hapter Three that teachers from non Title 1 schools will be more efficacious than teachers at Title 1 schools M ultiple regression analysis report ed the teachers at Title 1 eligible (Eligible 1 sites ) but not receiving funds on average would score .35 points l ower and teachers at Title 1 (Eligible 2) receiving schools would score on average 1.65 lower points on the TSES when compared with teachers from non Title 1 eligible schools but the effect was not statistically significant These findings of higher efficacy for non title 1 teachers mirror the studies conducted by others (see Crocco & Costigan, 2007). It was surprising that the Eligible 2 schools did not score significa ntly different in efficacy expectations giv en the challenges faculty experience in such situations. However, this school district has provided extensive staff development (with extra
173 pay) for teachers who work at the Eligible 2 schools for the past few yea rs. These Other p ositive and n egative f actors Four of the respondents who cited excessive paperwork suggesting the meeti ngs produced an increase in paperwork output/requirements. In this time of strict accountability measures (Crocco Costigan, 2007) this is an oft cited complaint of teachers that is believed to interfere with enjoyment of teaching and time to plan. Of the f actors provided on the TDQ, Student Motivation was the most selected, by both female and males teachers, across all three site types (Eligible 0, 1, and 2) as influencing ability to teach ( n= 102, 34, 63 respectively ) To support this finding, the subscale Student Engagement was the only measure across research questions to not have a statistically significant difference in means among any of the variables or categories. This suggests that teachers across site locations, levels of experience, type of preparation program completed, as well as content areas agree, Student Motivation or a lack thereof With questions such as show low interest in school motivate students and a lack of statistically significant difference between Student Engagement subscale mean scores suggests the participants were confident in their perceived ability to motivate or engage their students. (see B andura, 1971 ; Pajares, 1996). However, by identifying Student Motivation as a negative factor the participants were not confident that their efficacy would be
174 enough t o influence their students. It is unclear from the findings though if participants citing student motivation as a problem mean they were blaming the students for lack of learning rather than taking responsibility for their own lack of efficacy to change st rategies that would result in increasing student motivation Did they perceive this as an outside locus of control that they could not affect? Another finding of interest was that p lanning time was the fourth most frequently selected negative factor that influence d ( n =146) in the selection portion on the TDQ but it was the most frequently writ ten in factor ( n =12) I nitial figures of planning time as the fourth most identified factor appear contradictive to the findings (see G illes, McCart Cramer, & Hwang, 200 1 ) who reported planning time as the most frequent ly identified concern that impacted mastery level teachers However, the percentages of responses from Giles et al were 24% suggests approximately 30 or the n= 123 total comments in that study is comparable to 37% or approximately 35 people from the146 participants who commented. This is relevant given the number of responses are comparable, that planning time (and time in general) was listed by the Gil l es et al participa nts as a priority while participants from this study found a lack of planning time as influencing ability just not the key element.
175 Table 26 Positive Negative Experience 335 21 School Administration 219 87 Your Age 148 18 School Culture 232 109 Formal Education 202 5 Class Size 243 149 Student Motivation 228 199 Parent Involvement 164 164 Staff Development 244 18 Other Teachers 266 72 Available Materials 244 119 Planning Time 242 146 Table 26 illustrates 228 teachers reported Student Motivation was a positive influence on their ability to teach, while 199 teacher stated the opposite. This could mean that teachers are blaming the student. That is to say, the teachers might not be changing their instructiona l strategies to meet the diverse needs of their student population and thus the teachers might be placing blame on students for an apparent lack of motivation. Of course, with only 28 teachers separating those who believed Student Motivation to be positive and those who perceived it as negative, the point the Student Motivation plays an impactful role
176 A point of interest revealed in Table 26 involved the identification of the positive and negative factors for Parent Involvement. This factor was perceived by the same number of teacher participants as both positive and negative ( n = 164). Although 42% of teacher participants commented that Parent Involvement influenced their ability to teach, only seven participants included parent involvement as a negative factor for both the checked write in portion of the qu estionnaire. The comments offered by the seven participants ranged from a lack of [Parent] support to non involvement. The findings suggest that though Parent Involvement was important to the teacher participants overall, it was more so when perceived as a factor that negatively influenced the teacher participants teaching than as a positive factor. Finally, 202 teacher participants reported Formal Education as a positive influence on teaching ability while five participants reported it as a negative influ ence on ability. This suggests that the participants believed the experiences gleaned from formal education prepared them for the realities of the classroom in a way that positively impacted efficacy exponentially more than those who reported it otherwise. This is further supported by the 335 teachers who reported Experience was a positive factor on their ability to teach compared with only 21 who reported Experience as negative. Clearly, participant experience s in which ever fashion reported, was perceive d as positive more than negative. Implications I mplications based on findings from this study are presented below Specifically, this section begins with a discussion of the overarching implications to teacher preparation programs and colleges of educati on with focused
177 emphasis on Mastery Experiences and Enrichment Coursework. The section then lays out implications for School Districts with specific attention to Staff Development, Peer Mentoring, and Teacher Retention. This Implications section culminates with the implications for Research Methodology. Brissie, et al., self efficacy can be predictive of teacher attrition. Indeed they recorded that teacher reported self efficacy decreased as the number of years teaching experience also decreased. Keigher (2010) reported in 2008 2009 school year just over 52,000 (9%) teachers leave the profession within the first 3 years. One way to thwart teacher attrition i D uring professional development teacher change is encouraged but follow up with classroom application is needed (Guskey, 1986) and during the follow up and application is where ongoing g uidance and support from peers and administration can support teacher confidence as new ideas are attempted and remain crucial for younger teachers (Guskey, 1987; Turley, Powers, & Nakai, 2006 ). For example, site based specific professional development des igned around the needs of the teachers not by district level resource teachers but by the Literacy, Science, and Math coaches trained in content and professional development techniques who would provide opportunities for cross experienced discussion of ide as and extensions of support that are site or content specific. Follow up might take the shape of meeting with a peer, keeping dialogue journals where expression of ideas and thoughts are not lost once they are uttered.
178 For Teacher Preparation Programs M astery e xperiences Bandura (1977) speaks of successful performance more powerful than examples su pplied by others. The most salient positive factor ( n =335) Investigation of the data revealed the independent variable also had the highest response frequency for each ethnic category. As stated in Chapter Two Bandura (1997) reported mastery experience is the most powerful way to increase self efficacy for through experience a person believes in his or her ability. Therefore, teachers who reported experience as a positi ve factor were suggesting that having lived or experienced an event similar to or exactly like that of the one they were now experiencing was a direct influence over their perceived ability or efficacy. With the subscale Classroom Management as the only me asure the preparation variable identified as significant raises the question: are secondary teacher s adequately prepared to handle classroom management. With can you establish a classroom management system with education program participants such as MAT full time, and traditional students compared with EPI prepared respondents revealed ? The answer may lie within the structure of the programs. EPI programs are unique and relatively new. The goal of Educator Preparation Institutes is to provide competency based
179 instruction to help graduates with a baccalaureate degree outside of education to take the state t eacher c ertification exams p rofessional p reparation and e ducation competences sections ( FLDOE, 2010) Educator Preparation Institute programs have over arching guidelines established by the state and are designed to offer instruction in conjunction with other ACPs. EPIs also offer individual classes as part of professional development for established teachers, substitute teachers, and paraprofessionals. That being said, t he largest and most explanatory aspect of these programs that might explain the significantly low efficacy scores of participants was a lack of consistency among programs, specifically addressing the potential that in some cases, EPI teacher participants may not have had a clinical or field experience prior to teaching in a classroom. T hough the missions of the EPI programs were consistent, the requirement of a clinical or field based practicum or internship was not. Some institutions required two semesters of working with mentor teachers in the field while the teacher candidate absorbed teaching responsibilities. Other institutions required only observation of K 12 classrooms with no expectation of teacher candidates absorbing teaching responsibilities. Such variations might explain the significant dif ference in mean scores from three categories that involved university level education specific experiences by way of coursework and supervised ongoing internships where gradual release of teaching responsibility is assumed. Moreover, two of the three categ ories, MAT full time students, and traditional baccalaureate programs offer clinical field based experiences. As evidence in this study, mastery experiences made a difference regardless of participant age. Indeed, Schunk (1983) reported that
180 children who o bserved their own progress during training developed higher senses of efficacy. Field based experiences or internships provide teacher candidates with real life experiences in which they are better able to observe their own training (Simmons, 2005). The EP I program and by extension short term teacher preparation programs that do not offer supervised internships, are providing a disservice to teachers by having them experience as they go (Darling Hammond & Young s 2002). It is therefore recommended that in t he absence of student teaching, a mentor be established for ACP and other teachers without classroom experience as they embark on their teaching journey (Simmons, 2005). More specifically, s chool districts that employ EPI graduates need to pair these EPI g raduates with veteran teachers. Given that teaching efficacy increased with anywhere experience and that current site experience efficacy peaked with between seven and ten years, it is advised that EPI teachers are provided mentoring from teachers with at least seven years teaching experiences. Through mastery and vicarious experience with a mentor, the EPI teacher participant might experience transforming experiences to increase teaching efficacy. For School Districts Staff development and enrichment cours ework. Teaching efficacy is situation specific and contextually based (Bandura, 1997) and with sustained and repetitive opportunities for growth and experience, teacher efficacy increases (Carleton et al, 2008). Under investigation in this study were the v arious types of teacher preparation methods and if those methods and programs produced more
