University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An examination of prospective teacher qualities related to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment

(USC Thesis Other)

An examination of prospective teacher qualities related to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
AN EXAMINATION OF PROSPECTIVE TEACHER QUALITIES RELATED
TO TEACHER EFFICACY AND TEACHER COMMITMENT
by
Julie Elizabeth Nollner
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2012
Copyright 2012 Julie Elizabeth Nollner

ii
DEDICATION
For my supportive husband, Mark Martin, and my amazing parents,
Steve and Beverly Nollner, my first teachers.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my appreciation to my chairperson, Dr. Guilbert Hentschke, for
his patience and encouragement; and to my dissertation committee members: Dr. Julie
Slayton, for her conscientiousness and endless support, and Dr. Melora Sundt, for her
guidance and expertise. I give my heartfelt appreciation and unending gratitude to each of
them for their time throughout this process.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables vi
Abstract vii
Chapter 1: The Problem and Its Underlying Framework 1
Background of the Problem 2
Effects of Teacher Turnover 2
Factors Related to Teachers Leaving and Staying 5
Teacher Commitment in High-Need Schools 8
Online Preservice Teacher Education Programs 10
Statement of the Problem 12
Purpose of the Study 13
Research Questions 14
Significance of the Problem 14
Assumptions 15
Limitations 15
Delimitations 16
Definition of Terms 16
Organization of the Dissertation 17
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 19
Conceptual Framework 19
Economic Labor Market Theory and Teacher Commitment 19
Social Cognitive Theory and Teacher Efficacy 21
Sociocultural Theory and Prospective Teachers’ Qualities 22
Overview of the Literature Review 24
Teacher Commitment 24
Teacher Efficacy 27
Sources of Efficacy 28
Changes in Efficacy 31
Applicant Qualities Related to Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Commitment 33
Demographic Variables 34
Age 35
Ethnicity 35
Gender 36
Teacher Education Program Admission Variables 37
Undergraduate GPA 37
Undergraduate institution selectivity 38

v
Coursework 39
Work experience 40
Effects of School Setting on Teacher Efficacy and Teacher
Commitment 43
Chapter Summary 46
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 47
Research Questions 47
Population and Sample 47
Study Variables 49
Content GPA 50
Work Experience 50
Major 51
Institution Selectivity 51
Teacher Efficacy 51
Teacher Commitment 52
Data Collection 53
Data Analysis 55
Limitations of the Study 55
Ethical Considerations 56
Chapter Summary 57
Chapter 4: Results 58
Preliminary Analysis 58
Research Question 1 63
Research Question 2 68
Research Question 3 75
Research Question 4 82
Chapter Summary 83
Chapter 5: Findings, Conclusions, and Implications 85
Summary of the Study 85
Findings 86
Conclusions 88
Implications 92
Future Research 97
Summary 102
References 104
Appendices
Appendix A: Qualtrics Survey 115
Appendix B: Email Solicitation for Survey 120

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Demographic Variables for All Participants 60
Table 2: Percentages and Frequencies for Program Type, Major, Employment,
and Type of Teacher for All Participants 61
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Independent Variables for All Participants 62
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Teacher Efficacy for All Teachers 63
Table 5: Teacher Commitment Items for All Teachers 64
Table 6: Multiple Regression Results Predicting Personal Teacher Efficacy 65
Table 7: Linear Regression Results Predicting Personal Teacher Efficacy 66
Table 8: Multiple Regression Results Predicting General Teacher Efficacy 67
Table 9: Linear Regression Results Predicting General Teacher Efficacy 69
Table 10: Multiple Regression Results Predicting Question 1 70
Table 11: Linear Regression Results Predicting Question 1 71
Table 12: Multiple Regression Results Predicting Question 2 72
Table 13: Linear Regression Results Predicting Question 2 73
Table 14: Multiple Regression Results Predicting Question 3 74
Table 15: Linear Regression Results Predicting Question 3 75
Table 16: Percentages and Frequencies for Demographic Variables, Program
Type, and Major for High-Need Teachers Only 77
Table 17: Descriptive Statistics of Independent Variables for High-Need
Teachers Only 80
Table 18: Descriptive Statistics of Teacher Efficacy for High-Need Teachers Only 80
Table 19: Teacher Commitment Items for High-Need Teachers Only 81
Table 20: Teacher Commitment to High-Need Schools 82

vii
ABSTRACT
This study examined teacher efficacy and teacher commitment in recent graduates
of a preservice teacher education program. Specifically, an exploratory analysis on the
qualities of these graduates that were related to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment
after completion of the preservice teacher education program was conducted.
Participants included 58 recent graduates of an on-campus and online preservice
teacher education program at a leading research university. Multiple and linear regression
analyses were conducted to identify factors that were related to teacher efficacy and the
desire to serve and commit to the teaching profession after completion of the program.
Also, a series of paired t tests was conducted to compare teacher efficacy and teacher
commitment scores for participants who assumed employment in high-need schools and
those who did not. And one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to
identify differences between the online and on-campus graduates.
Results of the regression analyses indicated that age was a significant predictor of
general teacher efficacy, and content grade point average was a significant predictor of
teacher commitment. Additionally, t tests revealed no significant differences in mean
scores for teacher efficacy and teacher commitment between teachers in high-need
schools and those in traditional settings. One-way ANOVA results indicated no
significant differences between the online and on-campus groups in terms of the
identified variables.

1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK
At the end of the 2003-2004 school year, 17% of the elementary and secondary
teacher workforce (621,000 teachers) left the public and private schools where they had
been teaching. Nearly half of this teacher turnover was due to transfers to other schools,
while the remainder was due to teachers leaving the profession altogether (Planty et al.,
2008). Both components are particularly high among teachers in their first few years of
service, with nearly half of all beginning teachers leaving the field altogether after just 5
years (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003).
The movement of teachers to better schools and the departure of teachers from the
profession are costly trends, as states, districts, and schools experience widespread
effects, including financial losses, school staffing problems, and lowered student achieve-
ment (Ingersoll, 2001). The nation’s neediest schools, which are usually located in urban,
rural, or poor school districts, suffer from these effects the most (National Commission
on Teaching and America’s Future [NCTAF], 2003). Teachers in high-poverty schools
are as much as 50% more likely to transfer or leave than those in low-poverty schools
(Barnes, Crowe, & Schaefer, 2007). To make matters worse, the best and brightest are
often the first to leave (Henke, Chen, Geis, & Knepper, 2000).
Efforts to expand the workforce have been implemented, including new pre-
service teacher education programs, but these expansion efforts alone cannot diminish
teacher turnover. Research has noted that the inability to prevent turnover is not driven by
too few teachers entering the profession but by too many leaving (NCTAF, 2003).
Therefore, efforts must be concentrated on identifying teacher qualities that are related to

2
teacher commitment, particularly in high-poverty schools. Research on teacher commit-
ment has drawn attention to the influential nature of teachers’ beliefs in their ability to
accomplish teaching tasks, known as teacher efficacy (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy,
& Hoy, 1998). Studies suggest that teachers who exhibit higher teacher efficacy are more
likely to report commitment to the profession (Coladarci, 1992; Ware & Kitsantas, 2007).
However, much remains unknown about the relationships between prospective teachers’
qualities and (a) the development of teacher efficacy and (b) their intention to remain in
the teaching profession, particularly in high-need schools. Therefore, it is valuable to
focus attention on teacher candidates before they are granted acceptance into preservice
teacher education programs and ultimately the classroom to identify whether certain
qualities are significantly related to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment, in an effort
to reduce teacher turnover.
Background of the Problem
Effects of Teacher Turnover
High rates of teacher turnover cause problems that ultimately hinder the national
goal of providing an equitable education to all students (Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley,
2006). When teachers transfer to more desirable schools or leave the profession, the
schools that the teachers left schools experience financial loss, institutional instability,
staffing problems, and lowered student performance (Ingersoll, 2001). These damaging
effects directly impact student outcomes and school accountability (NCTAF, 2003).
Schools and districts are forced to devote financial resources to recruit and train
teachers to replace those who quit or transfer schools. A conservative national estimate of
the cost of replacing public school teachers who have left the profession is $2.17 billion a

3
year. If the cost of replacing public school teachers who transfer is added, the total
reaches $4.9 billion every year. For individual states, cost estimates range from $8.5
million in North Dakota to a staggering half a billion dollars for larger states such as
Texas (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2005). These costs put a significant drain on
already scarce financial resources in public schools.
Teacher turnover also affects the institutional stability of the school and qualifi-
cations of the teacher workforce (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). Elementary and secondary
schools are learning environments that depend on teacher interaction, cohesion, and
commitment to flourish (Frankenberg, Taylor, & Merseth, 2009); teacher turnover
negatively impacts this necessary atmosphere, creating an unstable work environment
(Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). School districts with high turnover are often forced to fill
vacancies with underqualified teachers or a string of short- and long-term substitute
teachers (Murnane & Steele, 2007). These replacements may occur on short notice,
inhibiting the ability to provide teachers with adequate orientation and induction. This
method of staffing, with frequent changes and insufficient preparation, often leads to low-
quality instruction, affecting student achievement. A major objective of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) is to ensure that all students have the best teachers possible: those who
are highly qualified in the subjects that they teach (U.S. Department of Education, Office
of the Deputy Secretary [USDOE], 2004). However, teacher turnover makes this task
extremely challenging.
Insufficient preparation and environmental instability can also affect student
achievement and cause psychological effects on students that are detrimental to their
learning (Rice, 2003). Research has shown that classroom effectiveness increases with

4
teaching experience, particularly within the first several years (Béteille & Loeb, 2009). A
sense of relatedness to students, as defined by self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci,
2000), can be difficult for new teachers to establish. Close relationships between teachers
and students have been shown to have a significant impact on students’ academic motiva-
tion and performance (Martin & Dowson, 2009). Legault, Green-Demers, and Pelletier
(2006) found that student relatedness deficiencies in teachers predicted students devalu-
ing school, which led to maladaptive behaviors such as poor study habits, skipping class,
and tardiness. Furrer and Skinner (2003) supported these findings through students’
reports of closeness with their teachers, which were positively related to academic
engagement and performance. High turnover rates inhibit the development of these
beneficial relationships and potential increases in teachers’ classroom effectiveness
(Béteille & Loeb, 2009; Martin & Dowson, 2009). Schools across the nation experience
these unfortunate consequences, but none more severely than those serving disad-
vantaged students (Voke, 2002).
School districts with a majority of minority and low-income students are most
likely to be affected by a chronic rotation of relatively inexperienced beginning teachers
and difficulties in filling vacant positions (Allensworth, Ponisciak, & Mazzeo, 2009). The
poor working conditions in many high-need schools negatively affect new teachers.
Insufficient curricular guidance, lack of mentoring, poor leadership, and lack of disci-
plinary structures can drive new teachers out of their schools or out of the profession
entirely (Frankenberg et al., 2009). Unable to match the salaries and resources of more
affluent schools, poor school districts consequently have large numbers of underqualified
teachers. Voke (2002) noted that there are simply not enough teachers who are both

5
qualified and willing to teach in underprivileged schools. Thus, disadvantaged students
are not granted equal access to qualified teachers, leading to poor educational, and
ultimately, occupational outcomes (Wilson, 1996). The sheer absence of committed and
qualified teachers in these schools has been tied to a host of other future problems as
well, including inner-city unemployment (Wilson, 1996). These educational inequities
create major social problems that must be addressed.
The high rates of turnover in beginning teachers are costly occurrences that
directly impact teacher quality, student achievement, and accountability. Therefore, it is
crucial to concentrate efforts on retaining qualified teachers in the profession, particularly
in high-need schools. The NCTAF (2003) highlighted retention of teachers as a necessary
component in providing an equitable education for all students and improving their
chances of success.
Factors Related to Teachers Leaving and Staying
Research suggests that teachers leave for a variety of reasons. Data from the
Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and its supplement, the Teacher Follow-Up Survey
(TFS), conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), provide
notable findings from a national sample of U.S. teachers who left the profession in their
first year (NCES, 1997). Self-reports indicate that personal reasons (e.g., pregnancy,
family move) and school staffing actions (e.g., layoff) were cited as reasons for many
teachers’ departures. However, nearly two thirds of beginning teachers reported that
pursuit of another job or dissatisfaction with teaching in general played a central role in
their decision to leave the profession. Major identified sources of dissatisfaction included
student discipline problems, lack of support, and poor student motivation.

6
Other studies have highlighted teachers’ frustration with student performance, as
well as lack of adequate preparation for teaching (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004;
Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Teachers with low-achieving students or those who feel that
they cannot affect student achievement are more likely to leave (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb,
& Wyckoff, 2005; Falch & Ronning, 2007). Those who report feeling unprepared are at
risk of leaving early (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Research demonstrates that new teachers
often report feeling overwhelmed by the demands of teaching (Ruby, 2002). Preparation
may be a significant problem in urban schools where resources are typically scarce and
increased teaching skills are necessary (Shen, Wegenke, & Cooley, 2003). All of these
factors have implications for first-year teachers, who are typically placed in “difficult”
classrooms more frequently than experienced teachers (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003).
Factors related to teachers staying in the field relate to their perceived ability to
handle some of these challenges of teaching (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone,
2006). Research has shown that many teachers who remain in the profession possess a
strong belief in their ability to influence student learning (Ingersoll, 2003), affect student
achievement (Fresko, Kfir, & Nassr, 1997), and improve student motivation (Caprara et
al., 2006). This sheds light on the aforementioned reasons for teachers leaving: lack of
adequate preparation, poor student achievement, and motivation. Teachers’ beliefs in
their capabilities serve as influential factors in their decisions to remain in the field
(Fresko et al., 1997).
Research has identified the significance of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, also
known as teacher efficacy, to their commitment to teaching as well as to job satisfaction
(Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca, 2003; Chan, Lau, Nie, Lim, & Hogan, 2008;

7
Coladarci, 1992; Ware & Kitsantas, 2007). Teacher efficacy is defined as “the teacher’s
belief in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of action required to
successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (Tschannen-
Moran et al., 1998, p. 233). Research has shown that high teacher efficacy is related to a
range of positive variables, including greater enthusiasm for teaching (Allinder, 1994),
more willingness to cope with student behavioral problems (Poulou & Norwich, 2002),
lower levels of reported stress (Smylie, 1988), greater job satisfaction (Caprara et al.,
2003), and most important, stronger commitment to the profession (Coladarci, 1992;
Ware & Kitsantas, 2007) as expressed by greater optimism about remaining in the
profession or more reluctance to leave. Teacher efficacy has even been found to predict
teachers’ decisions to remain in the field despite negative school-context variables (Chan
et al., 2008), highlighting the importance of teacher efficacy for teachers in high-need
schools.
The impact of teacher efficacy on teacher commitment has been clearly docu-
mented (Chan et al., 2008; Coladarci, 1992; Ware & Kitsantas, 2007). Given that teacher
efficacy is an outgrowth of self-efficacy, this paper draws on a set of theories on self-
efficacy produced by Bandura (1977, 1997) and applies them to teacher efficacy, where
applicable. With respect to self-efficacy, Bandura (1997) postulated, “Unless people
believe that they can produce desired effects by their actions, they have little incentive to
act” (p. 87). Applied to teacher efficacy and taken a step further, teachers who believe in
themselves and their students perceive difficulties as challenges and make the best use of
their capabilities and available resources (Caprara et al., 2006). As a result, they are more

8
likely to experience satisfaction with their job and the desire to continue (Caprara et al.,
2003).
In light of the relationship between teacher efficacy and teacher commitment,
studies have examined the construct of teacher efficacy to learn how it is developed and
sustained. Sources of efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1997), changes in teacher efficacy (Hoy,
W. K., & Woolfolk, 1990; Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2008; Lin & Gorrel, 2001; Romi
& Daniel, 1999; Woolfolk-Hoy, 2000), and teacher qualities that are related to high
teacher efficacy (Fives & Buehl, 2010; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007) have been investi-
gated. However, very few studies have examined the qualities of applicants to preservice
teacher education programs as they relate to teacher efficacy after their training. Given
that efficacy is most malleable early in learning (Bandura, 1997), experiences during
preservice teacher education programs are critical to the long-term development of
teacher efficacy (Hoy, A. W., & Spero, 2005). Therefore, it is valuable to examine
prospective teachers’ qualities that may influence the development of their perceived
capability to handle the demands of teaching (Poulou, 2007).
Teacher efficacy is certainly not the only factor related to teachers’ decisions to
remain in the profession. Much remains unknown about prospective teachers’ qualities as
they relate to teacher commitment, particularly in high-need schools.
Teacher Commitment in High-Need Schools
High-need schools have unique challenges that affect their ability to attract and
retain teachers (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Studies of teacher employment and mobility
suggest that teachers generally opt for schools with relatively low enrollments of poor,
minority, or low-achieving students (Bacolod, 2007). As a result, students in underserved

9
schools are not given access to the same educational opportunities as their counterparts in
more desirable schools (Boyd et al., 2005). Although research has shown that teacher
efficacy is positively related to teacher commitment (Chan et al., 2008; Coladarci, 1992;
Ware & Kitsantas, 2007), these studies often do not distinguish the school settings in
which teachers are reporting their professional commitment. Therefore, little is known
about the qualities of teachers who seek and maintain employment in high-need schools.
Many prospective teachers have generally had little exposure to diversity in their
professional preparation and may have never been inside urban, racially diverse, or
linguistically diverse classrooms (Terrill & Mark, 2000). In order for them to be
successful teachers of culturally diverse students, they must possess the necessary skills
to promote culturally relevant pedagogy and practices (Villegas, 2007). Preservice
preparation programs attempt to build these skills (Hollins & Guzman, 2005), but some
preservice teachers still report feeling unprepared to serve culturally diverse students
(Sleeter, 2001), which may influence their decision to seek employment in urban schools
(Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002). This is not to suggest that all prospective
teachers of color or those who have been exposed to diverse environments are more
prepared and committed to high-need schools. Even though most preservice teachers of
color are more willing to work in urban schools (Su, 1997), research has shown that the
majority of teachers, regardless of ethnicity, prefer to work in predominantly White
schools (Gomez, 1993). Therefore, commitment to high-need schools is a relevant
problem for all teachers, regardless of background.
To meet the pressing need for teachers who are committed to high-need schools,
many preservice teacher education programs have focused attention on preparing

