Page 58

Journal for Effective Schools

Volume 11, Number 1

3

Yij   0 j    kj Tkij  r k 1

3

8

m 1

t 1

 0 j   00    0 m Pmj   0t X tj   0 j L

8

m 1

t 1

(Model 7)

 kj   k 0    km Pmj   kt X tj   kj Results In order to predict commitment to teaching from teacher and principal efficacy variables under a variety of conditions, seven HLM models were estimated. The coefficient estimates for these models are presented in Tables 7, 8, and 9 while the corresponding variance components are presented in Table 10. Variance components estimates produced by the model 1 showed that of the total variation in commitment to teaching, 0.8475/(0.8475+0.0945) = .90 or 90% was due to differences between teachers nested within principals (i.e. due to differences between teachers). The remaining variation in commitment, .0945/(0.8475+0.0945) = 0.10 or 10% can be attributed to differences between principals. In order to see if the various principal groups differed in terms of mean commitment on teaching, model 2 was estimated. In terms of mean commitment to teaching, results showed that group 4 which was comprised of principals whose schools successfully met performance standards, was significantly different from group 3 which was comprised of principals whose schools failed to meet performance standards. No such difference was observed between groups 1 and 4, and between groups 2 and 4. The estimate of within-principal variation in commitment to teaching due to teacher efficacy measures obtained from model 3 was (0.8475 - 0.7123)/ 0.8475 = .16 or 16%. This translated into 0.90 x 0.16 = 0.14 or 14% of the total variation in commitment to teaching explained by the three teacher efficacy measures. All three teacher efficacy measures were found to be significant predictors of commitment to teaching (p < .001). The largest effect was observed for teacher commitment to enlist administrative support. A one standard deviation increase in this measure raised commitment to teaching by 0.29 standard deviations. Similar effects for collective efficacy and classroom management efficacy were 0.12 and 0.10 standard deviations respectively. 48

Journal for Effective Schools - Spring 2013  

Vol. 11, #1