181 efficacious teachers than other programs or methods. Statistical differences were detected between those who reported EPI preparation programs compared with those w ho reported a traditional bachelor, full time Masters of Arts in Teaching, included teacher participants who held masters or above some form of education background with the exception of one who held a Juris Doctorate degree. Perhaps the characteristics of masters and beyond are the cause of difference? Long and Moore (2008) discuss the notion of teacher interest and that students who believe their teachers employ a wide range of pedagogical content knowledge suggests the teacher is interested in not only the content but also interested in them as students and therefore have knowledge of how to teach effectively. Long and Moore go on to say that interest em powers learning it if is sustained by knowledge. Teacher s who invest effort in an d outside of the classroom into the subject they teach are interested in the subject. Therefore, teachers with advanced and terminal degrees in education are interested in the subject area(s) and are thereby more efficacious as evidenced with higher mean th categories (see Table 5). The use of staff development was listed by 62% of participants as a positive factor contributing to their reported teaching efficacy. Mastery experience is the most powerful way to influence self efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and the continual building of knowledge bases and strategy repertoires through staff development and university based course work may increase the teaching efficacy levels of teachers. Tschannen Moran, et al., (1998) believed the
182 formation of efficacy to be cyclical in which teachers gained information by way of experience, processed it, and then applied it in appl icable situations based on internal or external factors they believed would most influence ability. Carleton et al, (2008) reported teacher efficacy is recurring; teachers hone the skills necessary to achieve success. Teachers with higher efficacy persever e and take responsibility for the learning that takes place in their classrooms. However, once most graduates attain their teaching degrees, Tschannen Moran et al., (1998) discuss the notion of efficacy developing early on in a career and that that early d eveloped sense of efficacy is resistant to change. Results from this study support these lines of thinking as participants who reported efficacy scores based on the total teaching number of years teaching averaged higher for teachers with 10 or more years teaching experience; as Bandura (1997) says, (p. 82) must occur. Feedback can be in the form of discussions with peers, reflection with self, teacher research in ac tion, and student achievement. Change is difficult, gradual, and teachers must have encouragement, support, and feedback until evidence of success is witnessed and experienced by the teacher (Guskey, 1984). This was the case with Language Arts conten t area teachers. The school district provided ongoing, multiple opportunities for teachers to become familiar with and experience the new curriculum. Teachers were paid to participate in professional development that was ongoing; it was offered in multiple stages, classroom walk through and observations were ongoing by both site level administrators and district level personnel. Teachers who struggled were encouraged to persevere and attend more training
183 opportunities. The company that created the curriculu m utilized a teacher fueled online community where questions could be posted with other teachers responding. Chat rooms were created for more immediate teacher feedback. Perhaps these were some of the reasons teacher efficacy levels were not significantly lower than those of Reading teachers. For Language Arts faculty across the middle grades level, staff development was more than a workshop for a day; it became a way of teaching, a way of life. For some teachers, staff development and university education courses are seen as irrelevant (Simmons, 2005). In fact, 18 participants from the current study identified Staff Development as a factor that negatively influenced their ability to teach. More specifically, the nine teachers were from Eligible 0 or non Title 1 eligible schools, and seven teachers from Title 1 eligible and funding recipient schools reported staff development as a factor that negatively influenced their ability to teach. Though the total number of 18 was far from the highest categor y number of 199 for Student Motivation, it was a surprise that more teachers from Title 1 non eligible populations viewed staff development more negative than participants from Title 1 receiving schools. Especially given that Title 1 schools traditionally have a greater concentration of focused objectives and trainings that must be met. Reasons why this might have occurred are varied. For examples, the professional development trainings Eligible 0 teachers received were perceived as negative because perhaps they were not aligned with helping the teacher learn new and applicable techniques (Guskey, 198 7 ). Or perhaps, teachers from the Eligible 1 and 2 schools simply elected to not fill out that portion of the TDQ. O r still too, perhaps teachers from non Title 1
184 eligible schools did not view staff development as necessary because they hold higher levels of teaching efficacy An additional way alternative certification programs and university based teacher education programs can provide enrichment and developmen t opportunities that might increase the teaching efficacy of in service teachers is through the use of online staff development and enrichment coursework. Ilmer, Elliott, Snyder, Nahan, and Colombo (2005) found participants gleaned added benefits from elec tronic communities such as flexibility and control which allowed for the participants to meet the demands of teaching full time, coursework, and personal obligations. However, a s school districts and university alternative certification pathways employ onl ine coursework as a way to fulfill certification the need to connect with other teachers at both the peer and mentor level remains vital for (younger) teachers (Morton, et al., 2006). This notion is supp orted by o ver 67 % of participants ( n =266) who identified as a positively influencing factor of their teaching. Other T eachers coupled with the two qualitative write in options of ducational R esearch suggest s teachers seek out side resources they believe will assist them with their needs ( Simmons 2005) Peer mentoring. The use of other teachers was identified by 266 participants as a positive factor that influenced their ability to teach. Ross (1992) reported use of a coach in creased teacher efficacy, as measured by the Dembo scale ( Dembo & Gibson, 1985) and resulted in greater student success. Indeed one participant supplied a narrative stating the site Reading or literacy coach was a positive influence on that
185 teachers specifically, this can be extended to learning opportunities. The second most powerful form of efficacy learning was vicarious experience (Bandura, 1997). Meaning, learning by watching, or experiencing through another such as by way of staff development, professional learning communities where teachers learn from other teachers; the exchange of ideas and information supports the notion that efficacy scores increase when learning opportunities do (Smylie, 1988). It is important to note, vicarious experience such as staff development opportunities should not be limited to veteran teachers sharing with younger ones because, as illustrated with t his study, the most efficacious teacher participants were not always the most senior veterans. Rather, participants in this study with the highest efficacy scores were at times the most veteran while other times they were the participants who held between 7 and 10 years experience. School districts and universities using mentoring methods would be preparing their teachers to remain in the profession with sustained, continual/ongoing opportunities for the sharing of ideas specifically from veteran teachers with neophytes. Teacher retention effi cacy influence the types of anticipatory scenarios they constr uct and 118). This means, the perception one holds for personal ability (i.e. efficacy) in effect, dictates the scenarios they rehearse. Bandura reported that participants who viewed ability as an acquirable skill continued to set challenging goals in the presence of difficult standards. Their efficacy levels remained
186 viewed ability as an inherent capacity plummete d as they encountered problems. Given that attrition is more likely from teachers who have lower senses of teaching efficacy th en an extension of this line of thinking suggests that teachers who view ability diagnostically, focusing on the displays of proficiency without expanding their knowledge and competencies are more l ikely to leave the profession. Schunk (1983) reported that ability feedback had a strong effect on self efficacy and performance. Ability or positive feedback based on peer or supervisor observed ability, such as, personnel as they gain experience. Creating learning env ironments for teachers comparisons, and highlight self comparison of progress and personal accomplishments are well suited for building a sense of efficacy that promotes achievemen In such situations mentors and administrators would acknowledge changes the mentee has made to solve problems and better arrange for student learning. Teacher experiences. Research indicates teachers beyond the age of 50 are mo re likely to leave the profession than teachers between 30 and 50 years old (Boe et al., 1997; Ingersoll, 1996). School districts that invest vast amounts (see Content example from above) of resources by way of funding and other resources for teachers to r emain long term must identify what helps these teacher be more efficacious than their younger counterparts. Otherwise, the money to keep these older teachers is misappropriated. Perhaps encouraging states or school districts to offer incentive for teachers to change schools every 8 to 9 years might increase efficacy levels given the efficacy score findings
187 reported here of participants based on current site experience was highest Self perceived learning efficacy affects how much eff ort is invested in given activities and what levels of performance are attained. (Bandura, 1982, 128).This suggests that a teacher experiencing high efficacy can be expected to contribute the most. For Research Methodologies In three of the four research questions, ANOVA scores for the TSES measure did not reveal significant scores between the independent variables. However, once the subscales were assessed as dependent variables along with the Total TSES scores, ANOVA analysi s did identify significant differences in the mean scores of participants based on independent variables. If the subscales had not been analyzed, a type II error would have occurred: that is no findings would have been reported when in fact they should hav e. Another implication for methodology is that respondents were invited to be participants based on a district generated report. More specifically, teachers were invited to participant in the study if they taught one or both of the subjects, Reading or La nguage Arts It should be noted that, eight participants indicated they were not responsible for any instruction of content. There are many reasons as to why a participant might not be assigned one or both of the content subject areas under investigation. The reasons are vast and speculative such as the person was part of a teaching unit lost due to student/teacher ratios and was assigned another subject to teach, or the teacher was in a co teach situation for which they were not the instructor of record. H owever, none of the eight participants provided narrative or contact information providing for follow up