10
candidates for these settings. While some studies have found that teachers who complete
these programs choose to teach in high-need schools and stay in teaching longer than
usual in these settings (Olsen & Anderson, 2007; Quartz, 2003), other studies have
concluded that these programs did not affect teachers’ professional commitment (Foote &
Cook-Cottone, 2004). Researchers suggest that some prospective teachers simply do not
possess the skills to serve high-need schools, which results in their departure (Foote,
2005; Frankenberg et al., 2009). Given these mixed findings, as well as gaps in the
literature, much remains to be learned about the relationship between prospective
teachers’ qualities and subsequent commitment to teach and remain in high-need schools.
Online Preservice Teacher Education Programs
In addition to the presence of high-need- and urban-focused teacher education
programs, the mode of instruction in which these programs are offered has changed
recently. Policy makers have recognized the need to provide prospective teachers with
more opportunities to enter the field in order to attract more candidates and produce more
teachers (Feistritzer, 2009). While the means by which individuals can enter the teaching
profession have grown exponentially in the past two decades, including accelerated
programs (Feistritzer, 2009) and alternative routes (Baines, 2006), one of the most
prolific current trends is the increasing number of online preservice teacher education
programs (Lee, 2009). With the growth of distance education and the demand for this
mode of instruction, it is fitting for educational institutions to provide this alternative
(Levine, 2006).
In fall 2007, over 30% of higher education institutions were offering fully online
programs in education, and over three million college students took at least one online

11
class (Allen & Seaman, 2008). Students value the convenience and flexibility offered by
the “anytime, anywhere” accessibility of distance learning, which allows them to over-
come geographic issues, manage scheduling conflicts, and/or prevent changes in lifestyle
or culture required in attending a traditional brick-and-mortar school (Cook, 2007). Adult
learners, in particular, are drawn to this mode of instruction, as they can arrange their
learning around their everyday lives without being constrained by time and place. This
appeal to adult learners provides credentialing opportunities to a wider audience (Huang,
2002). Levine (2006) argued that “too often teacher education programs cling to out-
dated, historically flawed vision of teacher education that is at odds with a society remade
by economic, demographic, technological, and global change” (p. 1). Educational institu-
tions have recognized this transformation by providing new alternatives for prospective
teachers.
However, online learning may impose additional cognitive and social demands
on students (Lai & Pratt, 2004) that could hinder their ability to achieve expected and
necessary growth to become efficacious and committed teachers. Aside from the acquisi-
tion of technical skills required to navigate an online classroom, students are required to
become more autonomous learners in these isolated environments (Jung, 2001; Kearsley,
2000). Those who choose to pursue an online degree may possess unique characteristics
that differ from those who would prefer an on-campus program (Kearsley, 2000), so it is
important to take these factors into consideration.
While these new urban-focused and online programs are constructive, their
purpose is to increase the pool of qualified teachers. However, more teachers entering the
profession is not the problem (NCTAF, 2003), as it does not necessarily reduce teacher

12
turnover. Therefore, it is important to take action before teachers enter the field. A careful
examination of candidates who enter these urban-focused and/or online programs could
identify factors related to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment.
Statement of the Problem
Teacher commitment is necessary for schools to build a culture that supports
student achievement (Frankenberg et al., 2009), but beginning teachers are leaving their
schools and the profession every year, particularly in low-income, low-achieving schools,
affecting the ability of those schools to provide an equitable education for all students.
While a variety of reasons can be attributed to these early departures, research has high-
lighted the role of teacher efficacy as an influential factor in teachers’ decisions to remain
in the profession (Caprara et al., 2003; Chan et al., 2008; Coladarci, 1992; Ware &
Kitsantas, 2007).
Highly efficacious teachers are more likely to meet the demands of teaching and
to persist in the face of obstacles. Although research on the characteristics of novice and
experienced teachers that are related to teacher efficacy and commitment has been
reported, very few studies have examined the characteristics of prospective teachers
before they begin their teacher education program (Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2008).
Research has shown that efficacy is most malleable early in learning, making preservice
teacher preparation critical to the long-term development of teacher efficacy. Different
experiences and backgrounds shape the ways in which individuals analyze information
from which beliefs about efficacy are derived during these programs (Tschannen-Moran
et al., 1998). Therefore, it is valuable to explore early influential factors that may be
related to teacher candidates’ development of efficacy.

13
This is not to suggest that all highly efficacious teachers remain in the field or,
inversely, that teachers who leave the profession are not highly efficacious. Much
remains unknown about the relationship between prospective teachers’ characteristics
and their subsequent intention to begin and remain in the teaching profession, particularly
in high-need schools. Therefore, it is valuable to assess characteristics that could be
related to teacher commitment to the profession in high-need schools.
New preservice teacher education programs are emerging in an effort to increase
the applicant pool, including ones that are urban focused and/or entirely online, but
admission into these programs must be selective, and research on teacher qualities that
are related to teacher turnover, such as teacher efficacy and teacher commitment, must be
examined and considered. Programs must enable teacher candidates to achieve a high
sense of teacher efficacy and commitment to the profession, particularly in high-need
schools (Olsen & Anderson, 2007; Woolfolk-Hoy & Spero, 2005). Preservice teacher
education programs should carefully select applicants who have the potential for teacher
efficacy, regarding the admissions process as entrance into professional practice.
However, limited research has focused on the influence of prospective teachers’ qualities
as they relate to teacher efficacy and commitment to high-need schools after completing
these types of programs, highlighting the necessity for this examination.
Purpose of the Study
Given the detrimental effects of teacher turnover, particularly in high-need
schools, it is critical that efforts be concentrated on teacher candidates before their
entrance into teacher education programs (Guarino et al., 2006). In an effort to identify
factors that are related to high levels of teacher efficacy and the desire to serve and

14
commit to high-need schools as a result of participation in a preservice teacher education
program, the current study was an exploratory analysis of the qualities of applicants to a
master’s degree program in teaching that were related most to these outcomes.
Research Questions
1. Among applicants to a preservice teacher education program, what qualities are
related to teacher efficacy upon completion of the program?
2. Among applicants to a preservice teacher education program, what qualities are
related to teacher commitment upon completion of the program?
3. Among applicants to a preservice teacher education program, what qualities do
graduates who assume employment in a high-need school possess?
4. Do any differences exist between the on-campus and online preservice teacher
education program candidates?
Significance of the Problem
An exploratory analysis of qualities that are related to the development of both
teacher efficacy and teacher commitment could yield valuable information for preservice
teacher education programs, as well as PK-12 schools. By identifying whether teacher
qualifications serve as building blocks for high teacher efficacy and commitment to high-
need schools, preservice teacher education programs can either tailor their programs to
build on the identified foundations or establish a baseline of expectations for their
candidates. Schools can benefit from this information as they seek to employ highly
efficacious and committed teachers; certain qualifications may reveal a greater likelihood
for the presence of these desired outcomes.

15
Assumptions
Two assumptions were made in this study. First, it was assumed that participants
would respond honestly to the study survey that assessed their teacher efficacy and
teacher commitment. Second, assumptions were made about the effectiveness of the
examined preservice teacher education program. The present study did not evaluate any
organizational and/or pedagogical variables that may have impacted the effectiveness of
the identified program. It was assumed that the program was effective in developing
teacher efficacy and commitment, given that candidates possessed adequate preparation.
However, aspects of the program may have existed that negatively or positively affected
participants’ ability to achieve the desired outcomes, regardless of background.
Limitations
The present study has several limitations. First, the study was limited to partici-
pants who voluntarily agreed to participate. Second, the study was limited by the number
of participants surveyed and the amount of time available to conduct the study. Third, the
validity of the study was limited to the reliability of the instruments used. Fourth, the
school setting in which teacher candidates completed their student teaching likely
affected participants’ reported teacher efficacy and teacher commitment. While efforts
were made to place candidates in similar schools, differences inevitably existed. Some
schools may have placed greater demands on student teachers, provided inadequate
support and resources, or had significant student discipline problems, all of which could
have affected candidates’ analysis of the teaching task and subsequent efficacy beliefs
(Hanushek et al., 2004; Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2008). These factors may also have
affected candidates’ reported commitment.

16
Delimitations
This study was confined to surveying a small sample of teachers who had com-
pleted a master’s degree program in teaching at an identified educational institution. Only
those who completed the program in summer 2010 were included in the study. A limited
number of qualities were examined as they related to teacher efficacy and teacher
commitment.
Definition of Terms
Much of the literature fails to distinguish between urban and high-need schools.
The term urban has come to serve as a euphemism for racial and socioeconomic
diversity, having implications beyond the mere geographical location of a school
(Weiner, 2000). Terms such as diverse, poor, or underserved are often used to
characterize students who attend these schools.
High-need schools are schools that typically exhibit certain characteristics based
on school performance and student demographic characteristics. School performance
variables may include inability to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), identification
as a Program Improvement (PI) school, inability to meet Annual Measurable Objectives
(AMO) for subgroups, state-wide ranking of 4 or below, or receipt of Title I funds.
Student demographic variables in high-need schools include dropout rates above the
county and state average, an English language learners (ELL) student population of 15%
or more, 35% or more of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL), and
rates of truancy, suspensions, and/or expulsions above county and state averages
(Ralston, Newman, Clauson, Guthrie, & Buzby, 2008).
Studies often refer to schools by their poverty and socioeconomic status as well,
referring to them as having low-poverty/high socioeconomic status or high-poverty/low

17
socioeconomic status. These classifications are based on the percentage of a school’s
enrollment that is eligible for FRPL through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).
Each year, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) publishes income
guidelines for program eligibility that factor household income and size in relation to
federal poverty. Students from families with incomes at or below 130% of the federal
poverty guidelines are eligible for free meals, while students from families with incomes
that are above 130% and up to 185% of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price
meals (Ralston et al., 2008). High-poverty schools are typically those in which 76% to
100% of students are eligible for FRPL, and low-poverty schools are those in which 0%
to 25% of the students are eligible (Aud et al., 2010). The literature uses these terms
interchangeably to describe high-need and urban schools, given their prevalent use and
lack of distinction. Given the recognition that all of the presented terms are certainly
distinct from one another, efforts were made in this study to distinguish the proper
classification, when possible.
Several definitions of teachers are presented. Prospective teachers are persons
who are not enrolled in preservice teacher education programs but have demonstrated an
interest in entering the field by presenting an application of candidacy to these programs.
Teacher candidates are persons who are enrolled in preservice teacher education pro-
grams. The term teachers includes elementary and secondary teachers who are employed
by a school system.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 presents the introduction, background of the problem, statement of the
problem, purpose of the study, research questions, significance of the study, assumptions,

18
limitations, delimitations, and definitions of terms. Chapter 2 is a review of relevant
literature on the following topics: (a) teacher commitment; (b) teacher efficacy, including
sources of and changes in teacher efficacy; (c) applicant qualities related to teacher com-
mitment and teacher efficacy, focusing on admission criteria; and (d) contextual factors
that influence teacher commitment and teacher efficacy. Prior to the examination of these
topics, a conceptual framework is presented to shape the literature review. Chapter 3
describes the methodology used in the study, including the research design; population
and sampling procedure; and the instruments and their selection or development, together
with information on validity and reliability. Each of these sections concludes with a
rationale, including strengths and limitations of the design elements. The chapter con-
cludes with a report of the procedures used for data collection and data analysis. Chapter
4 presents the results of the study. Chapter 5 presents discussion and analysis of the
results, culminating in conclusions and recommendations.

19
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Committed and efficacious teachers are more likely to remain in the profession
and to perform at higher levels in the classroom (Tsui & Cheng, 1999; Elliot &
Crosswell, 2001). However, factors related to teacher commitment and teacher efficacy
are not typically measured in applicants to preservice teacher education programs
(Denner, Salzman, & Newsome, 2001). Given the influence of commitment and efficacy
on teacher retention, it is valuable to explore whether measureable qualifications of
prospective teachers are related to these constructs.
The conceptual framework for the literature review and the study is presented
first. The literature review presents an overview of teacher commitment and teacher
efficacy, followed by an examination of prospective teacher qualifications that are related
to each of these constructs.
Conceptual Framework
For the purposes of this study, three theories were used to frame the literature
review and research questions: (a) economic labor market theory of supply and demand
to examine teacher commitment, (b) social cognitive theory to explore teacher efficacy,
and (c) sociocultural theory to support the exploration of prospective teachers’ qualities
during the admissions process.
Economic Labor Market Theory and Teacher Commitment
The economic labor market theory of supply and demand (Ehrenberg & Smith,
1997) serves as the principle that initially motivates prospective teachers to enter the field
of teaching, as well as to stay committed to the profession in the long term. When applied

20
to the teacher labor market, demand is defined as the number of teaching positions
offered at a given level of compensation and supply is defined as the number of qualified
teachers who are willing to teach at a given level of compensation (Haggstrom, Darling-
Hammond, & Grissmer, 1988). Compensation includes a combination of salary and other
types of rewards (e.g., personal satisfaction) derived from teaching. Based on the eco-
nomic labor market theory (Ehrenberg & Smith, 1997), teachers remain committed to the
profession because they hold the perception that teaching remains the most attractive
occupation in terms of compensation, working conditions, and intrinsic rewards, com-
pared to alternative activities (Guarino et al., 2006).
Teachers who choose to remain in the profession lose the opportunity to experi-
ence the potential rewards of other occupations. These lost rewards are considered
“opportunity costs” of teaching (Guarino et al., 2006). Depending on teachers’ qualifica-
tions, experiences, and perceived rewards associated with both teaching and other occu-
pations, opportunity costs vary. Teachers whose opportunity costs outweigh rewards
gained from teaching are less likely to remain in the profession (Guarino et al., 2006).
School-level characteristics can also affect these interpretations made by teachers.
The elements of overall attractiveness that teachers consider to establish their
opportunity costs and rewards of teaching can vary based on the school setting where
they teach. High-need schools present added challenges that can increase opportunity
costs and reduce personal rewards for some teachers (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003),
leading to school-specific attrition and a higher demand than supply of qualified teachers.
Given the consequences associated with this imbalance in high-need schools, as well as
the effects of teacher attrition in the profession overall, it is important to examine factors

21
related to teachers’ decisions to remain committed to the field, utilizing the economic
labor market theory of supply and demand.
Social Cognitive Theory and Teacher Efficacy
The conceptualization of teacher efficacy is grounded in the theoretical frame-
work of Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1977) and the construct of self-efficacy
(Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s
capacity to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attain-
ments” (p. 3). It is a future-oriented judgment about one’s perception of competence
rather than a judgment about actual competence (Hoy, A. W., & Spero, 2005). These
beliefs influence thought patterns and emotions that subsequently affect how much effort
the teacher exerts in the pursuit of objectives and the level of persistence in the face of
adversity (Bandura, 1997; Milner, 2002; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001). In
other words, the degree of a teacher’s conviction in his/her level of effectiveness will
affect how much effort he/she expends and how long he/she will persist (Bandura, 1997).
Social cognitive theory proposes an additional belief that differs from perceived
self-efficacy: outcome expectancy. Whereas efficacy expectation is the conviction that
one can execute the necessary actions to perform a given task, outcome expectancy is the
estimation that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes (Bandura, 1986). People
can infer that given courses of action will lead to certain outcomes but, if they do not
have sufficient conviction of their ability, it is likely that they will not employ those
behaviors (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001). Bandura (1997) suggested that
“the self-assurance with which people approach and manage difficult tasks determines
whether they make good or poor use of their capabilities” (p. 35).

22
Drawing on these theories of self-efficacy, researchers have extended these two
types of expectations to teachers, creating two separate factors of teacher efficacy:
personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy. Personal teaching efficacy
reflects teachers’ evaluations of their abilities to bring about positive student change,
paralleling Bandura’s (1997) efficacy expectation. General teaching efficacy refers to the
extent to which teachers believe that students can be taught, given environmental factors,
paralleling Bandura’s outcome expectancy (Ashton, 1985; Gibson & Dembo, 1984).
Given that these constructs, collectively known as teacher efficacy, play such an
important role in teachers’ actions, it is valuable to examine factors related to them in the
literature review.
Sociocultural Theory and Prospective Teachers’ Qualities
Preservice teacher education programs strive to arm candidates with tools to
assume employment as highly efficacious and committed teachers. However, individual
differences exist in the ability to meet this goal. In other words, the extent to which a
program can equip teachers with the necessary tools is impacted by each candidate’s state
of readiness upon entry into the program, highlighting the notion of the zone of proximal
development (ZPD) and sociocultural theory.
The ZPD is defined as the distance between an individual’s actual level of
development, as determined by independent problem solving, and the potential level of
development, as determined through problem solving under the influence or guidance of
a more capable individual (Vygotsky, 1978). With respect to preservice teacher education
programs, learning is grounded in social interactions and nurtured through the
membership in the learning community (Flores, Hernandez, Garcia, & Claeys, 2011).

