Page 52

Journal for Effective Schools

Volume 11, Number 1

6. Is the impact of teacher efficacy beliefs on teacher commitment influenced by the reward-punishment structure? Method Participants The data were collected through the Public School Teacher questionnaire (TQ) and Public School Principal questionnaire (PQ) of SASS 2003-04 (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). The restricted-use version of the dataset was utilized. The surveys sampled 43,240 teachers and 8,140 principals. These numbers were reduced to 35,910 teachers and 7,900 principals after merging the teacher and principal data files. Since the primary variable of interest in this study was commitment to teaching, teachers who chose “undecided” as their response to the question, “How long do you plan to remain in teaching?” were excluded from the analysis. This exclusion was justified on the grounds that such “undecided” responses indicate neither the presence nor the absence of commitment to teaching. Data Analysis Following Ware and Kitsantas (2007), commitment to teaching and three teacher efficacy scales were extracted through factor analysis from the teacher data file. Three principal efficacy scales based on Ware and Kitsantas (2011) were extracted through a similar procedure from the principal data file. The principal components method with varimax rotation was used for factor extraction in both instances. Several different extraction and rotation methods were tried but the variation in extraction and rotation methods did not have any large effect on the coefficients used to construct factor scores. Only factors with eigenvalues larger than 1.0 were retained. Factor analysis was based on a random selection of 3,590 teachers and 790 principals which represent 10% of the corresponding samples. Teacher and principal efficacy scales obtained from factor analysis were then used in a series of hierarchical linear models (HLM) with teachers (level 1 units) nested within principals (level 2 units) in order to predict commitment to teaching. For the HLM analysis, all cases were used (39,910 teachers and 7,900 principals). Appropriate sampling weights were used for all analyses. Measures The three teacher efficacy factors extracted were (1) Teacher efficacy to enlist administrative direction; (2) Collective efficacy – Teachers’ influence on decision making; and (3) Teacher efficacy for classroom management. With one exception, the items chosen for construction of the efficacy scales and teacher commitment were the same as those used by Ware and Kitsantas (2007). The exception was item Q59i in SASS 1999-2000 TQ which was absent from the SASS 2003-04 TQ. The affected scale was teacher efficacy to enlist administrative direction. However, this omission had virtually no effect on the reliability of the underlying scale. In order to 42

Journal for Effective Schools - Spring 2013  
Journal for Effective Schools - Spring 2013  

Vol. 11, #1