188 information. The data was therefore run on good faith that the eight participants were Reading and or Language Arts teachers. Recommendations School D istricts As mentioned above, it is imperative for school districts that wish to be fiscally responsible by employing teachers who are confident, efficacious, and committed to the profession. By providing staff developments that are site, context, and conte nt specific, by personnel who have the appropriate content and pedagogical preparation and training, the need for teacher incentives for enrichment coursework is necessary for teachers to increase their interest base which is sustained by knowledge ((Long & Moore, 2008). These opportunities for intellectual and content knowledge growth provide a way for teachers who are less efficacious to be in the presence of veteran teachers who tend to be more efficacious. It is through the vicarious experiences of dial ogue discussion and mastery experiences offered at point of need, which will best help the teachers increase their efficacy It is also recommended that school districts assign veteran teachers to younger teachers in an attempt to increase efficacy levels o f the younger teachers as well as promote positive feedback for the veteran teacher. Finally, teacher incentives to move school sites every seven to ten years is recommended as a way to better help teachers maintain fresh expectations. Teacher Preparation Programs The need for mastery experiences by way of clinical or field based opportunities was evidenced as crucial in this study and is therefore
189 recommended to all teacher preparation programs. The needs for systematic and rigorous expectations are neede d at all levels of teacher preparation programs, from Research One institutions to EPI programs. As noted in above and in Chapter Two, the lack of systematic rigor across and among EPI programs is a concern for not only the teachers who are in the field da ily with low efficacy but also the students who must be on the learning end of that teacher. Is a teacher who believes he or she does not have any control over the outcome and Unanswered Questions This study expanded the research investigating teacher efficacy and preparation method, experience, and the use of demographic factors to explain differences in self reporte d teacher efficacy scores however, the four research questions addressed also presente d new questions as well as left some unanswered. For example, although other researchers also did not identify significant differences between traditional and alternative certification routes (see Flores, et al., 2004), why was a significant difference in means not detected between the 5 th of Arts teachers and respondents? The MAT 5 th Year group also had a low participation n umber (n=11) like that of the EPI participant base. If a teacher is secure and confident in what he/she holds and control s, then that teacher is more likely to stay in the profession. How do we keep teachers if they are not confident ? H ow do we as a professorate and as professional development staffs assist teacher s to become more confident in their abilities ? Given that the mastery experiences a teacher holds will afford that
190 teacher with the confidence to continue preparation programs more must be done to ensure the characteristics of the school at which teachers are hired hold characteristics simil ar to schools the teacher has experience and interest That is internships with the anticipated student populations and school climates during field experiences with whom and in wh ich they anticipate working (Boyd et al., 2006, Zeichner, 1996). Pajares (2002) addresses the cognitive processes involved in the agents proactively engaged in their own development and can make things R eciprocal determinism purports that efficacious teachers create an environment in which they believe they will succeed. However, identification of the influences as well as the degree those influ ences might have on teacher efficacy remained unanswered. Efficacy, as noted in its increase over time, is not a stable trait. Some research states that efficacy is formed in formative years and is difficult to change (Tschannen Moran et al, 1998). The re search presented here suggests that it evolves, growing or diminishing as events occur. If this were not the case, then as teachers reached the 10 year mark at a site, their efficacy would either have remained the same or increased. Instead, the means scor es decreased across scale measures following 10 the 10 year mark. This suggests factors other than experience play an influential part in the efficacy of teachers. Some of those factors could be changes in district expectations (such as related to acceptab le curriculum and
191 high stakes testing), changing influence of technology on teaching and student attention or even a lack of change in expectation by administration thus no longer challenging a teacher to excel. Still too, teachers with high self reported teaching efficacy scores could simply see no reason to change and thus perceive themselves to be effective (Chong, Klassen, Huan, Wong, & Kates, 2010). The cultural composition of the United States is continually changing while the teaching force remains a majority, 85% White (Keigher, 2010). While the majority (73.6%) of the participant base for this study were White Americans, as such, the effects of individual variables (such as preparation type, teaching experience, or participant sex) identified in th is study may not be present in other cultures or represented in research ( Chan, et al., 2008 ). Final Thoughts T his work opened with a quote from the National Commission on stating, When all is said and done, if students are to be well taught, it will be done by knowledgeable and well ( 1996, p. 10 ). The data presented Institute do not maintai n the teaching self efficacy compared to that of their teaching peers. Indeed, teachers who claimed EPIs as their preparation program reported the lowest mean efficacy scores across four measures. More specifically, the mean teaching self efficacy scores o f EPI graduates in the category of classroom management were significantly different from those of tra ditional preparation programs, M aster s of Arts in teaching programs, as well as teachers who held graduate and advanced graduate level degrees and
192 course work. This data therefore suggests that graduates from EPI programs are not well prepared for the realities of teaching at the middle school level. Given that teaching efficacy is well documents as being influential on student achievement (see Capa, 2005; and Vasquez, 2008), as well as teacher attrition, (see Ingersoll, 2003) and teacher commitment (Chan et al, 2008), it is essential that EPI programs focus on the potential impact low efficacious teachers might have on student achievement as well as the fis cal responsibility of recouping the incurred costs of maintaining a highly qualified workforce. The independent demographic variables involved in this study did not account for more than just over 6% of the variance in teacher efficacy scores. Meaning, d emographic factors such as participant age, sex, site Title 1 eligibility and ethnicity, which were anticipated as influential were, in fact, not. Therefore, additional research in the areas beyond demographics should be considered. This means, with 97% o f the difference in scores unexplained by demographic variables used in the current study, the identification of the other variables that might influence teaching efficacy should be investigated. For example, Boe et al., (1997) reported the number of depen dent children the teacher had at home as a predictive factor in teacher efficacy while Ingersoll (2001) and others (See Crocco & Costigan, 2007) suggested the school organizational factors influence teacher efficacy. Investigation which focuses on teache longer than 10 years at a site is warranted to inform the resea rch field. For the current study identified that teaching efficacy levels of participants at a site over time increased to a certain point. This suggests that school level factors may
193 This is to say, teaching efficacy increased at a school site as the number of years experience did but only to the 10 year mark at which time they dropped quickly to scores comparable to a 1 to 3 year site teacher. This was not the case of participants teaching efficacy levels over time who had experience at various sties; teacher efficacy for accu mulated experience did not diminish over time but rather increased. This contradicts the suggestions by Tschannen Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy (1998) that views of self efficacy seem to appear early in the career and is difficult to change. If this were th e case, the efficacy scores of teachers should not decrease as their years of experience increase (as was the case with teachers after the tenth year at a site level). The findings of this study corroborate the notion that site factors may contribute to a more than those offered as possible responses for this study. On the other hand, changing expectations makes them want things to be unchanged. After 10 years r have an influence on/in anything from classroom management to instructional strategies Perhaps, apathy, compliance, and or r igidity sets in. Research exploring school level factors on teacher efficacy is warranted (Ingersoll, 2001). Although just over 6 % of the variance in scores could be attributed to the variables of age, sex, ethnicity, and site location of a participant, some 93 % of the variance remains unexplained In general, researchers have established that self efficacy beliefs and behavior changes and outcomes are highly correlated and that self efficacy is an excellent predictor of behavior. This is important to the
194 greater body of research because the teachers who are efficacious and believe they can influence the lives of their students, do. Future Research Given that main effects were detected on the Classroom Management subscale for each research question (with the exception of content area), further research focusing on the domains of teaching e fficacy is warranted (Chan, 2008 ).That is to say, the global domain of self efficacy was not identified as a main effect in preparation style but classroom management was. Therefore, further research focusing on the specific domain of classroom management is reasonable. Analysis of teacher Experi ence Anywhere as well as at Current Sites did not reveal m ain effects were on the Student Engagement subscale but did reveal main effects on the o ther two subscales of Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management. Though the short version or form of the TSES was utilized for this study as is reported as reliable, perhaps the long version or form of the TSES might elicit responses that reveal a main effect in the Student Engagement subscale. That is to say, the addition of eight questions which would f ocus on each respective subscale might illuminate additional information. The lack of male role models in secondary liberal arts classrooms is a concern and research needs to focus on the under representation of males in the teaching profession (Klecker & Loadman, 1999). Given that, only 12% of the participants of this study reported their biological assignment as male, the need to better prepare them for long term sustainability in the teaching force in crucial. Klecker and Loadman found statistical diff erences in job satisfaction scores
195 between elementary level male and female teachers. Further investigation into possible statistical difference between the mean scores of males and females is worthy of consideration. Additional ly, given that significati on effects were detected on the Total efficacy scale as well as two subscales (Instructional Strategies and Classroom Management) relating to teaching experience further research is warranted which pay s specific attention to the type of strategies employe d by teachers regarding instructional strategies used and classroom management techniques applied. As stated in Chapter Two research focusing specifically on the efficacy of Reading and Language Arts teachers is lacking. More specifically teaching efficacy levels of teachers without being tied to student success is a rarity. Findings from this study can add to the body of knowledge in that no significant difference in teacher efficacy is directly related to the content are as of Reading and Language Arts while holding sex, ethnicity, and age constant. An additional area that deserves investigative consideration is the use of technology as a way to s imulate field based experience s for teacher candidate s who cannot otherwise receive them The works of Howard (1999) suggest that computer simulation for teacher preparation programs has viable legitimacy. The current study illustrated the need for field based internships as a possible way to increase teacher efficacy, the use of computer simulations might, as Howard (1999) suggest, be a viable option for teacher education programs, supplying the student teacher, interactions necessary to develop schema and mastery experiences.