23
Teacher candidates engage with theories and pedagogical approaches through classroom
instruction, readings, discussions, field experiences, and interactions with colleagues,
resulting in the development of higher-order functions and preparation for service.
However, in order for this development to occur, teachers must mediate instruction
within candidates’ ZPD (Flores et al., 2011; Vygotsky, 1986). According to Vygotsky
(1978), instruction should awaken functions that are in the process of maturing. There-
fore, a foundation of prior knowledge that allows learners to understand new concepts
and internalize new information must exist (Olson & Platt, 2000). With respect to the
current study, this suggests that candidates who are accepted into preservice teacher
education programs should possess certain fundamental knowledge so they can advance
their learning via the provided instruction. With this foundation in place, instruction can
be scaffolded to support development of complex skills and knowledge necessary for
future teachers (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989).
Programs such as preservice teacher education programs aim to provide students
with the necessary pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions to enter the teaching
profession (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). However, students who do not enter with the
necessary foundation may leave unprepared as a result of their inability to benefit fully
from instruction, curriculum and field experiences. While teachers in these preparation
programs can make adjustments to accommodate varying levels, it is critical that
candidates’ ZPD reflects the ability to take advantage of the collaboration, instruction,
and social interactions, particularly in urban-focused teacher preparation programs or
those that are delivered online, which may present additional demands (Lai & Pratt,
2004). This capability may increase candidates’ likelihood of graduating from programs

24
with high teacher efficacy and greater commitment to high-need schools, highlighting the
value of exploration of these factors.
Overview of the Literature Review
The literature review is grounded in the aforementioned theories of economic
labor market theory (Ehrenberg & Smith, 1997), social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977)
and sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1986). Three main topics are treated in this literature
review: (a) teacher commitment, (b) teacher efficacy, and (c) applicant qualities related to
teacher commitment and teacher efficacy. Research on teacher commitment is reviewed,
drawing on elements of the economic labor market theory to explain where teachers
choose to teach and stay and why they make these choices. Research on teacher efficacy
is examined, focusing on the sources of and changes in the development of this construct,
as identified by Bandura (1977, 1997). Applicant qualities related to teacher commitment
and teacher efficacy are discussed by utilizing sociocultural theory and ZPD, as well as
economic labor market theory, to explain the nature of these relationships.
Teacher Commitment
Teacher commitment was defined by Coladarci (1992) as the “degree of psycho-
logical attachment to the teaching profession” (p. 326). Specifically, Firestone and Pennel
(1993) defined a committed teacher as one who “believes in the values and goals of his or
her work, actively wants to be affiliated with his or her work, and will work beyond the
minimal expectations required of the job description” (p. 491).
Studies have identified multiple dimensions of teacher commitment, including
commitment to one’s students, to one’s individual school, and to the teaching profession
(Frankenberg et al., 2009). While these elements are related, research has shown that they

25
may also operate independently of one another (Park, 2005). Teachers may feel com-
mitted to their students, for example, but not to their school. Most research aligns teacher
commitment with a particular type of professional commitment (Frankenberg et al.,
2009), while some research focuses on teachers’ commitment to specific settings, includ-
ing urban schools. Frankenberg et al. (2009) coined the term urban commitment, which
they defined as “teachers’ active choices to pursue opportunities to work in inner-city
schools, and especially those with high percentages of low-income students and students
of color” (p. 313). Along these lines, teacher commitment consists not only of sustained
dedication to the field but also of initial career decisions, so it is important to examine
research that identifies where teachers choose to teach.
Research on teacher employment suggests that most teachers do not enter the field
to teach students in high-need schools (Frankenberg et al., 2009; Gay, 2003). This is
reflected in the data that show that the majority of teachers seek employment in schools
with relatively low enrollments of poor, minority, or low-achieving students (Bacolod,
2007; Frankenberg et al., 2009). Bacolod (2007) examined the key determinants of entry
into the profession across school type, using data from the NCES Baccalaureate and
Beyond Longitudinal Study that supported that working conditions play an important role
in where prospective teachers choose to teach. Schools with a majority of minority
students, low-socioeconomic status students, or low academic performances attract
significantly fewer teachers (Bacolod, 2007).
Teachers prefer to teach students who are like themselves and in communities
similar to their own (Gay, 2003). As most teachers entering the field are White middle-
class women (NCES, 2005), they are not inclined toward schools serving non-White

26
students and/or toward high-need schools (Allensworth et al., 2009). As the demo-
graphics of America’s schools change, with increasingly high concentrations of poor
students and students of color (Frankenberg, Lee, & Orfield, 2003), it is not surprising
that school staffing difficulties remain concentrated in urban and poor communities
(Frankenberg et al., 2009). For many teachers, these environments are not the most
attractive in terms of overall compensation (i.e., salary, benefits, and working conditions)
relative to alternative opportunities (Guarino et al., 2006).
In a review of research on multicultural education, Ladson-Billings (1999)
asserted that “teacher education programs are filled with prospective candidates who
have no desire to teach in schools where students are from racial, ethnic, or linguistic
backgrounds different from their own” (p. 224). While this assertion is generally accepted
(Barraza & Hunter-Quartz, 2005), one study presented a school that was intentionally
attempting to challenge this pattern. Olsen and Anderson (2007) interviewed beginning
teachers who had recently completed a master’s-level urban teacher preparation program
at the University of California, Los Angeles, in an effort to examine their career plans.
While all 15 participants assumed employment in urban or high-need schools, only 3
reported an unequivocal intent to stay in teaching as long as they were able. There were
various reasons for the 12 participants who were uncertain, but a few patterns emerged.
In particular, many of the teachers wondered whether their reasons for entry (e.g., social
justice) could be better met in other realms of education. Many felt that changing roles
would enable them to make greater changes. Therefore, they did not intend to leave the
profession but did not plan to stay in the role of classroom teacher in an urban school.
While it is positive that these teachers intended to remain in the field of education, the

27
outcome for schools was still unfavorable, given the resulting decrease in staff and the
need to replacement them (Ingersoll, 2001). Therefore, although the study suggested that
completion of a preservice teacher education program that emphasizes urban education
may influence teachers’ subsequent decision to work in urban schools, it did not suggest
that they are likely to commit to these schools.
In addition to examining where beginning teachers seek employment, studies on
teacher commitment have assessed their commitment to the profession. This investigation
is typically done through two means: (a) reviewing attrition rates and potential reasons
for attrition, or (b) self-reports by teachers. Surveys typically ask teachers whether they
would choose teaching as a career again. Research has shown that various teacher quali-
ties are related to various aspects of teacher commitment (reviewed in a later section
along with the teacher qualities related to teacher efficacy). However, before these
relationships can be explored, teacher efficacy must be examined, given its relationship to
teacher commitment and the focus of this study.
Teacher Efficacy
A growing body of research suggests that teacher commitment is related to the
ability to influence student learning (Fresko et al., 1997; Ingersoll, 2003), which has
drawn attention to the construct of teacher efficacy: “a teacher’s belief in his or her
capability to organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a
specific teaching task in a particular context” (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998, p. 233).
Research has identified several sources of teacher efficacy that are important to examine
for understanding the development this construct (Bandura, 1977, 1997).

28
Sources of Efficacy
Bandura (1977, 1997) postulated four sources of self-efficacy information:
mastery experiences, physiological and emotional states, vicarious experience, and verbal
persuasion. These four sources contribute to the analysis of the teaching task and
teachers’ perception of their competence.
Mastery experiences are the most powerful source of efficacy information
(Bandura, 1997). Student teaching provides many teacher candidates with some of their
first mastery experiences, influencing the development of teacher efficacy beliefs
(Mulholland & Wallace, 2001). The perception that performances on teaching tasks are
successful enhances efficacy beliefs, as well as expectations that future performances will
be proficient. If success is achieved on difficult tasks with little assistance or early in
learning with minor setbacks, efficacy beliefs are strengthened considerably (Tschannen-
Moran et al., 1998).
In line with this theory, Knoblauch and Woolfolk Hoy (2008) found that
beginning teachers who completed their student teaching in urban schools, known to
present challenges, demonstrated increased teaching efficacy, when compared to their
efficacy beliefs prior to their teaching assignment. The authors hypothesized that the
constraints and lack of resources in urban schools would cause student teachers’ efficacy
beliefs to decline, which was not the case. Mastery of a challenging situation (i.e.,
teaching at an urban school) could serve as a possible reason for this outcome. However,
this alone does not enhance efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997).
Several factors can lead to unchanged or reduced efficacy beliefs. For example, if
success is achieved with extensive assistance or on an easy task, then efficacy may not be
strengthened (Pintrich & Schunk, 2001). If success requires a level of work that the

29
individual feels unable to sustain, efficacy may remain unchanged (Hoy, A. W., & Spero,
2005). Not surprisingly, the perception that performances are not successful lowers
efficacy beliefs and leads to the expectation that future performances will also be
ineffective. However, these “failures” may provide clues about more potentially success-
ful strategies, so they are not always detrimental (Mulholland & Wallace, 2001).
Attributions also play a role. Efficacy is enhanced most when success is attributed
to internal causes, such as ability or effort. When achievements are attributed to external
causes, efficacy beliefs are likely to remain unchanged. Internal attributions may have
contributed to the urban student teachers’ enhanced efficacy beliefs in the study by
Knoblauch and Woolfolk Hoy (2008). Student teachers may have attributed their success
to internal factors, thereby enhancing their teaching efficacy. According to Knoblauch
and Woolfolk Hoy (2008), teachers who attribute lack of success to external causes can
be problematic, as their “level of effort and persistence may subsequently decline due to
perceived external constraints” (p. 174). Research has also shown that teachers who leave
the profession often cite external causes (e.g., inadequate support and resources, student
discipline problems, poor student motivation) for their departure (Haberman & Richards,
1990; Ingersoll, 2003), highlighting the significance of attributions.
The level of physiological and emotional arousal that a person experiences while
engaging in a task also adds to the perception of competence. Feelings of relaxation
during a teaching task, for example, may suggest confidence and self-assurance, while
feelings of stress or anxiety may be viewed negatively and skew the anticipation of future
success, depending on the circumstances. According to Bandura (1997), moderate levels
of arousal may be beneficial by encouraging focus and attention on the task, but high

30
levels of arousal may be interfere with one’s capabilities. The interpretation of these
states can influence judgments about one’s capabilities (Poulou, 2007).
Vicarious experiences also play a valuable role in the development of teachers’
efficacy beliefs. Watching others teach provides prospective teachers with impressions
about the nature of the teaching task (Hoy, A. W., & Spero, 2005). In addition to the
experiences garnered from professors in preservice teacher education programs, student
teaching provides influential vicarious experiences from which prospective teachers can
learn. Student teachers are traditionally matched with cooperating teachers/mentor
teachers who serve as models to them, providing an opportunity to enhance the students’
efficacy through observational learning (Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2008). Student
teachers can gain valuable information from these cooperating teachers, but the develop-
ment of efficacy beliefs through vicarious information requires more than mere exposure
to these models. According to Bandura (1997), the observer considers the value of the
modeled events, as well as the competence of the model. Some cooperating teachers may
exert greater instructional influence than others (Bandura, 1997). Accordingly, research
has shown that student teachers who viewed their cooperating teachers as efficacious
were more efficacious themselves after completing their teaching assignment (Knobluach
& Woolfolk Hoy, 2008), which is consistent with earlier research by Li and Zhang
(2000). Therefore, interpretations of task value and perceptions of efficacy can be as
significant as reality.
Verbal persuasion from professors and cooperating teachers can serve as another
essential source of efficacy information for beginning teachers. Encouragement, support,
and feedback can instill confidence in student teachers as they encounter the challenges

31
of teaching and experience the inevitable disillusionment and doubt about their capabili-
ties (Hawkey, 1997). However, similar to vicarious experiences, the impact of verbal
persuasion is contingent on who provides it. Credibility, proficiency, and trustworthiness
may all be taken into consideration (Bandura, 1997). Teacher candidates who perceive
their mentors and professors to be efficacious, for example, may give more credence to
their verbal persuasion.
These four sources of information play important roles in the development of
efficacy beliefs. However, it is the interpretation of this information by the candidate that
is the most critical. Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) suggested that “cognitive processing
determines how the sources of information will be weighed and how they will influence
the analysis of the teaching task and personal competence” (p. 230). This information
then shapes teacher efficacy. Individual differences affect what people attend to, what
they consider important or credible, and what they remember (Poulou, 2007). People
generally develop biases based on preexisting beliefs, experiences, the kinds of attribu-
tions that they typically construct, and the sources of information that they consider
important (Bandura, 1997). Some prospective teachers may possess optimistic expecta-
tions, while others generally exhibit more pessimistic expectations. Some may have a
tendency to blame external factors for their mistakes, while others assume personal
responsibility for failures. These differences affect the development of efficacy beliefs,
which, in turn, can affect success as a teacher, as well as commitment to the profession.
Changes in Efficacy
The development of teacher efficacy in prospective teachers has become a key
area of interest for many researchers, given that once efficacy beliefs are established, they

32
appear to be somewhat resistant to change (Bandura, 1997). A fairly consistent finding is
that teachers’ reported sense of efficacy for teaching increases during preservice teacher
education programs and student teaching (Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, 1990; Knoblauch &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2008). However, other studies have found no changes (Lin & Gorrell,
2001; Romi & Daniel, 1999), which could be due to differences in the way teacher
efficacy was measured (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001).
Using a sample of 102 student teachers, Knoblauch and Woolfolk Hoy (2008)
investigated the teacher efficacy beliefs of candidates enrolled in a preservice teacher
education program. Data about teacher efficacy beliefs were gathered before and after
candidates completed their student teaching. Results revealed that all participants
exhibited significant increases in teacher efficacy following student teaching, regardless
of the school setting (i.e., rural, suburban, or urban). An earlier study by Woolfolk-Hoy
and Spero (2005) found similar results among 53 prospective teachers in a Master of
Education initial teaching certification program. Teacher efficacy was measured through
three phases of data collection: (a) during the first quarter of teacher preparation, (b) at
the end of the preparation program after student teaching, and (c) at the end of the first
year of teaching. Participants reported significant increases in teacher efficacy after
student teaching but significant declines during the first year of teaching, which is
consistent with other studies (Woolfolk-Hoy & Spero, 2005).
Research suggests that high levels of teacher efficacy are not always sustained
during the first year of teaching. A longitudinal study by Woolfolk-Hoy (2000) evaluated
the changes in efficacy beliefs in 339 prospective teachers during their preservice teacher
education program and after their first year of teaching. Results indicated a significant

33
increase in teaching efficacy from the start of the program to the end, as expected;
however, participants’ teaching efficacy decreased between the start and end of the first
year of teaching. Woolfolk-Hoy (2000) attributed the initial increase to the support given
during training; when the support diminished, the expectancies of efficacy decreased.
Novice teachers may also underestimate the complexity of teaching and experience a
“reality shock” (Veenman, 1984) that subsequently affects their efficacy beliefs.
Efficacy beliefs are expected to change during the first year of teaching and
beyond. However, research has shown that preservice teacher education programs build a
strong foundation for teacher efficacy that substantially influences its later development
and maintenance (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). Therefore, it is valuable to examine
the qualifications with which candidates enter preservice teacher education programs in
an effort to identify factors that may influence this development.
Applicant Qualities Related to Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Commitment
A range of admission variables has been established in an attempt to select
teacher candidates who will go on to excel in the dynamic environment of education as
committed and efficacious teachers (Caskey, Peterson, & Temple, 2001). Most current
programs rely heavily on quantitative criteria, such as undergraduate grade point average
(GPA; Haberman & Post, 1998), as well as subjective criteria such as relevant work
experience. However, some teacher education programs consider additional factors, such
as coursework and undergraduate institution, given the unique requirements to succeed as
a teacher in today’s educational environment. This section reviews these factors to
examine their relationship to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment.

34
It is important to note that there is only limited research on the relationship
between many preservice teacher education admission variables and teacher efficacy. In
an effort to present data on the influence of such variables, research on teacher effective-
ness is presented, where applicable. Teacher effectiveness is typically measured by
student outcomes or supervisor ratings, not by teachers’ perception of their effectiveness.
Therefore, these comparisons should be interpreted with caution. However, it is relevant
to discuss these findings, given the influence of teacher effectiveness on efficacy beliefs
(Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Research is also limited on the relationship between
prospective teachers’ qualifications and teacher commitment. Studies often fail to
identify the type of schools where teachers work when they report their commitment.
Therefore, research reviewed in this section focuses primarily on teacher commitment to
the profession and high-need schools, when possible. This study will contribute to the
existing body of research, addressing this gap in the literature.
Demographic variables, as well as admission variables used in the selection of
teacher candidates, are reviewed in this section. The demographic variables of age,
ethnicity, and gender have identified relationships with teacher commitment. In recogni-
tion of the student population that teachers are likely to serve, the diversity of the
applicant pool is important for preservice teacher education programs to consider
(Branch, 2001). Examined admission variables include undergraduate content GPA, work
experience, coursework, and institution selectivity.
Demographic Variables
Research has shown that demographic characteristics have an important impact on
teacher commitment. Older, more experienced teachers are more likely to remain in the

35
profession, minority teachers tend to have lower attrition rates than Caucasian teachers,
and male teachers are less likely to leave the profession than women (Guarino et al.,
2006; NCES, 1997). No identified studies have examined demographic characteristics
and teacher efficacy.
Age. Research consistently demonstrates higher attrition rates for young begin-
ning teachers than for older beginning teachers (Guarino et al., 2006). Hanushek et al.
(2004) analyzed public data on 300,000 Texas public school teachers and found that
those who left Texas public schools were generally relatively young. The data did not
indicate whether they remained in the profession; only departure from their schools was
documented. Using data on more than 6,000 teachers in the SASS, Ingersoll (2001) found
similar results, with higher attrition rates for younger teachers. Individuals who are new
to the labor market are still exploring their options and may not be as willing to accept
the extant working conditions as readily as more experienced professionals (Guarino et
al., 2006).
Ethnicity. Research demonstrates that minority teachers tend to have lower
attrition rates than Caucasian teachers (Ingersoll, 2001). Using the SASS and Teacher
Follow-Up Survey to investigate factors related to attrition, Ingersoll (2001) found that
White teachers were more likely than minority teachers to quit. S. Kirby, Berends, and
Naftel (1999) found that Hispanic teachers demonstrated the lowest early attrition rates.
Among Texas public school teachers, the average teaching tenure for Hispanic males
and females was 10 years, compared to 6 and 9 years for Black males and females,
respectively, and 7 and 6 years for Caucasian males and females, respectively.

36
In line with the conceptual framework of sociocultural theory and ZPD,
researchers have suggested that minority teachers are better suited to work in high-need
schools because they possess a greater understanding of the cultural tools that these
students bring to the classroom (Villegas, 2007). Minority teachers have presumably
endured similar challenges as minority students and tend to have empathy for the life
conditions with which these students are confronted daily (McKinney, Berry, Dickerson,
& Campbell-Whately, 2007). This understanding allows minority teachers to enter the
classroom with a different, and arguably more beneficial, set of tools to handle the
demands of teaching in a high-need school, compared to Caucasian teachers, who have
not had as much exposure to diverse students (Branch, 2001). As a result, minority
teachers feel more comfortable in these environments and possess greater “staying
power” (Haberman, 1996, p. 751).
Labor market perceptions also influence minority teachers’ decisions to remain in
the field. Based on a sample of recent university graduates, Ng and Sears (2010) found
that ethnic minorities expressed lower confidence in their labor market prospects than
Whites. Therefore, they might be more inclined to remain in the teaching profession if
they do not believe that they possess many other options.
Gender. Several studies have found that women tend to display higher attrition
rates than men, controlling for race (Ingersoll, 2001; Kirby, S., et al., 1999). Using
longitudinal data on public school teachers in Texas, Kirby et al. reported that females
had a 5% higher rate of attrition than males. Ingersoll (2001) also found that men were
less likely to leave the profession than women, through an analysis of the SASS. Despite
these higher attrition rates, women tended to report higher commitment than men.

37
Ingersoll and Alsalam (1997) analyzed data on 53,000 teachers that revealed higher self-
reported commitment to the teaching profession among women. Data show that personal
reasons such as pregnancy and child-rearing are frequently cited as reasons for their
departure (Guarino et al., 2006), so women could feel a greater sense of commitment but
not necessarily remain in the profession as long due to the aforementioned reasons. This
finding highlights the limitation of using attrition rates as a measure of teacher commit-
ment. According to the economic labor market theory, these women could also perceive
the opportunity costs of remaining in teaching as greater than the rewards gained from
staying home for child-rearing purposes, resulting in their departure (Ehrenberg & Smith,
1997).
Teacher Education Program Admission Variables
Undergraduate GPA. GPA is the most widely used criterion for admission into
teacher education programs (Mikotovics & Crehan, 2002). Given that GPA is generally
believed to measure academic ability, graduate programs utilize this variable as an
indicator of students’ future success. The prevalence of this measure can also be traced to
its capacity to screen large numbers of applicants due to its objective nature (Haberman,
1993). The majority of preservice teacher education programs require a minimum GPA
of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale. However, exceptions are made on a case-by-case basis, and there
are some programs with a lower minimum GPA (e.g., 2.75) or no GPA requirement at all.
Despite its widespread use, research suggests that GPA is not a significant
predictor of teacher efficacy (Chester & Beaudin, 1996). Using a sample of 173 novice
teachers in urban schools, Chester and Beaudin (1996) found that undergraduate GPA
was not related to teachers’ reported perceptions about their capabilities as a teacher.

