Page 56

Journal for Effective Schools

Volume 11, Number 1

Yij   0 j  rij

(Model 1)

 0 j   00   0 j In model 1, for a teacher i nested within principal j, Yij is the commitment to teaching,  0 j is mean teacher commitment for principal j,  00 is the grand mean commitment to teaching across all 35,910 teachers, and rij and  0 j are error variance components for level 1 and level 2 equations respectively. In order to determine whether there was any difference in mean commitment to teaching between teachers who belonged to schools that met all performance standards (group 4) and those that belonged to the remaining three groups, the three group dummy variables (G1, G2, and G3) were added to model 1. The resulting HLM equations are given as model 2. Yij   0 j  rij

(Model 2) 3

 0 j   00    0l Glj   0 j l 1

Next, model 3 was specified by adding the three teacher context predictors (T1, T2, and T3) to model 1. Estimation of model 3 allowed us to determine the proportion of within-principal variation in commitment to teaching that can be explained by the three teacher efficacy measures. 3

Yij   0 j    kj Tkij  rij k 1

 0 j   00   0 j

(Model 3)

 kj   k 0 In order to estimate the proportion of between-principal variation in commitment to teaching that can be explained by principal efficacy measures, model 4 was fitted which included the three principal-context predictors (P1, P2, and P3) in addition to the three teacher-context predictors. However, for this model the level 1 partial slope coefficients were not allowed to vary across principals.

46

Journal for Effective Schools - Spring 2013  

Vol. 11, #1