196 The quest to identify what makes a successful teacher or more specifically, what are the qualities a teacher must possess to be successful rem ain an elusive mystery and therefore require further investigation. For i f the notion that a confident teacher or a teacher that believes in his or her ability to imp act student learning and achievement is therefore successful, then teach er self efficacy is the path of research worthy of further investigation. However, if site level factors and preparation programs play the pivotal role evidenced in the current study, as they do in the larger aspect of cultivating a teacher to have b elief in his or her own impact on student outcomes then measure must be generated that can capture the unique and organic, ever changing and dynamic, factors that influence and challenge c lassroom teachers. If teaching efficacy scores indicate a perception of better preparedness, findings from this study suggest that 5 th time graduates are the most likely to believe they can impact the lives of their students. Co ntinued research focusing on the various pathways into the teaching profession is warranted given the statistically significant differences by way of preparation method were identified within the area of alternative non traditional four year university bas ed certification programs. More specifically, questions such as W hat do you believe should have been offered during your preparation to bette would serve the research field by eliciting responses to inform teacher preparation course objectives. Teacher commitment has been reported as a precursor of teacher efficacy (Chan et al., 2008). The current study reported teachers with m ore experience
197 were more efficacious than those with less experience, teachers with graduate and advanced level coursework appeared to be more efficacious than the teachers with undergraduate level only coursework experience. However, participants reported the lowest scores from ACP programs and EPI programs. Furthermore, the demographics analyzed in this study as regressor variables to explain variation in teacher efficacy scores, such as age, ethnicity, sex, and school location, were not well fit variable s in the regression model; meaning the variables were not good predictors of teacher efficacy levels. Teacher preparation programs at universities as well as those established within school districts must continue to research the variables that will better explain teacher efficacy and subsequently increase the longevity of teacher careers. Colleges of Education, state certification departments, and school districts must prepare teachers to deal with student failure and the uncertainty teachers feel about whether they are having an effect on student learning. One of the reasons teacher preparation programs are difficult to measure by way of effec tiveness and preparedness of graduates is the notion of selection bias among th e participants themselves (Boyd et al., 2006). This means, the program that a participant selects is the one anticipated to best meet the needs and expectations of the participa nt. This notion of selection bias must be taken into consideration when attempting to compare the impact of different preparatory forms of professional education and research specifically focusing on why participants select a particular pathway or program will help districts and other
198 classrooms with highly qualified teachers. Educators generally agree that effective teaching requires mastery of content knowledge and pedagogical skills. This study was devised to investigate the differences in teacher self efficacy and to what extent those differences were attributed to the type of preparation program participants received, the instructional content for which participants were responsible, the number of years teaching experience participants held, and demographic variables such as the age, sex, ethnicity, and Title 1 site eligibility of the site for which participants worked. The main conclusions to be gained from this study are that the absence of a field based or clinical experience may have been a contributing factor in the negative difference between Educator Preparation Institute graduates compared with participants from wide, ongoing staff development may have accounted for the lack of difference in efficacy scores of Readi ng and Language Arts teachers. Then again, a possible explanation for this lack of difference might also be a result of the two contents being inextricably linked. Findings from this study also support the research literature which holds that teaching effi cacy increases with experience and over time. However, this study provided an unanticipated finding that when a teacher remains at one location or site for more than 10 years, their efficacy level decreases instead of increases. Finally, this study adds to the research body suggesting elements such as demographics account for little by way of predictability.
199 References Adams, G. J. (1996). Using a Cox Regression model to examine voluntary teacher turnover. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64 (3) 267 285. Allinder, R. M (1994). The relationship between efficacy and instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 6 95. Archer, T. M. (2008). Response rates to expect from web bas ed survey and what to do about it. Journal of Extension, 46 (3) Retrieved November 9, 2009 from https://www.joe.org/joe/2008june/rb3.php Archer, T. M. (2007). Characteristics associated with increasi ng the response rates of Web based surveys. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation 12(12). Retrieved November 10, 2009 from: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=12 Armor, D., Conroy Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G., (1976) Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority school REPORT NO. R 2007 LAUSD. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation (ER IC Document Reproduction Service No. 130 243). Ashton, P. T (1985) . In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in e ducation: Vol. 2. the Classroom M ilieu ( pp141 174) Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
200 As hton, P., & Webb. R. (1986). efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman. Ashton, P., & ecological model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Ashton, P., Webb, R., & Doda, C. (1983). fficacy (Final Report, Executive Summary). Gainesville: University of Florida. development partnerships online: Reaching out to veteran teachers. TechTrends, 51(3) 21 29. Bandura, A. (1 971). Social Learning Theory New York: General Learning Press Bandura, A. (1977) Self Efficacy: Toward a unify theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191 215. Bandura, A. (1982). Self efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122 147 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Edu cational Psychologist, 28 (2), 117 148. Bandura, A. (1994). Self efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71 81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
201 Bandura, A. (1995). Self Efficacy in changing societies In A. Bandura (Ed.)., Self efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1 45). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press. Bandura, A. (1997). Self Efficacy: The Exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Ber g man, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G (1977) Federal programs supporting education change: Vol VII Factors affecting implementation and continuation (Rep No. R 1589/7 HEW) Santa Monica, CA: RAND (ERIC Document Reproduc tion Service No, 140 432). Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). A self efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18 (3), 326 339. Bliss, J., & Finneran, R. (1991). Effects of school climate and teacher e ffi cacy o n teacher stress Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Boe, E.E., Bobblitt, S. A., Cook, L. H., Whitener, S. D., Weber, A. L. (Winter, 1997). Why Didst Thou Go? Predictors of retention, transfe r, and attrition of special and general education teachers from a national perspective. Journal of Special Education, 30, 390 411. Borg, W. D., & Gall, M. D (1983) Educational research: An introduction (4 th ed.). New York: Longman. Borman, G. D., & N. M. Dowling, (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta analytic and narrative review of the research Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 376 409.
202 Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Michelli. N. M., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). Complex b y design: Investigating pathways into teaching in New York City School. Journal of Teacher Education, 57 (2), 155 166 Brissie, J. S., Hoover Dempsey, K. V., & & Bassler, O. C (1988) Individual, situational contributors to teacher burnout Journal of Ed ucational Research, 82 (2), 106 112. Broughman, S., & Rollefson, M. (2000). Teacher supply in the United States: Sources of newly hired teachers in public and private schools: 1987 88 to 1993 94. Education Statistics Quarterly, 2(3), 28 32. Brown, I., & Inouye, D. K. (1978). Learned helplessness through modeling: The role of perceived competency in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 900 9008. Education, 16 (2), 239 253. Brown, I., & Inouye, D, K. (1987). Learned helplessness thro ugh modeling: The role of perceived similarity in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 900 908. Brown, N, & Nagel, L. (2004). Preparing future teachers to respond to stress. Sources and solutions. Action in Teacher Education, 26 (1), 34 42. Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, Capa, Y (2005) Factors influencing first Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University Ohio
203 Carleton, L. E., Fitch, J. C., & Krockover, G. H. (2008) An in service teacher The Educational Forum, 72 46 62. Chan, D. W. ( 2008 ). General, collective and domain specific teacher self efficacy among Chinese prospective and in service teachers in Hong Kong Teacher and Teacher Education, 24 1057 1069. Chan, W Y., Lau, S., Nie, Y., Lim, S., & Hogan, D. ( 2008) Organizational and personal predictors of teacher commitment: The mediating role of teacher efficacy and identification with school. American Educational Research Journal, 45 (3) 597 630. Chong, A. H., Klassen, R. M., Huan, V. S., Wong, I., & Kates, A. D. (2010). The relationship among school types, teacher efficacy beliefs, and academic climate: perspective from Asian middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 183 190. Cody, R. P., Smith, J. K. (1997). Applied statistics and the SAS programming language (4 th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. C ohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised edition). New York: Academic Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 111 (1), 155 159. Coladarci, T. (1992) . Journal of Experimen tal Education, 60 323 337.
204 Coladarci, T. & Breton, W. (1997). Teacher efficacy, supervision, and the special education resource room teacher. Journal of Educational Research, 90 (4), 230 239. Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, D., McPartlend, J., Mood A., Weinfield, F., & York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Health, Education, and Welfare. Cook, C. (2000). A meta analysis of response rates in Web or Internet based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement 60(6), 821 836. Creswell, J. W (1994) Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in an age of accounta bility: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42 (6), 512 532. Darling Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3) p. 166 173. Darling Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters what leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60 (8), 6 13. Darling Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach?. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (4), 286 302. Darling Hammond, L., & Cobb, V. L (1996) The changing context of teacher education. In F. Murray (Ed.), knowledge base for the preparation of teachers, (pp. 14 62). San Francisco: Josse y Bass.
205 Darling Hammond, L., Hudson, L., & Kirby, S. (1989). Redesigning teacher education: Opening the door for new recruits to science and mathematics teaching Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Darling Hammond, L., & Youngs, P Educational Researcher, 13 25. Danielson, L (2008) Making reflective practice more concrete through reflective decision making The Educational Forum, 72, 129 137. Dembo, M. H., factor in school improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86 (2), 173 184. Demoulin, D. F (1993) Reconceptualizing the self efficacy paradigm : Analysis of an eight year study Education, 114 (2), 167 199. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2 nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Ede, A., ( 2006). Scripted curriculum: Is it a prescription for success? Childhood Education, 83 (1), 29 32. Emmer, E., & Hickman, J. (March, 1990). Teacher decision making as a function of efficacy, attribution, and reasoned action. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
206 Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems self efficacy, and commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Researc h, 80 (2), 81 85. Finn, C. E., & Madigan, K. (2001). Removing the barriers for teacher candidates. Educational Leadership, 58, 29 31, 36. Flores, B. B., Desjean Perrotta, B., & Steinmetz, L. E (Su m 2004) Teacher efficacy: A comparative study of univers ity certified and alternatively certified teachers Action in Teacher Education, 26 (2), 37 46. Florida Department of Education. (2010). www.fldoe.org. Forsyth, P. B., & Hoy, W. K. (1978). Isolation and alienation in educational organization. Education al Administration Quarterly, 14, 80 96. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6 th ed.). San Francisco, CA: McGraw Hill French, J. S., Ekstrom, R. B., & Pric a e, L. A. (1963). Manual for kit of reference test for cognitive ability. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., van den Berg, R., & Kelchtermans, G. (2001). Conditions fostering the implementation of large scale innovation programs in schools: Educational Administration Quarterly, 37 (1), 130 166. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (4), 569 582. Gil l es, C., Mc Cart Cramer, M., & Hwang, S. K. (2001). Beginning teacher perceptions of concerns: A longitudinal look at teacher development. Action in Teacher Education, 23 (3), 89 98.