38
However, Bacolod (2007) found that GPA was related to teacher commitment. Data from
the NCES Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study showed that prospective
teachers with higher undergraduate GPA were significantly less likely to report teacher
commitment to urban schools than prospective teachers with lower undergraduate GPA
(Bacolod, 2007). These findings are consistent with the conceptual framework of labor
market theory, as higher-ability individuals, as assessed by undergraduate GPA, are
presumed to have more options available to them, which could entice them to explore
other options.
These findings connect to minority teachers as well, who reportedly express
greater teacher commitment than Caucasian teachers. Evidence has shown that Black and
Hispanic students average lower GPAs than their White and Asian counterparts (Massey,
2006). These differences have been traced to family socioeconomic status, inequalities in
educational opportunities, and a multitude of other factors that are beyond the scope of
this paper (Alon & Tienda, 2007). Nevertheless, these disparities in college success might
influence minority teachers’ decisions to remain in the field if they do not feel well
positioned to enter other professions.
Undergraduate institution selectivity. Consideration of the institution where
candidates earn their Bachelor’s degree is also important. While research does not exist
on the influence of institution selectivity on teacher efficacy, there are studies on the
influence of institution selectivity on teacher commitment. A longitudinal study by
Podgursky, Monroe, and Watson (2004), which tracked public school teachers, showed
that teachers who earned their undergraduate degree from highly selective institutions
were more likely to leave teaching than teachers who attended less selective institutions.

39
Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff (2002) reported similar results with regard to both attrition
and migration. Teachers who left the profession were 60% more likely to have earned a
bachelor’s degree from a highly selective institution; teachers who transferred schools
were 35% more likely to have received a bachelor’s degree from a highly selective
institution.
Therefore, research suggests that teachers with presumed higher ability, as
assessed by undergraduate GPA and the selectivity of their undergraduate institution,
have a higher probability of leaving the profession. In line with labor market theory, these
teachers could presumably have more occupational options available to them, which
could lead to their departure.
Coursework. Applicants must possess adequate knowledge of the subject area(s)
in which they intend to teach. Those who apply for elementary school credentials are
assumed to possess the required subject matter knowledge if they have earned a
Bachelor’s degree. However, secondary teachers must demonstrate sufficient knowledge
through relevant coursework. Marks (1990) suggested that applicants who intend to teach
high school should have a minimum of six semester courses in their major teaching area;
the content of these courses should also be considered (Stotsky, 2006).
Research has examined the relationship between degree types and levels of
teacher effectiveness, as assessed by student achievement. No identified studies have
examined these academic qualifications in connection with teacher efficacy. Using data
from National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS), Goldhaber and Brewer (2000)
found that degree level was not related to high school student achievement in mathe-
matics, science, English, or history; however, subject-specific degrees exerted an

40
influence on achievement. Degrees in mathematics and science (both bachelor’s and
master’s), in particular, had a positive effect on student test scores in those subjects.
Teachers who held both a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in the subject area
taught were the most effective. Rowan, Chiang, and Miller’s (1997) study of 10th-grade
student achievement in mathematics supported these finding, as a degree in mathematics
in undergraduate and/or graduate school was a positive predictor of student achievement.
Sociocultural theory and ZPD support these findings, suggesting that candidates
who enter preservice teacher education programs with greater pedagogical knowledge are
more likely to possess high teacher effectiveness. However, researchers express caution
regarding the assumption that in-depth knowledge of subject matter content contributes to
a teacher’s effectiveness, given that the transfer of that knowledge to teaching practice is
not inevitable (Zumwalt & Craig, 2005).
While research on coursework in subject-specific degrees has not been conducted
in connection with teacher commitment, studies have shown that teachers with advanced
degrees in the subject in which they teach are less likely to remain in the profession
(Borman & Dowling, 2008). In line with the economic labor market theory, these
teachers with advanced degrees are presumed to have more occupational opportunities
with potentially higher compensation in terms of salary, thereby increasing their oppor-
tunity costs of staying in the profession and reducing their likelihood of staying
(Ehrenberg & Smith, 1997).
Work experience. The record of work experience can provide information on
candidates’ suitability and aptitude for preservice teacher education programs and their
subsequent entry into the profession. Teaching experience is not required for admission

41
into preservice teacher education programs, but relevant experiences that will translate to
the demands for teaching are certainly favorable. Research has highlighted the relation-
ship between teaching experience and positive outcomes, including higher student
achievement (Rice, 2003), higher teacher efficacy (Fives & Buehl, 2010), and greater
teacher commitment (Chan et al., 2008). Based on these findings, candidates with teach-
ing experience are presumed to be more favorable candidates. Experience outside of
education has also been deemed beneficial by some researchers (Haberman, 1990;
Stoddart & Floden, 1995; USDOE, 2004), despite limited support.
Recent studies have highlighted the positive relationship between teaching
experience and efficacy beliefs (Fives & Buehl, 2010; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007).
Fives and Buehl (2010) examined differences in efficacy beliefs between practicing
(n =102) and preservice teachers (n = 270) with respect to experience. Five groups of
teachers were formed based on the number of years that they had taught (i.e., preservice,
1-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-10 years, 10+ years). Results indicated that teachers with 10 or
more years of teaching experience were significantly more efficacious than preservice
teachers, while no other significant differences were found among the other groups. An
earlier study by Wolters and Daugherty (2007) was in line with these findings, as it found
that teachers with more experience reported significantly higher efficacy than beginning
teachers for various teaching tasks, such as instructional practices and classroom manage-
ment. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because other studies
have found that experienced teachers tended to be less effective, as measured by student
achievement (Harris & Sass, 2007). Therefore, although experienced teachers might be
reportedly more efficacious, they are not necessarily more effective.

42
Research suggests that experienced teachers are more likely to exhibit greater
commitment. In a sample of 3,715 teachers, Chan et al. (2008) found a significant
relationship between the number of years spent in teaching and teacher commitment, as
assessed by self-reported reluctance to leave the profession. Conversely, Hanushek et al.
(2004) found that those who displayed low levels of commitment, as defined by their
departure from the profession, had very little experience. Similar to young teachers, those
with little experience may still be exploring their options in the labor market, while
experienced teachers may find it more difficult to move easily to another profession, thus
enhancing their “commitment” to the field.
Some research has highlighted the benefit of other professional experience,
reasoning that such experience would lead to advanced knowledge through on-the-job
experience (Stoddart & Floden, 1995). Haberman (1990) stated that “teacher candidates
with greater levels of experience outside of education would be more mature and com-
mitted and thus better equipped to deal with the demands of teaching than their younger,
traditionally prepared counterparts” (p. 280). Haberman (1990) argued that older, more
mature teachers with broader experiences would express stronger commitment to
organizational goals (as opposed to egocentric goals), which would lead to more effective
teaching. However, a recent study challenged these assumptions. Scribner and Akiba
(2010) examined the relationship between the nature and characteristics of teachers’ prior
experiences and instructional quality, as assessed by their practice of standards-based
instruction. Results indicated that career length, number of prior careers, and career
relevance to subject area were not related to instructional quality. However, teachers with
education-related experience practiced standards-based instruction to a greater degree

43
than those with no education-related experience. This is not to suggest that experiences
outside of education are not beneficial, but assumptions about their value have not been
supported by empirical research. No studies have examined the relationship between
experiences outside of education and teacher efficacy or commitment.
Effects of School Setting on Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Commitment
Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997) proposes that personal factors
(e.g., cognitive skills and attitudes), behavior, and the social environment interact to
influence each other through the process of reciprocal determinism. Therefore, it is
important to examine the relationships among teacher efficacy beliefs (i.e., personal
factors), teacher commitment (i.e., behavior), and school context (i.e., social
environment).
In making judgments about efficacy, teachers assess what will be required of
them for a given teaching task (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Considerations such as
the school setting and subject taught are likely to affect inferences about the difficulty of
the task and what it will take to be successful in that context. These perceptions are likely
to affect job satisfaction and subsequent desire to continue teaching (Coladarci, 1992;
Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).
Efficacy judgments are based, in part, on teachers’ analysis of the teaching tasks
to be performed, as well as on their perceived personal capabilities to perform those tasks
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001). The context of these teaching tasks greatly
influences this analysis and is therefore critical in the development of efficacy beliefs.
Teachers may consider elements such as student achievement and motivation, availability
of resources, school climate and support. High-need schools are often beset with

44
challenges such as low academic achievement, discipline problems, limited resources,
and a poor sense of community. In a sample of 240 student teachers, Knoblauch and
Woolfolk Hoy (2008) found that prospective teachers who completed their training at
urban schools reported significantly lower teacher efficacy, compared to those who
taught in suburban or rural settings.
The school setting also significantly influences teacher commitment. Research has
found that the socioeconomic status of the community in which the school is located, the
racial composition of the students and faculty, and student achievement are all predictors
of teacher commitment (Park, 2005). Elementary and secondary teachers who work in
urban schools are less likely to be committed to their schools than are teachers who work
with wealthier students (Park, 2005). Using data from the 1990-2000 SASS and its
Teacher Follow-Up Survey, Smith and Ingersoll (2004) found that public school teachers
in high-poverty schools were more likely than teachers in medium-poverty schools to
leave (16% versus 9%). Weiss (1999) found similar results using a nationally representa-
tive sample of first-year teachers from the SASS. New teachers whose students experi-
ence economic hardships are less likely to indicate that they would choose teaching as a
career again.
The racial composition of the school affects teacher commitment, particularly
among Caucasian teachers. Lankford et al. (2002) found that teachers generally left
schools where the proportion of non-Caucasian and low-income students was approxi-
mately 75% to 100% greater than the schools to which they transferred. Using a sample
of 838 teachers in an urban school district, Mueller, Finley, Iverson, and Price (1999)
examined the relationship between racial composition (students and faculty) and

45
teachers’ commitment to their schools and to the profession. Results indicated that
Caucasian teachers were less likely to report commitment to their schools if they worked
in schools where Caucasian teachers and/or Caucasian students were the minority. On the
other hand, African American teachers’ commitment to their school was not affected by
the racial composition of the school. These results were not found with regard to pro-
fessional commitment, as a weak relationship was found between racial composition and
professional commitment. Nonetheless, the findings draw attention to teachers’ lack of
commitment to urban schools.
Similar to teacher efficacy, research has shown that students’ levels of academic
achievement affect teacher commitment (Danetta, 2002; Falch & Ronning, 2007). In an
analysis of public data on every teacher employed in a New York State public school at
any time from 1995-1996 through 2003-2004, Boyd et al. (2005) found that teachers in
schools where achievement was low were more likely to transfer or to leave the pro-
fession. Hanushek et al. (2004) found clear differences in school transition rates related to
student achievement. Almost 20% of teachers in the bottom quartile of school achieve-
ment (as assessed by students’ test scores) left each year, compared to 15% of teachers in
top quartile schools. Johnson and Birkeland (2003) identified student achievement levels
as a reason for leaving. This longitudinal interview study of 50 new teachers found that
teachers attributed their decisions to move to new schools or out of the profession to their
perception that they were not “successful” with their students with regard to achievement.
While these studies certainly underscore the impact of student achievement on
teacher commitment and retention, it is important to consider that some negative school-
level and student variables are often related to poor student achievement (e.g., lower

46
levels of instructional support and student discipline problems; Allensworth et al., 2009).
Therefore, these findings cannot isolate student achievement as the reason for teachers’
departure, but they can highlight it as a related variable.
Chapter Summary
Research on teacher commitment suggests that older, minority, and male teachers
are more slikely to remain in the profession than younger, Caucasian, and female
teachers, respectively (Guarino et al., 2006; NCES, 1997). No identified studies have
examined these demographic characteristics as they might be related to teacher efficacy.
Among the teacher education program admission variables, only work experience has
been significantly related to teacher efficacy. Individuals with more teaching experience
have been significantly more efficacious than preservice teachers (Fives & Buehl, 2010;
Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). GPA has not been reported to be a significant predictor of
teacher efficacy (Chester & Beaudin, 1996), and no identified studies exist on teacher
efficacy as it relates to institution selectivity and coursework. With respect to teacher
commitment, persons with higher undergraduate GPA, degrees from highly selective
undergraduate institutions, and little work experience are less likely to report
commitment to the teaching profession (Bacolod, 2007; Chan et al., 2008; Lankford, et
al., 2002; Podgursky et al., 2004). No identified studies exist on the relationship between
undergraduate coursework and teacher commitment.

47
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology and research design of the study, which
examined the qualities of applicants to a preservice teacher education program as they
relate to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment. Research questions to guide the
exploration are presented. The description of research methodology addresses the
sampling procedure and population, instrumentation, and procedures for data collection
and analysis.
Research Questions
1. Among applicants to a preservice teacher education program, what qualities are
related to teacher efficacy upon completion of the program?
2. Among applicants to a preservice teacher education program, what qualities are
related to teacher commitment upon completion of the program?
3. Among applicants to a preservice teacher education program, what qualities do
graduates who assume employment in a high-need school possess?
4. Do any differences exist between the on-campus and online preservice teacher
education program candidates?
Population and Sample
Graduates from a Master of Arts in Teaching program at a large research
university were purposely selected as the units of study, based on criterion-based
sampling. The chosen program provides two unique areas of focus to enhance the results
of this study. First, the program centers on work with diverse students in urban schools,
which is currently a ubiquitous focus in educational institutions and research, given

48
increasingly diverse student populations. Therefore, it is valuable to assess candidates’
perceptions of their abilities to serve students who have been identified in the literature as
underserved. Second, the program offers both an on-campus and an online program
(nearly identical, aside from the vehicle used to deliver instruction and access teachers).
Given the strong growth and popularity of distance education, this study provides a
unique opportunity to examine candidates who complete the program through this
medium.
Selection criteria of recruited participants were based on completion time of the
program. Twenty-four candidates began the program in April 2009 and 130 began in June
2009; all candidates who stayed on track graduated in June 2010. All of these graduates
were recruited for the study in fall 2010. Participants were recruited from both the on-
campus program and the online program, combining the groups to generate a larger
sample size and to provide the opportunity to examine differences between on-campus
and online graduates.
Students apply to the master’s program using the same application for online and
on-campus programs and must meet the same standards to be accepted. Once admitted,
identical courses are required for degree completion and are taught by the same uni-
versity faculty members. Candidates in both programs earn a master’s degree in teaching,
and they may elect to earn a teaching credential. Candidates who enroll in the credential
track must pursue one type of credential: Multiple Subjects, Single Subject English,
Single Subject Math, Single Subject Music, Single Subject Science, or Single Subject
Social Science. Regardless of the track or type of credential, all students in the programs
were recruited for participation, as they completed the program together in June.

49
The program is specifically designed to prepare teachers for diverse students in
urban schools, providing candidates with theoretical foundations and teaching strategies
for successful entry into the profession. Courses are divided into four broad categories:
(a) foundation courses, (b) teaching methods, (c) language and literacy, and (d) super-
vised field experience. Foundation courses introduce knowledge in sociological and
psychological theories and their application in the classroom. Teaching methods courses
provide strategies for teaching linguistically and ethnically diverse students in urban
schools, focusing on the implementation and assessment of instruction across all content
areas. Language and literacy courses highlight current theories for all learners and the
application of these concepts in the classroom. Supervised field experiences serve as an
essential aspect of the program; candidates are paired with schools close to their
residence to learn practical applications of theories and instructional methods from
experienced teachers and to complete their student teaching.
Study Variables
The literature lacks studies on the relationships between teacher candidate
qualities and teacher efficacy and teacher commitment, despite the recognized
importance of these two constructs. Therefore, the researcher chose study variables that
could shed light on these relationships, specifically, teacher candidate qualities that could
be extracted from program applications.
With respect to the study variables that have been previously examined with
teacher efficacy and teacher commitment, such as work experience, those were chosen in
an effort to add to the existing literature. Other variables, such as undergraduate major,

50
that have not have been examined as they relate to teacher efficacy and teacher
commitment, were chosen in an effort to address the gap in the literature.
Candidates’ applications provided demographic data, including age, gender, and
ethnicity, as well as information on candidates’ qualifications, which included content
GPA, work experience, major, and institution selectivity. These variables served as the
independent variables, as discussed below.
Content GPA
Content undergraduate GPA was calculated on a 4.0 scale and utilized as a ratio
scale for analysis. All coursework in the subject(s) of each participant’s credential was
calculated to form a cumulative content GPA. For example, if a participant earned a
Single Subject Mathematics credential, all mathematics courses were identified from the
participant’s transcripts and the total number of grade points was divided by the number
of units in those courses. Grade points were calculated by multiplying the value of each
grade by the number of units in that course. Grade values were calculated using the
following scale: A = 4, A- = 3.7, B+ = 3.3, B = 3, B- = 2.7, C+ = 2.3, C = 2, C- = 1.7, D+
= 1.3, D = 1, D- = 0.7, F = 0. For participants who earned a Multiple Subjects credential,
the same procedure was implemented but included the following courses: English,
mathematics, social science, science, and fine arts.
Work Experience
This variable was identified through candidates’ resumes, which were required as
part of the application to the program. The researcher assessed candidates’ work experi-
ences in terms of relevance to teaching, such as work in education-related fields, work
with children, or other experiences that are presumed to demonstrate capabilities of

51
succeeding in the field (e.g., service work). Relevance was deemed by the researcher and
quantified based on length of time for which candidates held these positions. For
example, candidates with 2 years of relevant work experience were scored 2 on this
variable.
Major
This variable was based on the subject in which participants had earned an
undergraduate degree. If participants had majored in the subject in which they earned
their credential, they were scored 2 for this variable; if not, they were scored 1. For
example, a participant who had earned a bachelor’s degree in English Literature and
earned a Single Subject English Credential was scored 2 on this variable. Participants
who earned Multiple Subjects Credentials and majored in English, mathematics, science,
or social science were scored 2 on this variable.
Institution Selectivity
This variable was based on the acceptance rate of the institution where partici-
pants had earned an undergraduate degree. Published by U.S. News and World Report
(2010), this number indicates the percentage of applicants who are offered admission to
the institution.
Teacher Efficacy
This variable was measured via the 22-item version of Gibson and Dembo’s
(1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES). The TES was the first major attempt to measure
teacher efficacy and has remained the standard instrument in the field (Ross, 1994), as
well as the most reliable measure of teacher efficacy (Guskey & Passaro, 1994;
Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Gibson and Dembo (1984) performed a multitrait-

52
multimethod analysis that supported both convergent and discriminant validity of the
scale (see also Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990).
Factor analysis of the instrument yielded two independent dimensions of teacher
efficacy: General Teacher Efficacy and Personal Teacher Efficacy (Gibson & Dembo,
1984; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990), both of which were assessed. The instrument required
participants to indicate the degree to which they agreed with various statements.
Examples of items for General Teacher Efficacy included “The amount a student can
learn is primarily related to family background” and “A teacher is very limited in what
he/she can achieve because a student's home environment is a large influence on his/her
achievement.” Examples of items for Personal Teaching Efficacy included “When a
student gets a better grade than he/she usually gets, it is usually because I found better
ways of teaching that student” and “When I really try, I can get through to the most
difficult students.” Participants responded to each item using a 6-point Likert-type scale
ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. High scores for both dimensions
reflected high teacher efficacy. Given that general teacher efficacy and personal teacher
efficacy represent independent factors, these scores were examined separately. Alpha
coefficients of reliability were .80 for Personal Teacher Efficacy and .72 for General
Teacher Efficacy.
Teacher Commitment
This dependent variable was measured based on responses to three items: (a) “I
am generally satisfied with being a teacher at my current school,” (b) Suppose you could
start all over, would you become a teacher again?” and (c) “How long do you plan to

53
remain in teaching?” Each of these questions was used in the SASS 2007-2008 conducted
by the NCES. High scores on items reflected greater commitment to teaching.
In addition to these questions, employment status and commitment to high-need
schools were examined. Employment status measured whether candidates had sought and
attained a PK-12 teaching position after graduation. Participants who had sought
employment as a PK-12 teacher were scored 2 on the Sought Employment variable, while
those who had not sought employment were scored 1. Participants who had obtained
employment as a PK-12 teacher were scored 2 on the Employed variable, while those
who had not obtained employment were scored 1. Participants who did not seek or attain
employment had an opportunity to provide a free response indicating why such actions or
outcomes had not occurred in order for preservice teacher education programs to learn
from these experiences.
Commitment to high-need schools was assessed in participants who indicated that
they were currently employed as PK-12 teachers at schools that they perceived to be
high-need. These participants were prompted to report their degree of commitment to
high-need schools via the following question: “How long do you plan to continue teach-
ing in a high-need school?” Higher scores on this item reflected greater commitment to
high-need schools.
Data Collection
Two instruments were utilized to address the research questions for this study:
(a) candidates’ applications for admission to the master’s program, and (b) a survey that
identified candidates’ teacher commitment and their perceived level of teacher efficacy
(Appendix A).

54
The measures of the variables Content GPA, Work Experience, Major, and
Institution Selectivity were extracted from candidates’ applications. The dependent
variables Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Commitment were assessed based on responses
to the survey. The Qualtrics Web tool (www.qualtrics.com) was used to distribute the
survey and receive and organize data from the survey.
University email addresses of recent graduates from the program were requested
from the registrar’s office; all candidates who had completed the program in June 2010
were contacted via email in November 2010 and asked to participate. Potential
respondents were advised that their participation was voluntary and that their responses
would be kept completely confidential. As an incentive to complete the survey,
respondents had the option of entering their names for a random drawing for an iPod
touch, a $100 Amazon.com gift certificate, or a $50 Amazon.com gift certificate.
Participants accessed the survey though a link in the email solicitation (Appendix B).
Once participants were identified through completion of the survey, applications for those
participants were requested from the program’s admissions committee. Surveys were
matched with corresponding applications and given identifiers so that no student names
were used. After analysis, all documents that matched students to their identifiers were
destroyed.
The validity and reliability of this research study were supported in two ways.
First, several education professors reviewed the survey instrument in an effort to reduce
researcher bias in the wording of the questions. Second, the survey was standardized,
with all respondents receiving the same survey with the same questions.

55
Data Analysis
Percentages and frequencies were calculated for all demographic information and
participant qualities, including program type, major, and employment information.
Descriptive statistics were computed for the remaining independent variables, including
Content GPA, Work Experience, and Institution Selectivity. Mean scores and standard
deviations for Teacher Efficacy and the Teacher Commitment variables were calculated.
To address research questions 1 and 2 (What qualities are related to teacher
efficacy and teacher commitment upon completion of the program?), a linear regression
analysis was conducted between each of the measures (Content GPA, Work Experience,
Major, and Institution Selectivity) and the outcome variables (Teacher Efficacy and
Teacher Commitment) to assess the extent to which each accounted for the variability in
participants’ efficacy scores and teacher commitment. A multiple regression analysis was
run with each of the demographic variables to identify any additional relationships.
Given that research has shown that school settings have an impact on teachers’
efficacy beliefs and commitment, t tests were conducted between participants who
assumed employment in an identified high-need school and those who did not. Efficacy
and commitment scores were compared to identify significant differences.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to address research
question 3 (“Do any differences exist between the on-campus and online preservice
teacher education program candidates?”).
Limitations of the Study
This study has several limitations. First, the response rate for this quantitative
survey was too low to make generalizations about the relationship between applicant
qualities and teacher efficacy and teacher commitment. Second, the study focused on a

56
limited number of applicant qualifications, leaving a wide range of unidentified data that
could have a large influence on participants’ level of teacher efficacy and teacher
commitment. Third, research has shown that the teacher efficacy beliefs of beginning
teachers typically decline over the course of the first year (Woolfolk-Hoy, 2000). Parti-
cipants’ reported level of teacher efficacy might be inflated when data were collected, as
they had not been exposed to all challenges of teaching. Fourth, the study was designed
to examine whether candidates sought employment in high-need schools upon com-
pletion of the program, but two problems arose with this measurement: (a) Due to budget
cuts, available teaching positions in PK-12 settings were relatively scarce at the time of
survey distribution; and (b) beginning teachers are often placed in high-need schools.
Therefore, candidates’ reported employment status might not be reflective of actual
intention or desire to assume employment in a high-need school. In response to these
impediments, the researcher sought to examine teachers’ general commitment to the
profession in an effort to obtain an accurate perception of their teacher commitment.
Fifth, school settings can have a strong impact on efficacy beliefs and teacher
commitment. Teachers who assumed employment in high-need schools or completed
teacher training in a high-need school, for example, may have reported lower efficacy
than teachers in low-poverty schools. The study took these factors into consideration with
regard to the design of the study and in presenting the findings and implications.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations in any study are paramount, and the researcher sought to
ensure that a thorough and honest approach was taken. Participants were assured that
their identities would be confidential and that the information that they provided would

57
not be associated with them or their place of employment. The researcher complied with
the rules and regulations of the university’s Institutional Review Board to ensure that
ethical standards were upheld throughout the study. The researcher also took personal
experiences and perceptions into consideration to minimize bias.
Chapter Summary
The research design and methodology of this project support exploration of
prospective teachers’ qualities as they relate to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment.
The instruments included participants’ admissions applications to a master’s-level
teaching program and a quantitative survey to measure teacher efficacy and teacher
commitment after completion of the program.

58
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter presents the quantitative results to address the research questions:
1. Among applicants to a preservice teacher education program, what qualities are
related to teacher efficacy upon completion of the program?
2. Among applicants to a preservice teacher education program, what qualities are
related to teacher commitment upon completion of the program?
3. Among applicants to a preservice teacher education program, what qualities do
graduates who assume employment in a high-need school possess?
4. Do any differences exist between the on-campus and online preservice teacher
education program candidates?
Preliminary Analysis
This section presents the results of descriptive analyses: (a) percentages and
frequencies for demographic information and participant qualities (i.e., program type,
major, and employment information), (b) descriptive statistics for the remaining
independent variables (i.e., Content GPA, Work Experience, and Institution Selectivity),
and (c) mean scores and standard deviations for the variables Teacher Efficacy and
Teacher Commitment.
The population of this study was preservice teachers who attended the identified
on-campus or online preservice teacher education program. There were 58 participants
(79.3% male, 20.7% female), for a 38% response rate. Although the ages of participants
were widely distributed from early 20s through 50s, the distribution was skewed to
students in their early and mid-20s. The majority (62.0%) were Caucasian; other races

59
included Asian (12.1%), Hispanic (12.1%), and African American (1.7%). These results
are presented in Table 1.
Approximately two thirds (65.5%) of the participants were enrolled in the online
program and 31% in the on-campus program. Distribution by credential type was as
follows: Multiple Subjects Credential 37.9%, Single Social Science Credential 24.1%,
Single English Credential 10.3%, Single Science Credential 12.1%, Single Music
Credential 3.5%, Single Mathematics Credential 1.7%, and no credential 3.5%. Nearly
half of the participants (46.5%) majored in the subject in which they earned their
credential, while almost one quarter (22.4%) did not do so. The majority of the
participants (82.8%) sought employment after graduating from the preservice teacher
education program, and over half (58.6%) became teachers. Among these teachers,
32.8% became teachers in high-need schools. These results are presented in Table 2.
Participants who had not sought employment were prompted to respond to the
following item: “Please explain why you did not seek employment as a PK-12 teacher
after completion of the program.” Content analysis of the responses resulted in two
categories: Two had accepted another job opportunity—inspirational speaker and
educational researcher—and four had experienced a life event that had affected their
ability to seek employment (i.e., had a baby, “other things came up,” went back to school,
moved to another state).
Of the 48 participants who had sought employment, 13 had not obtained
employment. They were asked to response to the following item: “Please explain why
you believe that you did not attain employment as a PK-12 teacher.” Content analysis of
the responses showed that the majority of these participants (n = 10) attributed their

60
Table 1

Demographic Variables for All Participants

Variable n %

Gender
Female 46 79.3
Male 12 20.7

Age (years)
20 1 1.7
21 3 5.2
22 11 19.0
23 7 12.1
24 11 19.0
25 5 8.6
26 4 6.9
27 1 1.7
28 1 1.7
29 1 1.7
30 1 1.7
31 2 3.5
32 2 3.5
35 1 1.7
37 1 1.7
39 2 3.5
42 1 1.7
55 1 1.7
57 1 1.7
Missing 1 1.7

Ethnicity
African American 1 1.7
Asian 7 12.1
Hispanic 7 12.1
Caucasian 36 62.0
Unknown 7 12.1

61
Table 2

Percentages and Frequencies for Program Type, Major, Employment, and Type of
Teacher for All Participants

Variable n %

Mode of instruction
On campus 18 31.0
Online 38 65.5
Missing 2 3.5

Credential type
Multiple Subjects 22 37.9
Single English 6 10.3
Single Mathematics 1 1.7
Single Music 2 3.5
Single Science 7 12.1
Single Social Science 14 24.1
No credential 2 3.5

Major in credential
Yes 27 46.5
No 13 22.4
Not applicable 16 27.6
Missing 2 3.5

Sought employment
Yes 48 82.8
No 6 10.3
Missing 4 6.9

Employed as a teacher
Yes 34 58.6
No 13 22.4
Missing 11 19.0

Type of teacher
High-need 19 32.8
Not high-need 15 25.9
Missing 24 41.3

62
inability to obtain employment to a lack of open positions due to budget constraints. Two
indicated that they did not obtain employment for internal reasons: “interview skills need
improving” and failure to gain certification in time to apply for positions. One participant
reported being laid off shortly after being hired “without any explanation.”
Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and minimums and
maximums for the other independent variables are summarized in Table 3. Content GPA
was 3.26, which is a B+ average; Work Experience illustrated that the average number of
years of related experience was 2.54; and Institution Selectivity revealed that the average
acceptance rate among participants’ undergraduate institutions was 54.06%.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics of Independent Variables for All Participants

Candidate qualities N M SD Minimum Maximum

Content grade point average (GPA) 44 3.26 0.47 1.96 4.00
Work experience 44 2.54 4.72 0.00 34.00
Institution selectivity 44 54.06 20.66 21.50 88.70

Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and minimums and
maximums, for Teacher Efficacy are summarized in Table 4. Only participants who
indicated that they were currently employed as teachers were allowed to answer the
Teacher Efficacy items, resulting in a lower sample size.

63
Table 4

Descriptive Statistics of Teacher Efficacy for All Teachers

Teacher efficacy N M SD Minimum Maximum

General teacher efficacy 34 2.70 0.69 1.40 4.40
Personal teacher efficacy 33 2.37 0.59 1.23 3.69

Frequencies and percentages for items in the Teacher Commitment variable are
summarized in Table 5. The Teacher Commitment items were (a) I am generally satisfied
with being a teacher at my current school, (b) Suppose you could start all over, would
you become a teacher again? and (c) How long do you plan to remain in teaching? As
with Teacher Efficacy, only participants who indicated that they were currently employed
as teachers were allowed to answer the Teacher Commitment items, resulting in a lower
sample size. Among these teachers, the majority strongly agreed that they were satisfied
with being a teacher (58.8%); expressed certainty that they would become a teacher again
(73.5%); and indicated that they would remain in teaching for as long as they were able
(70.6%).

Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, Among applicants to a preservice teacher education
program, what qualities are related to teacher efficacy upon completion of the program?
A multiple regression analysis was conducted on the demographic variables to examine
how the observed dependent variable (i.e., Teacher Efficacy) changed when any

64
Table 5

Teacher Commitment Items for All Teachers

Question Response f %

Satisfaction with being a teacher Strongly agree 20 58.8
Somewhat agree 10 29.4
Somewhat disagree 4 11.8
Strongly disagree 0 0.0

Becoming a teacher again Certainly 25 73.5
Probably 7 20.6
Even for and against 1 2.9
Probably not 1 2.9
Certainly not 0 0.0

Remaining in teaching As long as I am able 24 70.6
Until an event occurs 5 14.7
Until a job opportunity comes 1 2.9
Definitely plan to leave 0 0.0
Undecided at this time 4 11.8

independent variable changed and other independent variables were held fixed. The inde-
pendent variables in the multiple regression analysis were Age, Gender, and Ethnicity.
Their relationships to General Teacher Efficacy and Personal Teacher Efficacy were
examined. A linear regression analysis was conducted for the other independent vari-
ables—Content GPA, Work Experience, Major, and Institution Selectivity—focusing on
each independent variable’s relationship to the observed dependent variables General
Teacher Efficacy and Personal Teacher Efficacy.
Table 6 summarizes the results of the multiple regression analysis on the
relationship between Personal Teacher Efficacy and the demographic variables. Results

65
Table 6

Multiple Regression Results Predicting Personal Teacher Efficacy

Measure β Beta t p

Constant 3.145 6.477 .000
Age -0.020 -0.307 -1.539 .137
Gender 0.281 0.218 1.080 .291
Ethnicity -0.229 0.142 -1.614 .120
R
2
0.200

Note. Dependent variable = Personal Teacher Efficacy.

indicated that Age (β = -0.020, p = .137), Gender (β = 0.281, p = .291), and Ethnicity
(β = -0.229, p = .120) were not significant predictors of Personal Teacher Efficacy. This
indicated that none of these variables influenced participants’ level of Personal Teacher
Efficacy upon completion of the program. The R
2
model indicated that the demographic
variables predicted 20% of Personal Teacher Efficacy among the preservice teachers.
Table 7 summarizes the results of the linear regression analysis on the
relationships between Personal Teacher Efficacy and Content GPA, Work Experience,
Major, and Institution Selectivity. Results indicated that Content GPA (β = -0.096, p =
.722), Work Experience (β = -0.018, p = .298), Major (β = -0.217, p = .424), and
Institution Selectivity (β = -0.005, p = .373) were not significant predictors of Personal
Teacher Efficacy. This indicated that none of these variables was related to participants’

66
Table 7

Linear Regression Results Predicting Personal Teacher Efficacy

Measure β Beta t p

Constant 2.769 3.124 .004
Content GPA -0.096 -0.072 -0.360 .772
Adjusted R
2
.005

Constant 2.385 20.321 .000
Work Experience -0.018 -0.193 -1.061 .298
Adjusted R
2
.370

Constant 2.832 6.571 .000
Major -0.217 -0.198 0.819 .424
Adjusted R
2
.036

Constant 2.666 8.131 .000
Institution Selectivity -0.005 -0.166 -0.905 .373
Adjusted R
2
.027

Note. Independent variables = Content Grade Point Average (GPA), Work Experience,
Major, and Institution Selectivity; dependent variable = Personal Teacher Efficacy.

level of Personal Teacher Efficacy upon completion of the preservice teacher education
program.
General Teacher Efficacy was examined with the same demographic variables
and independent variables. Table 8 summarizes the results of a multiple regression
analysis on the relationship between General Teacher Efficacy and the demographic
variables. Age (β = -0.036, p = .020) significantly predicted General Teacher Efficacy at
the significance level of .05: Younger preservice teachers presented higher General
Teacher Efficacy than their older counterparts (r = .371, p < .05). Sociocultural theory
might suggest that this difference is due to life experiences. The majority of participants

67
Table 8

Multiple Regression Results Predicting General Teacher Efficacy

Measure β Beta t p

Constant 4.134 7.594 .000**
Age -0.036 -0.475 -2.482 .020
Gender 0.135 0.090 0.465 .646
Ethnicity -0.255 0.297 -1.602 .122
R
2
.265

Note. Independent variables = Content Grade Point Average (GPA), Work Experience,
Major, and Institution Selectivity; dependent variable = Personal Teacher Efficacy.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

had been out of college for less than 2 years. Therefore, the functions required of a
student were relatively familiar to them. This foundation may have allowed these
younger students to advance their learning via the provided instruction more fully. Older
adults, who may have been out of school for a number of years, may have found it more
challenging to internalize new information and support development of complex skills
and knowledge necessary for teaching. Younger adults are generally more computer
knowledgeable than older adults, which may have affected the learning outcomes of the
online participants.
Gender (β = 0.135, p = .646) and Ethnicity (β = -0.255, p = -1.602) were not
significant predictors of General Teacher Efficacy of preservice teachers. The R
2
model

68
indicated that the demographic variables predicted 26.5% of General Teacher Efficacy
among the preservice teachers.
Table 9 summarizes results of the linear regression analysis on the relationships
between General Teacher Efficacy and Content GPA, Work Experience, Major, and
Institution Selectivity. Results indicated that Content GPA (β = 0.104, p = .751), Work
Experience (β = -0.022, p = .260), Major (β = 0.165, p = .577), and Institution
Selectivity (β = -0.006, p = .387) were not significant predictors of General Teacher
Efficacy in preservice teachers. This indicated that none of these variables influenced
participants’ General Teacher Efficacy upon completion of the program.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, Among applicants to a preservice teacher education
program, what qualities are related to Teacher Commitment upon completion of the
program? A multiple regression analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship
between demographic variables—Age, Gender, and Ethnicity—and the Teacher
Commitment outcome variables. A linear regression analysis was conducted between
each of the independent variables—Content GPA, Work Experience, Major, and
Institution Selectivity—and the Teacher Commitment outcome variables. The outcome
variables items were (a) I am generally satisfied with being a teacher at my current
school, (b) Suppose you could start all over, would you become a teacher again? and
(c) How long do you plan to remain in teaching?

69
Table 9
Linear Regression Results Predicting General Teacher Efficacy

Measure β Beta t p

Constant 2.395 2.216 .036
Content GPA 0.104 0.063 0.321 .751
Adjusted R
2
.004

Constant 2.738 21.195 .000
Work Experience -0.022 -0.205 -1.147 .260
Adjusted R
2
.042

Constant 2.480 5.254 .000
Major 0.165 0.133 0.568 .577
Adjusted R
2
.018

Constant 3.053 8.107 .000
Institution Selectivity -0.006 0.006 -0.878 .387
Adjusted R
2
.025

Note. Independent variables = Content Grade Point Average (GPA), Work Experience,
Major, and Institution Selectivity; dependent variable = Personal Teacher Efficacy.