207 Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology (3 rd ed.). Boston: Al lyn and Bacon. Glickman, C. D., & Tamashiro, R. T (1982) A comparison of first year, fifth year, and former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem solving Psychology in the Schools, 119, 558 562. Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1973). Looking in classrooms New York: Harper & Row. Good, T. L., & Tom, D. Y. H. (1985) Self regulations, efficacy, expectations, and social orientation: Teacher and classroom perspectives In C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 2. The c lassroom milieu (pp. 141 174) Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Guarino, C. M., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76 (2), 173 208. Guskey, T R. (1984) The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon affective characteristics of teachers American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245 259. Guskey, T. R. (1981). Measurement of the responsibility teachers assume for academic succes ses and failures in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 44 51. Guskey, T. R. (1987) Context variables that affect measures of teacher efficacy Journal of Educational Research, 81 (1), 41 47. Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D (1994) Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions American Educational Research Journal, 3 (3), 627 643.
208 Hare, D., & Heap, J. L. (2001). Effective teacher recruitment and retention strategies in the Midwest: Who is making use of them? Retrieved June 7, 2010 from www.ncrel.org/policy/pubs/html/strategy/index.html Heath, N.M., Lawyer, S. R., & Rasmussen, E. B. (2007). Web Based versus paper and pencil course evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, 34 (4), 259 261. Henke, R., Chen, X., & Geis, S. (2000). Progress through the teacher pipeline: 1992 93 college graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching as of 1997. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Henson, R. K (2001) Teacher efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Exchange, College Station, TX. Howard, A. B., (1999). Simulated classrooms and artificial students: the potential effects of new technologies on teach er education. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(2) 307 18. Howerton, D. R. (2006). Middle school language arts teachers beliefs about reading instruction Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univeristy of Texas, Austin, Texas. Hoy, W. organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 356 372.
209 Imants, J., & Van Zoelen, A. (1995). School Organization 15 (1995), pp. 77 86. Illmer, S., Elliott, S., Synder, J., Nahan N., & Colombo, M. (2005). Analysis of st year experienc es in an alternative certification program. Action in Teacher Education,27 (1), 3 14. Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of schools. Document (R 01 1). The Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy : Uni versity of Washington Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Document (R 03 4). A Research Report for the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and the Consortium for Policy Research and Education : University of Washington. Ingersoll, R., (2009). The Aging Teaching Workforce: A Snapshot Age Distribution of Public School Teachers, By State 2003 2004. National www.NCTAF.org. Ingersoll, R., M., & Smith, T. M. (2003 ). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30 33. Kano, M., Franke, T., Abdelmonem, A. A., & Bourque, L. B (2008) Adequacy of reporting results of school surveys and nonresponse effects: A review of the literature and a case study Educational Researcher, 37 (8), 480 490.
210 Klecker, B. M., & Loadman, W. E. (Spr. 1999). Male elementary school Education, 119 (3) 504 13. Keigher, A. (2010). Teacher a ttrition and m obility: Results f rom the 2008 09 t eacher f ollow up s urvey (NCES 2010 353). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved [date] from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzi e, A. J. (2005, April). Qualitative data analysis: Ways to improve accountability in qualitative research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Montreal, Canada. Long, J. F., & Moore, R. (2008). Motivating content: How interest and self efficacy respond to subject matter taught in an alternative teacher education program. Catholic Education, 11 (4), 442 64. Maloy, R. W., Gagne, K., & Verock the real. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(2), 48 52. McFadden, C., & Sheerer, M. (2006). Comparative study of the perceptions of teacher preparation faculty and school superintendents regarding the criticisms made against teacher preparation programs, Action in Teacher E ducation, 28 (1), 51 72. Milosevic S. (2007). Building a case against scripted curriculum. The Education Digest, 73 (1), 27 30.
211 Morton, M. L., Williams, N. L., & Brindley, R. (2006). Colliding cultures: Career switchers transition to elementary school classrooms. Action in Teacher Education, 28 (1), 40 50. Nardi, P. M (2003) Doing survey research: a guide to quantitative methods New York: Pearson Education. National Commission on Teaching (1996 ) What matters Retrieved June 8, 2009 from http://www.nctaf.org/documents/WhatMattersMost.pdf Stepanski, E. J. (2005). A step by step approach to using SAS for univariate and multivariate statistics (2 nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. Osborne, J., & Waters E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Pra ctical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 8(2). Retrieved July 29, 2010 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=2 Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62 (3), 307 332. Pajares, F. (1996). Self Efficacy beliefs in academic setting. Review of Educational Research, 66(4) 543 578. Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement Volume 10, (pp. 1 49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pajares (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self efficacy Retrieved July, 10, 2010, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html.
212 Parkay, F. W., Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S. & Proller, N. (1988). A study of the relationship among teacher efficacy, locus of control, and s stress. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21 (4), 13 22. Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of lottery incentive on study surve y response rates. Research in Higher Education, 44 389 407. Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary Science Education, 74, 625 637. Rose, J. A., & Medway, F. J. control over student outcome. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 185 190. Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher Efficacy and the Effects of Coaching on Student Achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17 (1), 51 65. Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., Gallada, T., & Hannay, L. (1999). A dministrative a ssignment of t eachers in r estructuring s econdary s chools: The e ffect of o ut of f ield course responsibility on teacher efficacy. Educational Administration Quarte rly, 35, 782 805. Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monograph, 80, 1 28. social comparative information and goal setting Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 76 86.
213 Shannon, P. (1987). Commercial Reading Materials, a Technological Ideology, and the Deskilling of Teachers, The Elementary School Journal, 83 (3), 307 329. Slaton, D. B., Atwood, V. A., Shake, M. C., & Hales, R. M. (2006). Experienced imary school programs. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 12, 5 15. Silvern ail, D. L. (1998). Findings from an initial analysis of the New York City Teacher Survey New York: New Visions for Public Schools. Simmons, S. A. (2005). Shortcuts to a meaningful career. Action in Teacher Education, 27 (1), 36 44. Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1 30. Stevens, J. P. (2007). Intermediate statistics: A modern approach (3 rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. The College Board. (2009). Retrieved November 10, 2009, from http://professionals.collegeboard.com/k 12/prepare/springboard Tournaki, N., Lyublinskaya, I., & Carolan, B. V. (2009). Pathways to teacher certification: Does it really matter w hen it come to efficacy and effectiveness? Action in Teacher Education, 30 (4), 96 109. Tschannen Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17 ,783 805.
214 Tschannen Moran, M. & Wo olfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944 956. Tschannen Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher Efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 202 248. U.S. Department of Education (2007). Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results from the 2004 05 Teacher Follow up Survey U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, The s a nnual r eport on t eacher q uality: A h ighly q ualified t eacher in e very c lassroom, Washington, D.C., 2006. U. S. Department of Education, International Affairs Office, Structure of the US Education System: Curriculum and content standards. Retrieved on November10, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/standards.d oc Vasquez, A. (2008) Teacher efficacy and student achievement in ninth and tenth grade reading: a multilevel analysis Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa: FL. Vogt, P. W. (2007). Quantitative research methods for professionals New York: Pearson Education.. West, R F. (Spring 1985). A power analytic investigation of research in adult education: 1970 1982. Adult Education Quarterly, 35 (3), 131 141.
215 Westat (2008). SpringBoard longitudinal Evaluation Interim Report 2008: Executive summary New York: The College B oard Wheatley, K. F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 747 766. Willower, D. J., Eidell, T. L., & Hoy, W. K. (1967). The school and pupil control ideology (Penn State Studies Monographs No. 24). University Park, MD: Pennsylvania State University. Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2009). Research methods in education: An introduction (9 th ed.). New York: Pearson Education Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A Comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education 21, 343 356. and beliefs about control. J ournal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 81 91. Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K (1990) their beliefs about managing students Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 137 148. Zeichner, K. (1996). Designing educative practicum experiences for prospective teachers. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher educatio n, (pp. 215 234). New York: Teachers College Press
216 know from peer reviewed research about alternative teacher certification programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4) 266 282. Zeldin, A. L. & Pajares, F. (1997, March). Against the odds: Self efficacy beliefs of women with math related careers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago sense of self efficacy, commitment teaching, and preparedness to teach. School Science and Mathematics, 106 (8), 326 327. Zientek, L. R. (2007). Preparing high quality teachers: views from the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 44 (4), 959 1001.
218 Appendix A Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale and Teacher Demographic Survey
221 15. Please use this space to provide any additional feedback that you feel may be helpful. 16. ****OPTIONAL**** If you would like to be considered for the $100 cash drawing, please supply your name and email address so you can be contacted in the event tha t you win. With permission from the winner, the name will be announced via email by February 14, 2010. Name: Email Address:
222 Appendix B Script for Monthly Language Arts and Reading Subject Area Leaders Meeting Hello, my name is Kimberly Schwartz. I am a doctoral candidate at the University of South Florida and a current middle school Reading Coach in this county. I would like to take just a few moments of your time today in an effort to gain your assistance. The purpose of this study is to examine the perceived level of self efficacy of middle school Language Arts and reading teachers. Your assistance in vital in the gathering of data for my dissertation titled : A Comparison of Teacher Self Efficacy Among Middle School Language Arts and Reading Teachers. The survey will be sent to each teacher via their school email, or IDEAS, account. The email will contain a general link to SurveyMonkey.com. Once the teacher clicks on the link, he/she will be directed to the study. In reaching SurveyMonkey this way, the teacher is ensured greater anonymity. Th at is to say, there is no way for me to link the information provided with the participant unless they fill out the optional area and provide their name. While teachers are asked to provide their names and other demographic information, only I, the researcher, will have access to the information. All identifying information will be coded and no names, only coded information, will be used in the dissertation write up. Once the study is completed, the data will be destroyed. All middle school Language Arts and reading teachers will be invited to participate in the study. Participation is voluntary; you may choose not to participate and you may withdraw your consent at any time. However, I do hope that you will elect to provide the information that is crucial to the study. Your assistance is needed to show support for the surveys, encouraging participation if you feel comfortable doing so. As the Principal I nvestigator, I will be pleased to respond to any questions, issues, or concerns your teachers might have. I can be reached at (813) xxx xxxx. Thank you for your time and I appreciate in advance your support of this endeavor. Sincerely, Kimberly A. Schw artz Doctoral Candidate.