Table 10 summarizes the results of the multiple regression analysis on the
relationships between Item 1 and the demographic variables. According to the results of
the multiple regression analysis, Age (β = -0.024, p = .104), Gender (β = -0.144, p =
.605), and Ethnicity (β = -0.066, p = .653) did not significantly predict general
satisfaction with being a teacher among participants. This suggests that none of these
demographic variables influenced preservice teachers’ subsequent satisfaction level with
employment as a teacher. The R
2
model indicated that the demographic variables
predicted 10.2% of teacher satisfaction among the participants.

70
Table 10

Multiple Regression Results Predicting Question 1

Measure β Beta t p

Constant 1.650 1.442 .163
Age -0.024 -0.350 -1.686 .104
Gender -0.144 -0.107 -0.524 .605
Ethnicity -0.066 -0.091 -0.456 .653
R
2
.102

Note. Dependent variable = Question 1: “I am generally satisfied with being a teacher at
my current school.”

Table 11 summarizes the results of the linear regression analyses on the
relationships between Item 1 (i.e., I am generally satisfied with being a teacher at my
current school) and Content GPA, Work Experience, Major, and Institution Selectivity.
Results of the linear regression analysis indicated that Content GPA (β = 0.147,
p = .587), Work Experience (β = -0.007, p = .732), Major (β = -0.045, p = .883), and
Institution Selectivity (β = -0.007, p = .264) did not predict preservice teachers’ level of
satisfaction with being a teacher. This indicated that none of these independent variables
influenced participants’ fulfillment of their role as a teacher.

Table 12 summarizes the results of the multiple regression analysis on the
relationship between the Item 2 (i.e., Suppose you could start all over, would you become
a teacher again?) and the demographic variables. Results indicated that Age (β = -0.008,

71
Table 11

Linear Regression Results Predicting Question 1

Measure β Beta t p

Constant 0.941 1.051 .303
Content GPA 0.147 0.107 0.550 .587
Adjusted R
2
.011

Constant 1.492 10.823 .000
Work Experience -0.007 -0.063 -0.345 .732
Adjusted R
2
.004

Constant 1.545 3.164 .005
Major -0.045 -0.034 -0.149 .883
Adjusted R
2
.041

Constant 1.881 5.304 .000
Institution Selectivity -0.007 -0.204 -1.139 .264
Adjusted R
2
.041

Note. Independent variables = Content Grade Point Average (GPA), Work Experience,
Major, and Institution Selectivity; dependent variable = Question 1: “I am generally
satisfied with being a teacher at my current school.”

p = .627), Gender (β = 0.210, p = .484), and Ethnicity (β = 0.101, p = .523) were not
significant predictors of preservice teachers’ assumption of becoming a teacher again.
This indicates that none of these demographic variables influenced whether participants
would choose to become a teacher again if they could start all over. The R
2
model
indicated that the demographic variables predicted 7.7% of participants’ decisions to
become teachers again.
Table 13 summarizes the results of the linear regression analysis on the relation-
ships between Item 2 (i.e., Suppose you could start all over, would you become a teacher

72
Table 12
Multiple Regression Results Predicting Question 2

Measure β Beta t p

Constant 1.322 2.360 .026*
Age -0.008 -0.104 -0.493 .627
Gender 0.210 0.148 0.711 .484
Ethnicity 0.101 0.131 0.648 .523
R
2
.077

Note. Dependent variable = Question 2: “Suppose you could start all over; would you
become a teach again?”

*p < .05.

again?) and Content GPA, Work Experience, Major, and Institution Selectivity. Results
indicated that Content GPA (β = 0.657, p = .026) was a significant predictor of preservice
teachers’ assumptions on becoming teachers again. As preservice teachers had higher
Content GPA, they held stronger assumptions on this item.
The conceptual framework of labor market theory would suggest that teachers
with higher content GPA would actually be less likely to report this possibility
(Ehrenberg & Smith, 1997). Based on the assumption that these teachers possess higher
abilities, their opportunity costs are, therefore, higher. Teachers whose opportunity costs
outweigh rewards gained from teaching are less likely to remain in the profession
(Guarino et al., 2006).

73
Table 13
Linear Regression Results Predicting Question 2

Measure β Beta t p

Constant -0.862 -0.926 .363
Content GPA 0.657 0.421 2.368 .026*
Adjusted R
2
.177

Constant 1.405 9.684 .000
Work Experience -0.009 -0.977 -0.423 .675
Adjusted R
2
.006

Constant 1.436 2.484 .023
Major -0.036 -0.023 -0.101 .921
Adjusted R
2
.001

Constant 1.474 3.873 .001
Institution Selectivity -0.002 -0.050 -0.277 .784
Adjusted R
2
.003

Note. Independent variables = Content Grade Point Average (GPA), Work Experience,
Major, and Institution Selectivity; dependent variable = Question 2: “Suppose you could
start all over; would you become a teach again?”

*p < .05.

Results of the linear regression analysis indicated that Work Experience (β = -
0.009, p = .675), Major (β = -0.036, p = .921), and Institution Selectivity (β = -0.002, p =
.784) were not significant predictors of preservice teachers’ assumptions on becoming
teachers again. This indicated that none of these independent variables was related to
participants’ decisions to choose teaching as their profession again.
Table 14 summarizes the results of a multiple regression analysis of the relation-
ship between Item 3 (i.e., How long do you plan to remain in teaching?) and the

74
Table 14

Multiple Regression Results Predicting Question 3

Measure β Beta t p

Constant 2.162 1.991 .058
Age -0.015 -0.109 -0.509 .615
Gender 0.464 0.173 0.822 .419
Ethnicity -0.157 -0.109 -0.529 .601
R
2
.052

Note. Dependent variable = Question 3: “How long do you plan to remain in teaching?”

demographic variables. Results of the multiple regression analysis indicated that Age
(β = -0.015, p = .615), Gender (β = 0.464, p = .419), and Ethnicity (β = -0.157, p = .601)
were not significant predictors of how long preservice teachers planned to remain in
teaching. This indicated that none of these demographic variables influenced participants’
hypothetical decisions to remain in the profession.
Table 15 summarizes the results of a linear regression analysis on the relation-
ships between Item 3 (i.e., How long do you plan to remain in teaching?) and Content
GPA, Work Experience, Major, and Institution Selectivity. Results indicated that Content
GPA (β = 0.646, p = .224), Work Experience (β = -0.017, p = .680), Major (β = 0.409,
p = .522), and Institution Selectivity (β = -0.007, p = .582) were not significant predictors
of participants’ intentions to remain in teaching. This indicated that none of the independ-
ent variables influenced preservice teachers’ intentions to continue to teach.

75
Table 15

Linear Regression Results Predicting Question 3

Measure β Beta t p

Constant -0.611 -0.351 .728
Content GPA 0.646 0.237 1.245 .224
Adjusted R
2
.056

Constant 1.775 6.409 .000
Work Experience -0.017 -0.076 -0.416 .680
Adjusted R
2
.006

Constant 1.091 1.081 .293
Degree 0.409 0.148 0.650 .522
Adjusted R
2
.022

Constant 2.099 2.900 .007
Institution Selectivity -0.007 -0.101 -0.557 .582
Adjusted R
2
.010

Note. Independent variables = Content Grade Point Average (GPA), Work Experience,
Major, and Institution Selectivity; dependent variable = Question 3: “How long do you
plan to remain in teaching?”

Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, Among applicants to a preservice teacher education
program, what qualities do graduates who assume employment in high-need schools
possess? Descriptive analyses were conducted in order to answer this question, including:
(a) percentages and frequencies for demographic information and independent variables
(i.e., Age, Gender, Ethnicity, Mode of Instruction, Credential Type, Major, Content GPA,
Work Experience, and Institution Selectivity) and (b) mean scores and standard
deviations for the variables Teacher Efficacy and Teacher Commitment.

76
Nearly one third (32.8%) of the participants who sought employment became
high-need teachers. Among these high-need teachers, the majority were female (63.2%)
and in their 20s (78.9%). Nearly half of the high-need teachers were Caucasian (47.3%),
followed by Hispanic (15.8%), Asian (10.5%), and African American (5.3%). Almost
two thirds of these participants (57.9%) had been enrolled in the online program and
42.1% in the on-campus program. Over half of the high-need teachers had earned a
Multiple Subjects Credential (52.6%), followed by Social Science Credential (21.0%)
and Single English Credential or a Single Mathematics Credential (5.3% each). An equal
proportion of the participants (42.1%) had earned an undergraduate degree in a major that
corresponded to the credential they had earned in the preservice teacher education
program. These results are presented in Table 16.
A profile of high-need teachers indicated that they were relatively similar to the
full sample with respect to demographic variables, Program Type, and Major. The
majority of high-need teachers were Caucasian females in their early or mid-20s who had
completed the online teacher education program and had earned a Multiple Subjects
Credential. However, a few noteworthy patterns emerged between the two groups.
Comparison of the two groups in terms of percentage difference in gender showed
less difference among high-need teachers (36.8% male; 63.2% female) than among all
participants (20.7% and 79.3%, respectively). The percentage of males who became high-
need teachers was much higher than the corresponding percentage for the females in the
total sample (58.3% and 26.1%, respectively). In other words, more male participants
than female participants became high-need teachers. This finding is surprising,

77
Table 16
Percentages and Frequencies for Demographic Variables, Program Type, and Major for
High-Need Teachers Only

Variable n %

Gender
Female 12 63.2
Male 7 36.8

Age (years)
21 1 5.3
22 5 26.2
23 3 15.8
24 2 10.5
25 2 10.5
26 1 5.3
28 1 5.3
31 2 10.5
39 1 5.3
Missing 1 5.3

Ethnicity
African American 1 5.3
Asian 2 10.5
Hispanic 3 15.8
Caucasian 9 47.3
Missing 4 21.1

Mode of instruction
On campus 8 42.1
Online 11 57.9

Credential type
Multiple Subjects 10 52.6
Single English 1 5.3
Single Mathematics 1 5.3
Single Social Science 4 21.0
No credential 3 15.8

Major in credential
Yes 8 42.1
No 8 42.1
Missing 3 15.8

78
considering that there are 3 times as many female teachers than male teachers in high-
need schools (75.8% and 25.1%, respectively), which is approximately the same
proportion in the overall teacher population (75.2% female, 24.8% male; NCES, 2006).
Among the numerous challenges to high-need schools, crime and violence are two
notable ones that could deter many prospective teachers. Sociocultural theory might
suggest that men are less fearful of these challenges than women, which may have
contributed to their willingness to assume employment in these environments.
A similar pattern was seen regarding ethnicity. The majority of high-need teachers
were Caucasian, followed by Hispanic, Asian, and African American (the same order as
the full sample). However, the percentage of participants who became high-need teachers
among graduates of color was notable. While 25% of Caucasian participants became
high-need teachers, 42.9% of Hispanic participants, 100% of African American partici-
pants (n = 1), and 28.6% of Asian participants became high-need teachers.
In line with sociocultural theory as well, researchers have suggested that minority
teachers are better suited to work in high-need schools because they possess a greater
understanding of the life conditions with which these students are confronted daily
(McKinney et al.; Villegas, 2007). Some of the minority teachers may have endured
similar challenges to those faced by the students in these schools and may possess a
desire to serve them. Additionally, minority teachers are more comfortable in these
environments than Caucasian teachers, who have likely not had as much exposure to
diverse students (Haberman, 1996). This familiarity and understanding may have led

79
more minority teachers to assume employment in high-need schools than Caucasian
teachers.
Third, although the majority (57.9%) of high-need teachers had been enrolled in
the online program, the percentage of all online graduates who became high-need
teachers is much lower (28.9%), when compared to the percentage of all on-campus
graduates who became high-need teachers (44.4%). The higher number of online
participants (n=38 online; n=18 on-campus) may have influenced the higher number of
high-need teachers who completed the online program, but it is important to note this
difference, as it dilutes the presumption that more online graduates became high-need
teachers. When in fact, a greater percentage of on-campus graduates became high-need
teachers, as mentioned, which has implications that will be discussed in Chapter 5.
Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and minimums and
maximums for the other independent variables are summarized in Table 17. The average
Content GPA was 3.31, which is nearly the same as the full sample (3.26); The average
number of years of related work experience was 2.22 years, which was slightly lower
then the full sample (2.54); and the average acceptance rate among participants’
undergraduate institutions was 49.41, which is slightly lower than the full sample (54.06).
Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and minimums and
maximums, for Teacher Efficacy are summarized in Table 18.
A series of paired t tests was conducted to compare Teacher Efficacy scores for
participants who had assumed employment in an identified high-need school and those
who had not. No significant differences in mean scores for Personal Teacher Efficacy and

80
General Teacher Efficacy were: Personal Teacher Efficacy, t(31) = 0.521, p = .476;
General Teacher Efficacy, t(31) = 0.199, p =.726.

Table 17
Descriptive Statistics of Independent Variables for High-Need Teachers Only

Candidate qualities N M SD Minimum Maximum

Content grade point average (GPA) 16 3.31 0.50 1.o6 4.00
Work experience 18 2.22 1.77 0.00 6.00
Institution selectivity 17 49.41 20.84 21.50 80.90

Table 18

Descriptive Statistics of Teacher Efficacy for High-Need Teachers Only

Teacher efficacy N M SD Minimum Maximum

General teacher efficacy 19 2.67 0.62 1.40 3.70
Personal teacher efficacy 19 2.41 0.64 1.23 3.69

Frequencies and percentages for items in the Teacher Commitment variable are
summarized in Table 19. The Teacher Commitment items were (a) I am generally
satisfied with being a teacher at my current school, (b) Suppose you could start all over,
would you become a teacher again? and (c) How long do you plan to remain in teaching?
Among these teachers, the majority strongly agreed that they were satisfied with being a

81
teacher (57.9%); expressed certainty that they would become a teacher again (78.9%);
and indicated that they would remain in teaching for as long as they were able (73.7%).

Table 19

Teacher Commitment Items for High-Need Teachers Only

Question Response f %

Satisfaction with being a teacher Strongly agree 11 57.9
Somewhat agree 5 26.3
Somewhat disagree 3 15.8
Strong disagree 0 0.0

Becoming a teacher again Certainly 15 78.9
Probably 3 15.8
Even for and against 0 0.0
Probably not 1 5.3
Certainly not 0 0.0

Remaining in teaching As long as I am able 14 73.7
Until an event occurs 2 10.5
Until a job opportunity comes 0 0.0
Definitely plan to leave 0 0.0
Undecided at this time 3 15.8

A series of paired t tests was conducted to measure differences in Teacher
Commitment scores between participants who had assumed employment in an identified
high-need school and those who had not. Scores on items 10 through 12 were compared.
Results showed no significant differences between groups in mean scores for these items:
Item 10, t(32) = 1.046, p = .341; Item 11, t(32) = 0.048, p = .828; Item 12, t(32) = 0.867,
p = .359.

82
Participants who indicated that they were high-need teachers were asked to
answer an additional question: “How long do you plan to continue teaching in a high-
need school?” Of these 19 participants, the majority (47.4%) indicated that they planned
to continue teaching in a high-need school for only 0-2 years; more than one quarter
(26.3%) indicated that they planned to continue to teach in a high-need school until
retirement. The rest of participants indicated that they intended to continue working as a
high-need teacher for 5-10 years (21%) or 2-5 years (5.3%). These results are presented
in Table 20. Although nearly three-quarters indicated that they would remain in teaching
for as long as they were able, nearly half indicated that they would remain at their current
school for 0-2 years.

Table 20

Teacher Commitment to High-Need Schools

Question Response f %

How long do you plan to remain
at your current school? 0-2 years 9 47.4
2-5 years 1 5.3
5-10 years 4 21.0
10+ years 0 0.0
Until retirement 5 26.3

Research Question 4
Research question 4 asked, Do any differences exist between the on-campus and
online preservice teacher education program candidates? ANOVA was conducted to

83
measure differences between candidates who had completed an on-campus program and
candidates who had completed an online program on the following variables: Content
GPA, Work Experience, Major, Institution Selectivity, Personal Teacher Efficacy,
General Teacher Efficacy, and Teacher Commitment (Items 10 through 12). No signi-
ficant differences were found between groups: Content GPA F(1,41) = 0.832, p > .05,
Work Experience F(1,49) = 0.904, Major F(1,33) = 0.013, Institution Selectivity F(1,48)
= 0.582, Personal Teacher Efficacy F(1,32) = 1.216, General Teacher Efficacy F(1,33) =
0.367, Item 10 F(1,32) = 0.039, Item 11 F(1,32) = 1.287, and Item 12 F(1,32) = .631; all
probabilities were > .05.
Chapter Summary
Results of the regression analyses indicated that age was a significant predictor of
General Teacher Efficacy and that Content GPA was a significant predictor of teacher
commitment. Specifically, younger preservice teachers presented higher General Teacher
Efficacy than their older counterparts. Preservice teachers who had higher Content GPA
held stronger assumptions that they would become a teacher again if they could start all
over. One-way ANOVA results indicated no significant differences between the online
and on-campus groups in terms of the identified variables.
Previous research on teacher efficacy and teacher commitment was not supported
by the present study. Research has shown that teaching experience is positively related to
teacher efficacy (Fives & Buehl, 2010; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007); however, the
present study did not find any relationship between Work Experience and Teacher
Efficacy. No other studies have examined the relationship between Teacher Efficacy and
the identified variables.

84
With respect to teacher commitment, research has found that persons with higher
GPAs are less likely to report commitment to the teaching profession; however, the
aforementioned finding that participants with higher content GPA reported higher teacher
commitment contradicts this assumption. Research has also found that older, minority,
and male teachers are more likely to remain in the profession than younger, Caucasian,
and female teachers, respectively (Guarino et al., 2006; NCES, 1997). Persons with
degrees from highly selective undergraduate institutions and with little work experience
are less likely to report commitment to the teaching profession (Bacolod, 2007).
However, this study cannot support any of these findings, as no relationships were found
between any of these variables and teacher commitment. No identified studies have
examined the relationship between coursework and teacher commitment.

85
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
This study examined qualities of applicants to a preservice teacher education
program that were related to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment upon completion
of the program. This chapter provides an overview of the study, a review of the findings,
conclusions based on the findings, implications regarding the issues raised in the
research, and suggestions for future research.
Summary of the Study
There is a critical shortage of qualified teachers in high-need schools (Barnes et
al., 2007). Many teachers either elect to work in more desirable areas or leave the pro-
fession in the first few years of service (Ingersoll, 2003). The effects of this turnover is to
inhibit the ability of schools to provide an equitable education for all students (NCTAF,
2003).
While teachers’ lack of commitment to the profession can be attributed to several
factors, research has highlighted the role of teacher efficacy as an influential factor in
teachers’ decision to remain in the field (Ware & Kitsantas, 2007). Highly efficacious
teachers are more likely to persist in the face of obstacles (Poulou & Norwich, 2002),
exhibit greater job satisfaction, and ultimately remain in the profession (Caprara et al.,
2003). While extensive research has focused on the characteristics of novice and
experienced teachers related to teacher efficacy, very few studies have examined
characteristics and qualifications of prospective teachers before they begin a teacher
education program, highlighting the importance for this exploration.

86
These efforts are constructive, given the relationship between teacher efficacy and
teacher commitment, but much remains unknown about the relationship between pro-
spective teachers’ qualities and subsequent intention to begin and remain in the teaching
profession, particularly in high-need schools. The majority of studies that highlight the
relationship between teacher efficacy and teacher commitment do not distinguish the
school settings in which teachers are reporting their professional commitment. Therefore,
less is known about the qualifications of teachers who seek and maintain employment in
high-need schools. Also, little is known about factors related to these constructs when
teacher candidates complete online preservice teacher education programs, which are
becoming increasingly popular.
In an effort to identify applicant qualities that are related to teacher efficacy and
based on the desire to serve and commit to high-need schools as a result of participation
in an on-campus or online preservice teacher education program, the present study was an
attempt to identify qualities that were most related to these outcomes. Applicant qualities
such as academic background and professional experience were extrapolated from appli-
cants’ applications, and a survey administered after graduation was used to establish
applicants’ levels of teacher efficacy and teacher commitment. Regression analyses were
conducted between each of the applicant qualities and teacher efficacy and teacher
commitment in order to identify relationships.
Findings
Results of the regression analyses demonstrated that Gender, Ethnicity, Content
GPA, Work Experience, Major, and Institution Selectivity were not significant predictors
of Personal Teacher Efficacy or General Teacher Efficacy. While Age also did not

87
predict Personal Teacher Efficacy, it significantly predicted General Teacher Efficacy:
Younger preservice teachers reported higher General Teacher Efficacy than did their
counterparts.
Regarding Teacher Commitment, results of the regression analyses demonstrated
that Age, Gender, Ethnicity, Content GPA, Work Experience, Major, and Institution
Selectivity did not significantly predict general satisfaction with being a teacher (Item 1).
Regression analyses results indicated that Age, Gender, Ethnicity, Work Experience,
Major, and Institution Selectivity—were not significant predictors of preservice teachers’
assumptions about becoming teachers again (Item 2); however, Content GPA was a
significant predictor of this assumption: Preservice teachers who had higher content GPA
reported stronger beliefs that they would become teachers again.
Results of the regression analyses on how long preservice teachers planned to
remain in teaching (Item 3) indicated that Age, Gender, Ethnicity, Content GPA, Work
Experience, Major, and Institution Selectivity were not significant predictors of this
outcome.
Additionally, t tests indicated no significant mean differences in Personal Teacher
Efficacy, General Teacher Efficacy, and Teacher Commitment between teachers who
were employed at high-need schools and those who were not employed in these schools.
Finally, ANOVA results indicated no significant differences between online and
on-campus groups in terms of the identified variables. Participants in both groups entered
the preservice teacher education program with similar qualifications and reported similar
outcomes upon graduation with respect to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment.

88
Conclusions
This exploratory study found that Age was a significant predictor of General
Teacher Efficacy and Content GPA was a significant predictor of Teacher Commitment.
No significant mean differences were found between teachers who were employed at
high-need schools and those who were employed at traditional schools. And no
differences were found between online and on-campus students with respect to these
outcomes.
As discussed in Chapter 2, general teacher efficacy refers to the extent to which
teachers believe that students can be taught, given environmental factors (Gibson &
Dembo, 1984). Considering the presumably limited experience that younger participants
possessed, it is surprising that these preservice teachers reported higher general teacher
efficacy than older participants. Studies have shown that teachers with less teaching
experience report lower teacher efficacy than those with more experience (Fives &
Buehl, 2010; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). However, this finding provides only a loose
comparison, given that age does not necessarily correlate with experience. No identified
studies have examined the relationship between age and teacher efficacy. Therefore, such
assumptions should be considered with caution.
One such assumption is related to life experience and sociocultural theory.
Younger participants are presumably more familiar with being students and
understanding the responsibilities and functions that are required to learn effectively in
formal educational settings. This familiarity may have allowed these younger participants
to benefit more fully from the mediated instruction in the program, resulting in
development of higher-order functions, preparation for service, and subsequently, higher
general teacher efficacy. While the majority of participants were in their 20s, almost one-

89
third were between the ages of 30 and 57. It is likely that these individuals were in the
midst of career changes, which may have been influenced by the poor economy and high
number of layoffs at the time. The work experiences of these older individuals could have
differed drastically from teaching and therefore influenced their beliefs in their abilities to
effectively teach students.
The life experiences that participants brought to the learning context may have
affected their teacher efficacy as well. Older adults are presumed to have richer, more
extensive life experiences that lead to greater awareness of the world around them and its
inherent challenges. Given the nature of general teacher efficacy, this awareness may
include recognition of the difficulty of teaching students while overcoming obstacles of
environmental factors. Older participants might, therefore, initially report teaching as
more challenging, as they have had more exposure to the power of these obstacles.
Younger participants might be naïve and not have strong conceptions regarding the
difficulty of this feat, and therefore report higher efficacy.
Changes in efficacy are also important to note. Teachers’ reported sense of
efficacy for teaching increases during preservice teacher education programs and student
teaching (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990; Knoblauch & Woolfolk Hoy, 2008) but declines signi-
ficantly during the first year of teaching (Woolfolk-Hoy, 2000; Woolfolk-Hoy & Spero,
2005). Therefore, teachers’ sense of efficacy is typically inflated when they first enter the
profession, as they have not been exposed to all of the challenges of teaching. Woolfolk-
Hoy (2000) attributed the initial increase in self-reported efficacy to the support given
during training; when support is diminished, expectancies of efficacy decrease.

90
Content GPA was the only variable to predict significantly any of the teacher
commitment variables. Specifically, Content GPA predicted teachers’ beliefs in the
likelihood that they would become teachers again. This finding is not in line with
previous research, which suggests that teachers with higher undergraduate GPA are
significantly less likely to report teacher commitment, particularly to urban schools,
compared to prospective teachers with lower undergraduate GPA (Bacolod, 2007). The
conceptual framework of labor market theory would suggest that higher-ability teachers,
as assessed by their content GPA, would have more employment options available to
them, which would lead them to explore other options (Ehrenberg & Smith, 1997). Given
the scope of the present study, reasons for this commitment are merely speculative.
One such reason could be the timing of the study. Participants had just committed
a challenging year of their lives to the preservice teacher education program and were
likely eager to enter the field. The majority of them were first-time teachers and had
therefore been employed in the profession for only approximately 2 months when the
survey was administered. At that point they were probably still excited about their new
occupations, which they had thoughtfully considered and worked hard to attain. Also,
they likely possessed relatively limited awareness of the complexities of the job at that
point. These factors might have influenced their self-reported beliefs that they would
choose to become teachers again if they had the opportunity.
Differences between participants who assumed employment in high-need schools
and those who were employed at traditional schools were limited. As mentioned, no
significant mean differences in Personal Teacher Efficacy, General Teacher Efficacy and
Teacher Commitment existed. This finding is inconsistent with previous research that

91
suggests that teachers who work in high-need schools typically report significantly lower
teacher efficacy and teacher commitment than teachers who work in suburban or rural
settings (Park, 2005; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Woolfolk-Hoy, 2000). High-need
schools face a plethora of challenging factors–low academic achievement, discipline
problems, and limited resources–that negatively influence teachers’ efficacy judgments
and their willingness to remain in the field. This contradiction is likely due to the fact that
some of the participants had been officially employed as teachers for less than one
semester. Their perceptions regarding their capabilities as teachers, as well as their desire
to continue in the profession, were still likely being formed at the time of data collection
and will likely change. Therefore, it is difficult to obtain an accurate assessment of their
teacher efficacy and teacher commitment from the present study. However, a few
noteworthy differences emerged when percentages among various participant groups
(e.g., males vs. females) were examined.
First, between the male and female samples who sought employment, a higher
percentage of males attained employment in high-need schools. In line with this finding,
a higher percentage of minority participants became high-need teachers among their
respective groups. In other words, only one-quarter of Caucasian participants became
high-need teachers, while almost half of Hispanic participants and all African American
participants (n = 1) became high-need teachers. Finally, a greater percentage of on-
campus graduates became high-need teachers, when compared to the percentage of online
graduates who became high-need teachers. Sociocultural theory might suggest that each
of these groups is better suited to work in high-need schools. Males could be less fearful
of the dangers present in some high-need schools; minority teachers could feel a greater

92
desire to serve these schools, given that they may have endured similar challenges to the
students who attend them; and on-campus graduates might have felt more prepared than
online graduates to assume employment in high-need schools as a result of their
participation in their respective program.
In addition to examining teacher efficacy and teacher commitment, the present
study touched on the prolific trend of online learning. Online candidates were recruited as
a way to whether there were differences between online and on-campus participants in
terms of the identified variables. No such differences were found. This finding could be
attributed to the similarity of the two programs. Applicants apply to the programs using
the same application and must meet the same standards for acceptance. Once admitted,
identical courses are required for degree completion and the courses are taught by the
same university faculty members. The only difference between the courses is the medium
through which instruction and student collaboration are achieved. Given the impressive
growth of online learning, it is informative to see that the online participants had out-
comes similar to those of students who completed the on-campus program, despite the
additional cognitive and social demands of online learning (Lai & Pratt, 2004).
Implications
Several implications arise from this study. First, the age of a future teacher tends
to predict the extent to which he/she believes that students can be taught related to given
environmental factors. Younger teachers possess stronger beliefs in this capability. This
finding is relevant to admission committees and schools, who may regard older candi-
dates as more equipped because of richer life experiences that they can bring to the
classroom. However, this study suggests that this conclusion might not be accurate, as

93
older candidates in this study reported weaker efficacy beliefs after completion of a
preservice teacher education program. Therefore, assumptions made on the basis of
candidates’ ages should be avoided.
The teacher efficacy results in this study highlight the importance of support in
the growth and protection of efficacy beliefs in beginning teachers. The finding that older
candidates entered the profession with lower general teacher efficacy suggests that action
should be taken to enhance their efficacy beliefs to ensure their success in the field and
subsequent commitment. This support could be in the form of mentoring by experienced
teachers at their school. However, it is apparent that some schools are unable to provide
ample or even sufficient support to new teachers due to lack of resources. Therefore,
teachers must be prepared to meet these challenges on their own. Preservice teacher
education programs should teach candidates how to locate a support system or utilize
resources that do not emerge naturally from the school.
The second implication of this study is that teacher candidates with higher content
GPA tend to report higher levels of teacher commitment. While GPA has always been
emphasized in the admissions process, this study highlights the value of assessing content
GPA as well. Given the nature of the profession of teaching, an examination of candi-
dates’ academic background in the subject area in which they intend to teach is pertinent.
In addition to the academic performance of coursework, the quantity and relevance of
courses as they translate to elementary and secondary education should also be evaluated.
Third, the finding that only two of the independent variables were related to
teacher efficacy and teacher commitment has several implications for the purpose of this
study. It does not suggest that the other variables lack value, given the inherent

94
limitations of the present study; however, it does suggest that the relationships between
these variables might not be assessable at such an early stage in teachers’ careers. Each of
the other variables – work experience, undergraduate institution selectivity, and major –
is extremely valuable to consider in the admissions process, as they allow preservice
teacher education programs to discern whether or not applicants possess the fundamental
building blocks to support the development of complex skills and knowledge necessary
for teaching. While these variables might not be able to predict whether or not these
applicants will possess high teacher efficacy and teacher commitment when they first
assume employment as teachers, they do provide valuable insight into applicants in a
relatively quick, quantifiable manner. However, this raises another consideration:
qualitative measures.
Although quantitative measures such as GPA and the number of years of related
work experience are valuable, they do not necessarily tap into the personality traits and
beliefs of candidates, which are important considerations, as they relate to teacher
efficacy and teacher commitment. Two areas in which applicants have an opportunity to
reveal this side of their personalities are through essays and letters of recommendation.
While letters of recommendation are constructive, letter inflation is prevalent, so
information must be interpreted with caution. Essays are fraught with a similar
dilemma, but they can still be used to gain a deeper insight into the dispositions of
candidates, if the questions are carefully constructed in a manner that does not allow
generic answers to be provided. Therefore, another implication of these limited
findings is that perhaps other independent variables that are more qualitative in nature

95
should be considered as they relate to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment. This
exploration is discussed in more detail in Future Research.
Fourth, with respect to the given program, teacher candidates can complete the
online preservice teacher education program and have the same outcomes in terms of
teacher efficacy and teacher commitment as candidates who complete the program in the
traditional on-campus setting. In light of the growth of distance education, this
implication is extremely valuable for potential candidates and for schools. Potential
candidates can feel confident that they will receive the same preparation in the online
program as their counterparts in the on-campus program. Schools that might be reluctant
to hire teachers who have completed the online program can recognize the comparable
quality of education in this nontraditional environment. The identified online program is
unique in that it is not predominantly asynchronous, and it is comparable to the on-
campus program. Therefore, this implication cannot be generalized to all online
preservice teacher education programs. However, programs that share these
characteristics may experience similar outcomes.
Fifth, there are implications about the limited number of graduates who
became high-need teachers. Only one third of the participants who sought employment
became teachers in disadvantaged schools, and the majority of these teachers indicated
that they planned to leave their respective schools in the next few years. The given
preservice teacher education program is designed to prepare teachers for work with
diverse students in urban schools, yet the majority of graduates did not pursue this path,
despite what their applications might have suggested.

96
These findings suggest that candidates might have simply wanted to attend the
given university due to its reputation with no intention of serving high-need schools.
These participants might have ignored the overt emphasis of the program on meeting the
needs of disadvantaged students in order to benefit from the opportunity to earn their
teaching credential from a well-respected school. Or perhaps candidates changed their
minds during the program once they gained a deeper understanding of the challenges
faced by high-need teachers. Regardless of the reason, it highlights the necessity for a
deeper investigation during the admissions process into evidence that supports applicants’
desire to serve disadvantaged students.
Differences between on-campus and online graduates are also important to note.
A higher percentage of on-campus students attained employment in high-need schools
when compared to online students, which has implications for the program. Although
online graduates reported similar teacher efficacy and teacher commitment, as discussed,
their desire to become high-need teachers, however, might not have been as strong as on-
campus graduates. There are several possible reasons for this finding.
First, similar to the full sample, online graduates might have simply wanted to
attend the given university without any intention of serving high-need students. Some of
these graduates might have lived in areas that did not have reputable teacher education
programs near them, so they decided to pursue an online program so that they would not
have to relocate. Given the limited number of online teacher education programs, they
might have, therefore, chosen to attend the given program even though they had no
intention of becoming high-need teachers.

97
Second, the online graduates could have had fewer urban, low-income, and/or
high-minority schools near their residences, given that they were spread out across the
country. Graduates who attended the on-campus program had a plethora of high-need
schools in the city where the program was located, which might have led to the higher
percentage of on-campus graduates who became high-need teachers.
Third, it is possible that the online program either did not prepare students as
adequately for high-need schools, thereby hindering their desire to seek empoyment in
them, or it did not reinforce and inspire the pressing need for teachers in these settings as
effectively as the on-campus program. Sociocultural theory would suggest that this
hypothetical lack of preparation as well as inspiration could have been due to the nature
of online learning and the additional demands that it requires. As discussed in Chapter 2,
learning is grounded in social interactions and nurtured through membership in the
learning community in preservice teacher education programs. Teacher candidates
engage with theories and pedagogical approaches through classroom instruction,
discussions, and interactions with colleagues, resulting in preparation for service. Online
students might not have been able to fully benefit from these experiences and therefore
felt less inclined to serve the notoriously challenging high-need schools.
Future Research
The present study provided a starting point in the study of topics that have had
only limited research. Several areas were not addressed, and several topics could be
addressed in response to the findings.

98
First, the comparison between the online and on-campus candidates was loosely
examined, as the focus of the study was teacher efficacy and teacher commitment.
Several confounding variables were not considered, such as previous experience with
online learning, perceived effectiveness of instruction, and ease of program functionality.
Future research could address these factors as they relate to teacher efficacy and teacher
commitment.
Second, data on the schools where candidates completed their student teaching
were not collected. The identified preservice teacher education program made an effort to
place all candidates in high-need schools, but in some instances this was not feasible.
Some participants may have assumed employment in a school that differed drastically
from where they obtained their training. Additionally, the mentor teachers assigned to
participants during their student teaching could have had an immense impact on
graduates’ teacher efficacy and commitment. The characteristics of mentor teachers, such
as teaching experience, demonstrated ability to improve student learning, and
demonstrated skill at mentoring adults were not collected. Given all of the influences that
a school setting can have on the development of a beginning teacher’s efficacy and
commitment during student teaching, these distinctions should be made in future studies.
Third, a deeper exploration of candidates who sought and obtained employment in
high-needs schools would expand this significant body of research. Although results of
t tests demonstrated no significant differences between candidates who worked in high-
need schools and those who did not, other areas were not explored. In the regression
analyses, participants were not separated by where they taught. Future research could
examine whether findings held true in the presence of this distinction.

99
Fourth, several candidate qualities related to teacher efficacy and teacher commit-
ment were not addressed and could be considered for future research. Specifically, school
subject, degree level, school level, and dispositions could be examined.
Research has reported differences in teacher efficacy and teacher commitment
among teachers who teach different subjects. Numerous studies over the past couple of
decades have shown that science and mathematics teachers have the lowest retention rate
(Ingersoll, 2001; Kirby, E., 1999; McGinnis, Parker, & Graeber, 2004; Murnan et al.,
1988; Rinke, 2009). Ingersoll (2001) found that mathematics and science teachers were
more likely to leave than were teachers in other subjects, and E. Kirby (1999) found
similar results, with science teachers demonstrating the highest attrition rates among
Texas public school teachers.
School subject is apparently also related to teacher efficacy (Wolters & Pintrich,
1998). The majority of the research does not compare efficacy beliefs according to
subject taught. However, one study (Wolters & Pintrich, 1998) revealed that teacher
efficacy was higher for English teachers than for mathematics and social studies teachers.
Research has also shown that teachers in a sample of middle and elementary school
teachers tended to have relatively low efficacy for teaching science (Alshalaan, 2006).
Bandura (1986) described teachers’ sense of efficacy as context specific, which could
contribute to differing levels of efficacy for various subjects. Data were collected on the
type of credential that candidates earned, which could be used for this variable, but there
were not enough candidates in each category to generate comparisons.
Research on the relationship between degree level and teacher commitment
suggests that teachers with postgraduate degrees are less likely to remain in the

100
profession (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Ingersoll & Alsalam, 1997). These individuals
typically report lower commitment to the field than those with only a bachelor’s degree.
No studies have examined the relationship between teacher efficacy and degree level.
This variable was not included in the present study due a small sample of participants
with advanced degrees.
Several studies have compared school level with efficacy beliefs and teacher
commitment. Research suggests that preservice and practicing elementary teachers report
significantly higher efficacy beliefs than secondary teachers (Wolters & Daugherty,
2007). In addition to higher efficacy, one study (Ingersoll & Alsalam, 1997) found that
elementary school teachers were less likely to leave the profession. Data on teaching
level were not gathered in the survey used for this study, so these relationships could not
be examined. Future research should consider inclusion of these relationships.
The personal qualities or characteristics of candidates, including attitudes, beliefs,
and values, are also an important consideration for admission into preservice teacher
education programs and should be examined as they relate to teacher efficacy and teacher
commitment. These attributes influence individuals’ dispositions, also known as
“tendencies to act in a particular manner under particular circumstances, based on their
beliefs” (Villegas, 2007, p. 373). Renewed attention has been given to teacher disposi-
tions with the revision of National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Educators
(NCATE) in 2000, which called for teacher education programs to attend to the moral
and ethical development of teachers, in addition to the traditional development of knowl-
edge and skills (Wise, 2006).