223 Appendix C Letter of Invitation to Participate in Survey Introductory Script Dear Middle School Reading or Language Arts Teacher, I would like to request your cooperation in a conduct of a study concerning teacher efficacy and confidence at that middle school level. This study is part of my doctoral dissertation research at the University of South Florida. The purpose of this study i s to examine the perceived level of self efficacy of middle school Language Arts and reading teachers. As in service teachers, your experiences in the field are valuable and it is critical that your voices are heard. I need your help. If you choose to par ticipate in this study, and I hope you will, and Teacher Demographic Questionnaire (TDQ). The survey will only take about 15 minutes of your valuable time. The TSES has been used extensively to measure to provide demographic information for descriptive and categorical purposes. All responses to the survey will be treated confidential ly. All data will be pooled and published in aggregated form only; your responses will be held in strictest confidence; only I will have access. Once the study is complete, the data will be destroyed. Your participation in this research is voluntary; you may choose not to participate and you may withdraw your consent to participate at any time. It is the intent of this study or capabilities. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to examine the perceived level of self efficacy of middle school Language Arts and reading teachers. Although there are no monetary rewards, the information you provide will help to prepare teache rs both in and entering the field as well as contribute crucial information regarding the development of teacher self efficacy. I do hope you will elect to provide the information that is vital to this study. As the Principal Investigator, I will be plea sed to respond to any questions, issues, or concerns you may have. You may either call me at (813) XXX XXXX or email me at --------------------.rr.com. This research is being conducted at the University of South Florida under the supervision of Professor Mary Lou Morton. Should you wish to contact her, call her at (813) XXX XXXX I will be pleased to send you a summary of the survey results if you desire. Thank you for your cooperation. To begin the survey, please follow the link below. PASSWORD = Sin cerely, Kimberly A. Schwartz
224 Appendix D Timeline for Survey Distribution: By August 26th Speak with Lynn D ougherty Underwood and Lisa Cobb to study with Reading coaches and SALs respectively. By September 30 and Accountability and the University Internal Review Board Send out reminder email to Lynn and Max regarding how grateful I am they will give me 15 minutes at the October meetings. October (locations and time TBA) Meet with Language Arts Subject Area Leaders at monthly meeting Meet with Reading Coaches at monthly meeting Email potential participants informing them of the survey and to be expecting it in mid November. Informed consent can be submitted at that time November Initial emails to participants based on informed consent responses survey link and password will be included. December First week in December first follow up emails blanket email sent to all pote ntial participants Second week in December second follow up emails go out email SALs and Reading coaches thanking them for their continued support Third week in December third follow up emails informing potential participants last week of collection Jan uary Send out blanket email thanking those who participated Send out thank you email to SALs and Reading Coaches February 14 o Send out notice to lottery winner
225 Appendix E Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Preparation Method ID # Total Student Engagement Instructional Strategies Classroom Management Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro 0 Other ( n =24) 0.605 0.729 0.917 0.929 0.464 0.931 0.598 0.697 0.905 0.502 1.120 0.860 1 Trad. ( n =183) 0.314 0.404 0.98 0.167 0.399 0.980 0.384 0.50 0.943 ** 0.576 0.447 0.938 ** 2 ACP ( n =91) 0.351 0.790 0.964 0.360 0.483 0.958 0.674 0.0557 0.932 ** 0.439 0.492 0.958 3 EPI ( n =15) 0.471 0.99 0.965 0.967 2.99 0.893 0.692 0.522 0.878 0.171 0.1372 0.976 4 MAT Part Time ( n =37) 0.386 0.386 0.954 0.497 0.524 0.9571 0.672 0.683 0.884 ** 0.978 1.200 0.907 5 MAT Full Time (n=33) 0.763 0.954 0.951 0.590 1.032 0.959 0.2445 0.644 0.924 1.374 2.495 0.886 6 5 th Year ( n =11) 0.399 1.258 0.920 0.425 0.076 0.970 0.7393 0.813 0.859 0.806 0.680 0.861 Note : p< .05, ** p<001
226 Appendix F Side by Side Box Plots for TSES TOTAL Prep Scores | 110 + | | | 0 | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | + ----+ | | | | | | | 100 + | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | + ----+ | | | ----* | | + ----+ | + ----+ | | ----* | | + | | | | | | | | | | | + | 90 + | | ----* ----* + ----+ -+ -* -+ -* | | | | | | + | | + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | + | | | | | 80 + + ----+ + ----+ + ----+ ----* | | + ----+ | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 70 + | | | | 0 | | | | | 0 | | | | 0 | | | 60 + | | | 0 | | | 50 + -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------PREP 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Note: Identification number s correlate to the tables in the text.
227 Appendix G Side by Side Box Plots for TSES Student Engagement Prep Scores | 40 + | | | | | | | | 35 + | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | + ----+ | | | + ----+ + ----+ | | | | 30 + ----* | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | + | | | | | | + ----+ | | -+ -* | | | -+ -* ----* | | | -+ -* | | | | | | | | + | + ----+ -+ -* | | + ----+ 25 + + ----+ | | | | -+ -* | | + ----+ | | | + ----+ | | | | + ----+ | | | | | + ----+ + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | 20 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 0 | | | | | 15 + | | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 + -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------PREP 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Note: Iden tification numbers correlate to the tables in the text.
228 Appendix H Side by Side Box Plots for TSES Instructional Strategies Prep Scores | 40 + | | | | | | | + ----+ | + ----+ 35 + + ----+ | + ----+ | | | + ----+ | | | | | + ----+ | | | ----* | | ----* | -+ -* | | | | | | + | | | | + | | | | -+ -* -+ -* + ----+ | | -+ -* | | 30 + + ----+ | | | | -+ -* + ----+ | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ + ----+ | | | + ----+ | | | | | + ----+ | | | 25 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 20 + | | | | 0 | 15 + -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------PREP 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Note: Identification numbers correlate to the tables in the text.
229 Appendix I Side by Side Box Plots for TSES C lassroom Management Prep Scores | 40 + | | | + ----+ | | | | + ----+ 35 + | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | + ----+ + ----+ | | | ----* ----* + ----+ | | | ----* ----* | | + | | + | | | | | | | + | | + | 30 + | | | | -+ -* | -+ -* | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | + ----+ | | | + ----+ + ----+ + ----+ -+ -* + ----+ | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | 25 + | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 20 + | | | | | 0 | | 0 15 + -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------PREP 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Note: Identification numbers correlate to the tables in the text.
230 Appendix J Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Content Area Total Student Engagement Instructional Strategies Classroom Management Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Neither ( n =8) 0.135 0.180 0.972 1.022 0.496 0.836 0.164 1.449 0.954 0.607 0.478 0.933 Reading ( n =72) 0.477 0.073 0.975 0.189 0.608 0.977 0.780 0.314 0.916 ** 0.650 0.062 0.934* Langua ge Arts ( n =175) 0.317 0.432 0.979* 0.222 0.046 0.982* 0.418 0.534 0.932** 0.741 0.053 0.930** Both ( n =139) 0.288 0.511 0.981 0.312 0.30 0.978* 0.299 0.933 0.940 ** 0.455 0.567 0.951** Note: p< .05, ** p<001
231 Appendix K Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Teaching Experience Anywhere Total Student Engagement Instructional Strategies Classroom Management Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro < 1 year 0.605 0.979 0.944 0.683 1.742 0.872 1.217 1.331 0.871 0.271 0.823 0.985 >1 <3 Years 0.269 0.135 0.982 0.091 0.104 0.982 0.089 0.699 0.972 0.100 0.767 0.975 >3 < 7 Years 0.01 0.956 0.969* 0.059 0.661 0.980 0.415 0.456 0.944** 0.266 0.993 0.951** >7 <10 Years 0.71 0.510 0.965 0.476 0.097 0.953 0.843 1.147 0.908* 0.982 1.124 0.915* > 10 Years 0.57 0.005 0.967** 0.440 0.150 0.970** 0.593 0.563 0.914** 0.786 0.007 0.913** Note: p< .05, ** p<001
232 A ppendix L Side by Side Box Plots for TSES Total Anywhere Scores | 110 + | | | | | | | | | | | 105 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 100 + | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ + ----+ | | 95 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | ----* 90 + | | | | | ----* | + | | | | | | | | + | | | | + ----+ | | -+ -* | | | | | | | ----* | | | | | | 85 + | | | + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | 80 + | + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ + ----+ | | | | | | | | | 75 + | | | | | | | ----* | | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | 70 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 65 + | | | | | | | | 60 + 0 | | 0 | 55 + 0 -----------1 ----------2 ----------3 ---------4 ----------5 ----------Note: Identification numbers correlate to the tables in the text.
233 Appendix M Side by Side Box Plots for TSES Student Engagement Anywhere Scores | 37.5 + | | 0 | | | | | | | 35 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 32.5 + | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | 30 + | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ---+ | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | ----* ----* 27.5 + | | | | | | | | | + | | | | | | -+ -* | + | | | | | | -+ -* | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 25 + | + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | + ----+ | ----* + ----+ | + ----+ | 22.5 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 20 + + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 17.5 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 15 + | | | | | | | | | 0 12.5 + -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------ANYWHERE 1 2 3 4 5 Note: Identification numbers correlate to the tables in the text.
234 Appendix N Side by Side Box Plots for TSES Instructional Strategies Anywhere Scores | 36 + | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ + ----+ | | | | | | | 34 + | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 32 + | + ----+ | | | | -+ -* | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----* -+ -* | | | | | | | + | | | | | 30 + | | | | | | | | | | | | + | | | | | | | | | ----* | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | 28 + + ----+ | | + ----+ + ----+ | | | + | | | | | | | ----* + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | 26 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | 24 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 22 + | | | | | | | | | | | 20 + | | | | | | 18 + | | 0 | 16 + -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------ANYWHERE 1 2 3 4 5 Note: Identification numbers correlate to the tables in the text.
235 Appendix O Side By Side Box Plots for TSES Classroom Management Anywhere Scores 36 + | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | 34 + | | + ----+ | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 32 + | + ----+ | | ----* ----* | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | ----* | | | + | | | | | | | + | | + | | | 30 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -+ -* | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 28 + | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | -+ -* | | + ----+ + ----+ | | | | | | | | | 26 + | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 24 + + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 22 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 20 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | 18 + | | | | | | | 16 + | -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ---------+ ----------+ ----------ANYWHERE 1 2 3 4 5 Note: Identification numbers correlate to the tables in the te xt.
236 Appendix P Side By Side Box Plots for TSES Total Current Site Scores | 110 + | | | | | | | | | | | 105 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | 100 + | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | 95 + | + ----+ | | ----* | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | ----* | + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 90 + | | | | | + | | | ----* | | | | | | | | | | + | | ----* | | | | | | | | | | | -+ -* | | + ----+ | | 85 + | + | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 80 + | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | + ----+ + ----+ | | | | | | | | | 75 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 70 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 65 + | | | | | | | | | | | 0 | | 60 + | 0 | | | | | 55 + 0 -----------1 ----------2 ----------3 ----------4 ----------5 ----------Note: Identification numbers correlate to the tables in the te xt.
237 Appendix Q Side By Side Box Plots for TSES Student Engagement Current Site Scores 37.5 + | | | | | | | | | | | 35 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | 32.5 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | 30 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ + ----+ | | -+ -* | | | | | | | ----* | | | | 27.5 + | | | | | + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -+ -* | -+ -* -+ -* | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 25 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ + ----+ + ----+ + ----+ + ----+ | | | | | | 22.5 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 20 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 17.5 + | | | | | | | | 0 | | | | | 15 + | | | | 0 | | 0 12.5 + -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ---------CURRENT 1 2 3 4 5 Note: Identification numbers correlate to the tables in the te xt.
238 Appendix R Side By Side Box Plots of Instructional Strategies for Current Site Scores | 36 + | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | 34 + | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | ----* | | | | | | | | | | + | | | 32 + | | | | ----* | | | | | | | | | | + | | | | + | | | | ----* | | | | ----* | | | | + | | | | | | | 30 + | | | | + ----+ + ----+ | | | | + | | | | | | | | ----* | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 28 + | | + ----+ | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | 26 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 24 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 22 + | | 0 | | | | 0 | | 20 + | 0 | | | | | 18 + | | 0 | 16 + -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------CURRENT 1 2 3 4 5 Note: Identification numbers correlate to the tables in the te xt.
239 Appendix S Side By Side Box Plots of Classroom Management for Current Site Scores | 36 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | 34 + | | + ----+ | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | + ----+ | | ----* | | | | | | | | | | | | 32 + + ----+ | | ----* | + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + | 30 + | | -+ -* | | | | ----* | | + | | | | | | | | | | ----* | | | | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | 28 + | | | | + ----+ | + ----+ | | | | | | | | | + ----+ + ----+ | | | | | | | | | 26 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 24 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 22 + | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 20 + | | | | | 0 | | 18 + | | | 16 + 0 -----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------+ ----------CURRENT 1 2 3 4 5 Note: Identification numbers correlate to the tables in the te xt.
240 Appendix T Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Teaching Current Site CURRENT ID # Total Student Engagement Instructional Strategies Classroom Management Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro 1 < 1 year 0.29 0.593 0.962 0.353 0.299 0.966 0.034 0.411 0.934* 0.469 0.122 0.963 2 >1 <3 Years 0.07 0.501 0.985 0.189 0.254 0.984 0.116 0.935 0.956* 0.336 0.687 0.962* 3 >3 <7 Years 0.72 0.657 0.963* 0.591 0.225 0.964 0.910 0.633 0.908** 0.867 1.098 0.931** 4 >7 >10 Years 0.66 0.423 0.937* 0.316 0.316 0.960 0.762 0.345 0.880* 1.045 0.148 0.860** 5 > 10 Years 0.30 0.615 0.967 0.0304 0.823 0.971 0.270 1.179 0.919* 0.571 0.521 0.912* Note : p< .05, ** p<001
241 Appendix U Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Age Total Student Engagement Instructional Strategies Classroom Management Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Under 30 ( n =50) 0.128 0.910 0.964 0.288 0.280 0.983 0.520 0.590 0.934 0.239 1.151 0.943 Between 30 39 ( n =128) 0.301 0.096 0.987 0.285 0.015 0.981 0.585 0.377 0.944** 0.727 0.695 0.942** Between 40 49 ( n =95) 0.225 0.551 0.981 0.297 0.117 0.982 0.011 1.166 0.930 ** 0.510 0.485 0.945* Over 50 ( n =120) 0.561 0.261 0.959* 0.361 0.269 0.973* 0.725 0.272 0.901** 0.725 0.231 0.916 Note: p< .05, ** p<001
242 Appendix V Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Sex Sex ID # Total Student Engagement Instructional Strategies Classroom Management Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro 1 Male ( n =47) 0.408 0.275 0.978 0.556 1.055 0.966 0.126 1.074 0.937 0.583 0.0785 0.925 2 Female ( n =347) 0.311 0.467 0.981 0.257 0.275 0.982 0.513 0.339 0.934 ** 0.598 0.250 0.944 ** No te: p< .05, ** p<001
243 Appendix W Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Ethnicity Total Student Engagement Instructional Strategies Classroom Management Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Asian ( n =5) 1.140 2.004 0.916 1.546 3.148 0.843 1.258 0.313 0.770* 0.849 2.19 0.908 Black ( n =46) 0.388 0.45 0.970 0.317 0.284 0.970 0.127 1.161 0.918* 1.229 1.254 0.862** Hispanic ( n =41) 0.506 0.276 0.961 0.592 0.417 0.950 0.785 0.356 0.910* 0.280 0.916 0. 936* Indian ( n =4) 1.84 3.423 0. 761 1.200 1.819 0.926 1.914 3.680 0.717* 0.639 1.5 0.963 White ( n =290) 0.296 0.375 0.985* 0.209 0.069 0.984** 0.551 0.307 0.934** 0.563 0.250 0.948** Multi ( n =8) 0.506 0.611 0.975 1.280 1.478 0.871 0.551 0.307 0.902 0.298 0.793 0.958 Note: p< .05, ** p<001
244 Appendix X Normality of Population Distributions: TSES by Title 1 Site Eligibility Total Student Engagement Instructional Strategies Classroom Management Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro Skewness Kurtosis Shapiro E ligible 0 ( n = 117 ) 0.369 0.441 0.974 0.375 0.030 0.975 0.720 0.206 0.906 ** 0.731 0.272 0.930** Eligible 1 ( n = 164 ) 0.347 0.202 0.983 0.280 0.144 0.980* 0.534 0.121 0.943 ** 0.537 0.598 0.940 ** Elig ible 2 ( n =113) 0.243 0.535 0.982 0.193 0.204 0.986 0.064 1.140 0.931** 0.538 0.264 0.95* Note : p< .05, ** p<001
245 Appendix Y Residual Fit Diagnostic for TSES Total
246 Appendix Z Residual Fit Diagnostic s for Student Engagement
247 Appendix AA Residual Fit Diagnostics for Instructional Strategies
248 Appendix AB Residual Fit Diagnostic for Classroom Management
249 Appendix AC Number of Responses by site and Free/Reduced Lunch Percentages Site Number Number of Responses Free/Reduced Lunch % 09 10 school year 38 6 10.13 28 14 18.22 9 6 22.65 55 8 23.47 8 17 29.36 52 11 30.93 14 5 31.02 33 17 36.77 4 17 39.09 37 5 43.95 54 9 43.98 23 16 44.46 3 5 46.63 19 3 48.08 26 8 52.29 11 11 52.55 36 4 55.12 13 16 56.83 39 9 58.25 44 10 58.44 48 22 60.33 7 9 65.2 34 7 66.18 1 14 68 50 6 69.78 17 11 72.24 45 7 72.66 56 1 72.73 27 7 74.16 6* 6 75.65 31* 7 77.16
250 Site Number Number of Responses Free/Reduced Lunch % 09 10 school year 38 6 10.13 25* 6 78.56 29* 4 78.58 18* 9 79.7 40* 1 81.33 41* 14 82.02 53* 12 83.99 20* 6 84.34 12* 7 87.9 15* 2 87.99 30* 12 89.55 35* 7 90.47 43* 8 93.93 16* 6 95.03 51* 6 95.74 Note: = Free/Reduced Lunch equivalent to qualify for Title I status.
251 Appendix AD Multiple Regression Table for Total Number of Observations Read 394 Number of Observations Used 394 Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 1 2945.90184 2 67.80926 2.26 0.0111 Error 382 45185 18.28575 Corrected Total 393 48131 Root MSE 10.87593 R Square 0.0612 D ependent Mean 88.69797 Adj R Sq 0.0342 Coeff Var 12.26175 Parameter Estimates Variable DF Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > |t| Squared Semi partial Corr Type II Intercept 1 87.71679 2.30603 38.04 <.0001 Eligible 1 1 0.34864 1.62502 0.21 0.8302 0.00011312 Eligible 2 1 1.64615 1.32063 1.25 0.2133 0.00382 Male 1 0.62241 1.74395 0.36 0.7214 0.00031304 Between 30 and 39 1 0.75562 1.81528 0.42 0.6775 .00042583 Between 40 and 49 1 0.29372 1.92801 0.15 0.8790 0.00005704 Over 50 1 3.31481 1.83531 1.81 0.0717 0.00802 Indian 1 2.67458 5.58236 0.48 0.6321 0.00056413 Black 1 3.93440 1.79686 2.19 0.0292 0.01178 Asian 1 3.17852 4.95992 0.64 0.5220 0.00101 Multiracial 1 10.02915 3.99739 2.51 0.0125 0.01547 Hispanic 1 4.40134 1.85734 2.37 0.0183 0.01380 Note: Intercept or referent group included white females under the age of 30 from non Title 1 schools.
252 Appendix AE Multiple Regression Table for Student Engagement Number of Observations Read 394 Number of Observations Used 394 Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 11 626.89605 56.99055 2.58 0.0036 Error 382 8430.16994 22.06851 Corrected Total 393 9057.06599 Root MSE 4.69771 R Square 0.0692 Dependent Mean 27.08629 Adj R Sq 0.0424 Coeff Var 17.34351 Parameter Estimates Variable DF Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > |t| Squared Semi partial Corr Type II Intercept 1 27.12605 0.99606 27.23 < .0001 Eligible 1 1 0.63801 0.70191 0.91 0.3639 0.00201 Eligible 2 1 0.81708 0.57043 1.43 0.1528 0.00500 Male 1 0.18264 0.75328 0.24 0.8086 0.00014324 Between 30 and 39 1 0.52395 0.78408 0.67 0.5044 0.00109 Between 40 and 49 1 0.16167 0.83278 0.19 0.8462 0.00009183 Over 50 1 0.62062 0.79274 0.78 0.4342 0.00149 Indian 1 0.70122 2.41123 0.29 0.7714 0.00020607 Black 1 2.39985 0.77613 3.09 0.0021 0.02330 Asian 1 0.99397 2.14237 0.46 0.6429 0.00052450 Multiracial 1 4.57985 1.72662 2.65 0.0083 0.01714 Hispanic 1 1.91124 0.80225 2.38 0.0177 0.01383 Note: Intercept or referent group included white females under the age of 30 from non Title 1 schools.
253 Appendix AF Multiple Regression Table for Instructional Strategies Number of Observations Read 394 Number of Observations Used 394 Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 11 297.46222 27.04202 1.79 0.0541 Error 382 5773.95149 15.11506 Corrected Total 393 6071.41371 Root MSE 3.88781 R Square 0.0490 Dependent Mean 31.06345 Adj R Sq 0.0216 Coeff Var 12.51570 Parameter Estimates Variable DF Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > |t| Squared Semi partial Corr Type II Intercept 1 30.33732 0.82434 36.80 <.0001 Eligible 1 1 0.16288 0.58090 0.28 0.7793 0.00019573 Eligible 2 1 0.06556 0.47208 0.14 0.8896 0.00004801 Male 1 0.06315 0.62341 0.10 0.9194 0.00002555 Between 30 and 39 1 0.45168 0.64891 0.70 0.4868 0.00121 Between 40 and 49 1 0.07465 0.68920 0.11 0.9138 0.00002920 Over 50 1 1.57202 0.65607 2.40 0.0170 0.01429 Indian 1 1.67332 1.99552 0.84 0.4023 0.00175 Black 1 0.40241 0.64232 0.63 0.5314 0.00097713 Asian 1 2.29154 1.77302 1.29 0.197 0.00416 Multiracial 1 1.83284 1.42894 1.28 0.2004 0.00410 Hispanic 1 1.24846 0.66394 1.88 0.0608 0.00880 Note: Intercept or referent group included white females under the age of 30 from non Title 1 schools.
254 Appendix AG Multiple Regression Table for Classroom Management Number of Observations Read 394 Number of Observations Used 394 Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 11 410.47464 37.31588 2.30 0.0097 Error 382 6191.10912 16.20709 Corrected Total 393 6601.58376 Root MSE 4.02580 R Square 0.0622 Dependent Mean 30.54822 Adj R Sq 0.0352 Coeff Var 13.17852 Parameter Estimates Variable DF Parameter Estimate Standard Error t Value Pr > |t| Squared Semi partial Corr Type II Intercept 1 30.25342 0.85359 35.44 <.0001 Eligible 1 1 0.12649 0.60151 0.21 0.8336 0.00010856 Eligible 2 1 0.76351 0.48884 1.56 0.1191 0.00599 Male 1 0.50292 0.64554 0.78 0.4364 0.00149 Between 30 and 39 1 0.82789 0.67194 1.23 0.2187 0.00373 Between 40 and 49 1 0.20669 0.71367 0.29 0.7723 0.00020592 Over 50 1 1.12218 0.67935 1.65 0.0994 0.00670 Indian 1 0.30004 2.06635 0.15 0.8846 0.00005176 Black 1 1.93696 0.66512 2.91 0.0038 0.02082 Asian 1 0.10700 1.83595 0.06 0.9536 0.00000834 Multiracial 1 3.61646 1.47966 2.44 0.0150 0.01467 Hispanic 1 1.24164 0.68751 1.81 0.0717 0.00801 Note Intercept or referent group included white females under the age of 30 from non Title 1 schools.
255 Appendix AH Qualitative Comments for Positive Factors Color Coding of Grouped Theme Number of Comments Personal Characteristics 10 Comments Personal Experiences 7 Comments Knowing Students 3 Comments Support Structures 3 Comments Research 2 Comments Pedagogical Freedom 2 Comments Total 27 comments Reading coach Research I felt an spiritual reason to teach not for pay or for summer...but I was spiritually driven to be a teacher so I became one and strive to be outstanding. relationship with students Hands on learning opportunities outside of the classroom Being a parent My own teachers as a high/middle schooler -Experience Love of teaching
256 Natural Ability Personality Mentors Family Self Reflection Having children of my own being able to remember what it was like to be their age getting to know them and their circumstances (and) having empathy for their personal situations I am a P arent Parent of school aged kids Flexibility in the classroom to do whatever is effective I have a strong d esire to teach Industrial Experience Teacher enthusiasm (and) professional attire, yes it makes a differen ce Research Knowing (STUDENTS) the kids and relating to them on their level Attitude is all. My own motivation and love of my profession
257 Appendix AI Qualitative Comments for Negative Factors Tiered Level Theme Frequency District/State District/State Policies 9 Curriculum 7 Assessments 3 School Planning Time 12 Paperwork 10 Meetings 6 School Culture 4 Technology 3 Professional Development 2 Class Parent Involvement 7 Students 4 Total 67 OVER testing of students and paperwork So many extraneous things to do ( coverage paperwork etc.) County policies mandated teaching programs (Springboard) Curriculum
258 All can be negatives.... Lack of Time for prep Springboard Curriculum None None None Bad press from county that somehow "rubs off" on all schools/teachers/admin ( Sch ool Culture) Excessive meetings Student behavior / continuous disruption ( Students ) Quarterly and monthly county level assessments and required from state Meetings ; paperwork Lack of sufficient planning Time to actually plan. Lack of parent involvement Limited use of technology the need to be trained ( Professional Development ) to use the technology Planning Time runs short; and parents are busy with other home issues. I will do my absolute best regardless of the environment. lack access to technology Confusion and lack of communication (School Culture) District level administration ( policies ) I do not allow outside negative influences to affect my teaching. Spring Board Curriculum
259 Rigid mandated Curriculum planning Time is so short it is not effective too many meetings that add useless paperwork to the job Inexperienced ESE teachers in a FUSE situation (Professional Development) None Too much Curriculum and not enough Time lack of parent involvement District pressure to NOT discipline (no referrals allowed for excessive behavior) policies Negative student motivation and lack of parent involvement Also, not enough PLANNING Time !!! When students don't care Grades testing? None Mandated Curriculum No ne Documentation and paperwork that are not directly student related The paperwork and bureaucracy policies Not sure Lack of Time to prepare and to grade Planning Time seems to be consumed by many other obligations
260 Some students should have an alternate school setting. To achieve success. students ( statement ends there) Who's parents are not respectful or supportive (parent involvement) Lack of parent support for what teachers are trying to accomplish in the classroom ( parent involvement) Increased amount of paperwork etc... required by state and district We need more Time to grade and plan Although we have some excellent classes available, I would love to have more training opportunities -Professional Development N/A A neg ative school culture New trends for on line instruction (technology) Too many clerical duties (Paperwork) Certain programs the school chooses to adapt ( Curriculum ) Conflicting information from downtown. policies A plethora of meetings and paperwork District decision making; State decision making policies One prep Time for six classes Too many meetings too much paperwork too many hoops, not enough planning Time Some parents make up excuses for their kids so parents aren't always helpful Student attendance
261 Inconsis t ency between the district's own guidelines, and their subsequent support of teachers/admin., once we try to implement discipline. -policies Fewer meetings more planning Time