101
The literature on teacher dispositions highlights specific beliefs and perceptions
that are associated with effective teaching, but no studies have examined their
relationship to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment. While there is no consensus
about which specific dispositions are necessary or how they should be assessed, given
that they are difficult to quantify and measure, researchers agree that teachers play a
salient role in shaping the moral development of students while providing them with
opportunities to learn, so the teachers’ dispositions cannot be ignored (Osguthorpe, 2008;
Villegas, 2007). Two specific dispositions that NCATE expects all institutions to assess
are fairness and the belief that all students can learn (Hallam, 2009). Correspondingly,
Villegas (2007) argued that programs should assess teacher candidates’ dispositions
related to social justice to ensure that they are capable of teaching students equitably.
Given the increasing racial/ethnic diversity of the K-12 population, the necessity of this
task is brought into sharp focus. Teachers must be responsive to the needs of students
who have been historically left behind and recognize the significant role that those needs
play in shaping students’ lives (Villegas, 2007).
Finally, additional research related to the findings of this study would be valuable.
Specifically, an examination of candidates’ teacher efficacy and teacher commitment
after a full year of teaching could shed light on the reliability of the results of this study.
Teachers’ sense of efficacy is typically inflated when they first enter the profession, so it
would be interesting to see whether general teacher efficacy was still related to age after
participants had been exposed to the challenges of teaching for a full school year.
Similarly, it would be informative to assess whether candidates’ assumptions that they

102
would choose teaching again would still be related to content GPA after the first year of
teaching, to test whether this finding could have been due to the timing of the survey.
Summary
In an effort to identify qualities that are related to teacher efficacy and teacher
commitment as a result of participation in an online or on-campus preservice teacher
education program, this study conducted an exploratory analysis of the qualities of
applicants to a teaching program leading to a master’s degree that were related to these
outcomes. Results indicated that Age was a significant predictor of General Teacher
Efficacy and Content GPA was a significant predictor of Teacher Commitment. Speci-
fically, Age predicted teachers’ beliefs in their capabilities of teaching students given
environmental factors and Content GPA predicted teachers’ self-reported beliefs that they
would become a teacher again if the opportunity to start again were presented. No
significant mean differences in General Teacher Efficacy, Personal Teacher Efficacy, and
Teacher Commitment were found between graduates who became high-need teachers and
those who became teachers in traditional settings. Additionally, no significant differences
were found between candidates who completed the online program and those who
completed the on-campus program were found.
This study contributes to an existing body of research and generates ideas for new
research on teacher efficacy and teacher commitment. Highly efficacious teachers are
more likely to persist in the face of obstacles, and teacher commitment is paramount for
schools to build a culture that supports student achievement. Therefore, identifying
factors that are related to these outcomes contributes to a picture of what it takes to enter

103
the dynamic field of teaching, leading to the national goal of reducing teacher turnover so
that all students are provided with an equitable education.

104
REFERENCES
Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United
States 2008. Retrieved from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/
staying_the_course.pdf
Allensworth, E., Ponisciak, S., & Mazzeo, C. (2009) The schools teachers leave: Teacher
mobility in Chicago public schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School
Research.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2005). Teacher attrition: A costly loss to the nation
and to the states. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/
publications/TeacherAttrition.pdf
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices
of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 17, 86-95.
Alon, S., & Tienda, M. (2007). Diversity, opportunity and the shifting meritocracy in
higher education. American Sociological Review, 72, 487-511.
Alshalaan, N. A. (2006). The relationship between school environment, preservice
science teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy, and their use of instructional
strategies at teachers’ colleges in Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation). University
of Kansas, Topeka.
Ashton, P. T. (1985). Motivation and teachers’ sense of efficacy. In C. Ames & R. Ames
(Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 2. The classroom milieu (pp.
141-171). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Snyder, T., Bianco, K., Fox, M., . . . Drake, L. (2010).
The condition of education 2010 (NCES 2010-028). Washington, DC: U.S. De-
partment of Education.
Bacolod, M. (2007). Who teaches and where they choose to teach: College graduates of
the 1990s. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(3), 155-168.
Baines, L. (2006). The transmogrification of teacher education. The Teacher Educator,
42(2), 140-156.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Barnes, G., Crowe, E., & Schaefer, B. (2007). The cost of teacher turnover in five school
districts. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future.

105
Barraza, K. L., & Hunter-Quartz, K. (2005). Aligning potential and opportunity: Recruit-
ing non-traditional teacher candidates through specialized urban teacher educa-
tion. Retrieved from http://www.idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/utec/wp/pdf/
03.pdf
Béteille, T., & Loeb, S. (2009). Teacher quality and teacher labor markets. In G. Sykes,
B. Schneider, & D. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp.
596-612). New York, NY: Routledge.
Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-
analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research,
78, 376-409.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). Explaining the short careers of
high achieving teachers in schools with low performing students. American Eco-
nomic Review, 95, 166-171.
Branch, A. J. (2001). Increasing the number of teachers of color in K-12 public schools.
The Educational Forum, 65, 254-261.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as
determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,
821-832.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self-
efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic
achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473-
490.
Caskey, M. M., Peterson, K. D., & Temple, J. B. (2001). Complex admission selection
procedures for a graduate pre-service program. Teacher Education Quarterly,
37, 7-21.
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, 597-630.
Chester, M., & Beaudin, B. Q. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of newly hired teachers in urban
schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 233-257.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of
Experimental Education, 60, 323-337.
Cook, J. (2007). Virtual learning environments: Making the Web easy to use for teachers
and learners. Retrieved from http://www.ltss.bris.ac.uk/publications/guides/vle/
Danetta, V. (2002). What factors influence a teacher’s commitment to student learning?
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1, 144-171.

106
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and
standards: How we can ensure a competent, caring and qualified teacher for
every child. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future.
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, 286-302.
Denner, P. R., Salzman, S. A., & Newsome, J. D. (2001). Selecting the qualified: A
standards-based teacher education admission process. Journal of Personnel Eval-
uation, 15, 165-180.
Ehrenberg, R., & Smith, R. (1997). Modern labor economics: Theory and public policy
(6th ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Elliot, B., & Crosswell, L. (2001). Commitment to teaching: Australian perspectives on
the interplays of the professional and personal in teachers’ lives. Paper presented
at the International Symposium on Teacher Commitment at the European Con-
ference on Educational Research, Lille, France.
Falch, T., & Ronning, M. (2007). The influence of student achievement on teacher turn-
over. Education Economics, 15, 177-202.
Feistritzer, C. E. (2009). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state analysis.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.
Firestone, W. A., & Pennell, J. R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions, and
differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63, 489-525.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2010). Examining the factor structure of the Teachers’ Sense
of Efficacy Scale. Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 118-134.
Flores, B. B., Hernandez, A., Garcia, C. T., & Claeys, L. (2011). Teacher academy in-
duction learning community: Guiding teachers through their zone of proximal de-
velopment. Mentoring and Tutoring, 19, 365-389.
Foote, C. J. (2005). The challenge and potential of high-need urban education. Journal of
Negro Education, 74, 371-381.
Foote, C. J., & Cook-Cottone, C. P. (2004). Field experiences in high-need, urban set-
tings: Analysis of current practice and insights for change. Urban Review, 36,
189-210.
Frankenberg, E., Lee, C., & Orfield, G., (2003). A multiracial society with segregated
schools: Are we losing the dream? Retrieved from http://www.civilrightsprojects
.harvard.edu
Frankenberg, E., Taylor, A., & Merseth, K. (2009). Walking the walk: Teacher candi-
dates’ professed commitment to urban teaching and their subsequent career deci-
sions. Urban Education, 45, 312-346.

107
Fresko, B., Kfir, D., & Nassr, F. (1997). Predicting teacher commitment. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 13, 429-438.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic
engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148-
162.
Gay, G. (2003). The importance of multicultural education. Educational Leadership,
61(4), 30-35.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
Goldhaber, D., & Brewer, D. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school
teacher certification and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 22, 129-145.
Gomez, M. L. (1993). Prospective teachers on teaching diverse children: A review with
implications for teacher education and practice. Journal of Negro Education, 62,
459-474.
Guarino, C. G., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and reten-
tion: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research,
76, 173-208.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimen-
sions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643.
Haberman, M. (1990). The rationale for training adults as teachers. In C. Sleeter (Ed.),
Empowerment through multicultural education (pp. 275-286). Buffalo, NY:
SUNY Press.
Haberman, M. (1993). Predicting the success of urban teachers (the Milwaukee Trials).
Action in Teacher Education, 15(3), 1-5.
Haberman, M. (1996). Selecting and preparing culturally competent teachers for urban
schools. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 747-
760). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Haberman, M., & Post, L. (1998). Teachers for multicultural schools: The power of
selection. Theory Into Practice, 37(2), 96-104.
Haberman, M., & Richards, W. H. (1990). Urban teachers who quit: Why they leave and
what they do. Urban Education, 25, 297-303.
Haggstrom, G., Darling-Hammond, L., & Grissmer, D. (1988). Assessing teacher supply
and demand (R-3633-ED/CSTP). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Hallam, M. K. (2009, January). Why teacher dispositions are a crucial aspect of student
success. The Language Educator, 26-29. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/
files/TLE_Jan09_Article.pdf

108
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers.
Journal of Human Resources, 39, 326-354.
Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R, (2007). Teacher training, teacher quality, and student
achievement (CALDER Working Paper 3). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Hawkey, K. (1997). Roles, responsibilities, and relationships in mentoring: A literature
review and agenda for research. Journal of Teacher Education, 48, 325-335.
Henke, R., Chen, X., Geis, S., & Knepper, P. (2000.) Progress through the teacher pipe-
line: 1992–93 college graduate and elementary/secondary school teaching as of
1997. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Hollins, E. R., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse pop-
ulations. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeicher (Eds.), Studying teacher educa-
tion: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 477-
548). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of
teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,
343-356.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Edu-
cational Research Journal, 27, 279-300.
Huang, H. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environ-
ments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27-37.
Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages and the organization of
schools. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teach-
ing and Policy.
Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? A research report co-sponsored
by the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and the Consortium for Policy
Research in Education. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the
Study of Teaching and Policy.
Ingersoll, R., & Alsalam, N. (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher commit-
ment: A multilevel analysis. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Sta-
tistics.
Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educa-
tional Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.
Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers
explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 581-
617.
Jung, I. S. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of web-based instruction in the
context of distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32,
525-534.

109
Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Kirby, E. (1999). Building interaction in online and distance education courses. Paper
presented at the International Conference of the Society for Information Technol-
ogy and Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX.
Kirby, S., Berends, M., & Naftel, S. (1999). Supply and demand of minority teachers in
Texas: Problems and prospects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
21(1), 47-66.
Knoblauch, D., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2008). Maybe I can teach those kids: The influence
of contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24, 166-179.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Preparing teachers for diversity: Historical perspectives,
current trends, and future directions. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.),
Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 86-
123). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lai, K. W., & Pratt, K. (2004). Online learners: Who are they? In L. Cantoni & C.
McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multi-
media, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2004 (pp. 5142-5147). Chesapeake,
VA: AACE.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban
schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
24(1), 37-62.
Lee, K. S. (2009). The intersection of scholarship of teaching and learning with online
course design in teacher education. Insight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching,
4(1), 77-85.
Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., & Pelletier, L. (2006). Why do high school students lack
motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic motivation
and the role of social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 567-582.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers: Executive summary. Retrieved from
http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Exec_Summ.pdf
Li, X., & Zhang, M. (2000, April). Effects of early field experiences in preservice teach-
ers’ efficacy beliefs: A pilot study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Lin, H. L., & Gorrell, J. (2001). Exploratory analysis of pre-service teacher efficacy in
Taiwan. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 623-635.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematics case to a mod-
ified concept. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3-11.

110
Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engage-
ment, and achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational
practice. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 327-365.
Massey, D. S. (2006). Social background and academic performance differentials: White
and minority students at selective colleges. American Law and Economic Review,
8, 390-409.
McGinnis, J. R., Parker, C., & Graeber, A. O. (2004). A cultural perspective of the
induction of five reform-minded beginning mathematics and science teachers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 720-747.
McKinney, S. E., Berry, R. Q., Dickerson, D. L., & Campbell-Whately, G. (2007). Ad-
dressing urban high-poverty school teacher attrition by addressing urban high-
poverty school teacher retention: Why effective teachers persevere. Educational
Research and Review, 3(1), 1-9.
Mikotovics, A., & Crehan, K. D. (2002). Pre-professional skills test scores as college of
education admission criteria. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 215-223.
Milner, H. (2002). A case study of an experienced teacher’s self-efficacy and persistence
through crisis situations: Theoretical and practical considerations. High School
Journal, 86, 28-35.
Mueller, C. W., Finley, A., Iverson, R. D., & Price, J. L. (1999). The effects of group
racial composition on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and career
commitment: The case of teachers. Work and Occupations, 26, 187-219.
Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching:
Enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243-261.
Murnan, R. J., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1988). The influences of salaries and
“opportunity costs” on teachers’ career choices: Evidence from North Carolina.
Harvard Educational Review, 59, 325-346.
Murnane, R., & Steele, L. (2007). What is the problem: The challenge of providing
effective teachers of all children. The Future of Children, 17(1) 15-43.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher
commitment: A multilevel analysis. Washington, DC: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Digest of education statistic tables and
figures. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Characteristics of schools, districts,
teachers, principals, and school libraries in the United States: 2003-04 schools
and staffing survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF). (2003.) No dream
denied: A pledge to America’s children. Washington, DC: Author.

111
Ng, E. S., & Sears, G. J. (2010). What women and ethnic minorities want in work values
and labor market confidence: A self-determination perspective. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 676-698.
Olsen, B., & Anderson, L. (2007). A qualitative investigation into urban teacher retention
and career development. Urban Education, 42(1), 5-29.
Olson, J. L., & Platt, J. M. (2000). Teaching children and adolescents with special needs
(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Osguthorpe, R. D. (2008). On the reasons we want teachers of good disposition and
moral character. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 288-299.
Park, I. (2005). Teacher commitment and its effects on student achievement in American
high schools. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 461-485.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Provasnik, S., Kena, G., Dinkes, R., . . . Kemp, J.
(2008). The condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008-031). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute
of Education Sciences.
Podgursky, M., Monroe, R., & Watson, D. (2004). The academic quality of public school
teachers: An analysis of entry and exit behavior. Economics of Education Review,
23, 507-518.
Poulou, M. (2007). Personal teaching efficacy and its sources: Student teachers’ percep-
tions. Educational Psychology, 27, 191-218.
Poulou, M., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ cognitive, affective and behavioural
responses to children with emotional and behavioural difficulties: A model of
decision making. British Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 111-138.
Quartz, K. H. (2003). Too angry to leave: Supporting new teachers’ commitment to trans-
form urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 99-111.
Ralston, K., Newman, C., Clauson, A., Guthrie, J., & Buzby, J. (2008). The National
School Lunch Program: Background, trends, and issues (Economic Research
Report No. 61). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Rice, J. K. (2003). Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington,
DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Rinke, C. (2008). Understanding teachers’ careers: Linking professional life to profes-
sional path. Educational Research Review, 3, 1-13.
Rinke, C. R. (2009). Finding their way on: Career decision-making processes of urban
science teachers. Science Teacher Education, 93, 1096-1121.

112
Romi, S., & Daniel, E. (1999). Integration of students with special needs in the regular
classroom: Attitudes of preservice teachers in Israeli colleges. Paper presented at
the Third International Conference on Teacher Education: “Almost 2000: Crisis
and Changes in the Preparation and Development of Teachers.’’
Ross, J. A. (1994). The impact of an inservice to promote cooperative learning on the
stability of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 381-394.
Rowan, B., Chiang, F., & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employees’ perform-
ance to study the effects of teachers on students’ achievement. Sociology of Edu-
cation, 70, 256-284.
Ruby, A. M. (2002). Internal teacher turnover in urban middle school reform. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7, 379-406.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of in-
trinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68-78.
Scribner, J. P., & Akiba, M. (2010). Exploring the relationship between prior career expe-
rience and instructional quality among mathematics and science teachers in alter-
native teacher certification programs. Educational Policy, 24, 602-627.
Shen, J., Wegenke, G. L., & Cooley, V. (2003). Has the public teaching force become
more diversified? National and longitudinal perspectives on gender, race, and eth-
nicity. Educational Horizons, 81(3), 112-118.
Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the
overwhelming presence of Whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94-
106.
Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004). Reducing teacher turnover: What are the components
of effective induction? American Educational Research Journal, 41, 687-714.
Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational
and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 25, 1-30.
Stoddart, T., & Floden, R. E. (1995). Traditional and alternate routes to teacher certifi-
cation: Issues, assumptions, and misconceptions. Washington, DC: National
Center for Research on Teacher Learning.
Stotsky, S. (2006). Who should be accountable for what beginning teachers need to
know? Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 256-258.
Su, Z. (1997). Teaching as a profession and as a career: Minority candidates’ perspec-
tives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 325-340.
Terrill, M., & Mark, D. H. L. (2000). Preservice teachers’ expectations for schools with
children of color and second-language learners. Teaching and Teacher Education,
15, 555-570.

113
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and
schooling in social context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
Tsui, K. T., & Cheng, Y. C. (1999). School organizational health and teacher commit-
ment: A contingency study with multi-level analysis. Educational Research and
Evaluation, 5, 249-268.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary. (2004). No Child Left
Behind: A toolkit for teachers. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. News and World Report. (2010). Frequently asked questions: College rankings.
Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-
colleges/2010/08/17/frequently-asked-questions-college-rankings.html
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational
Research, 54(2), 143-187.
Villegas, A. M. (2007). Dispositions in teacher education: A look at social justice. Jour-
nal of Teacher Education, 58, 370-380.
Voke, H. (2002). Understanding and responding to the teacher shortage. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of
professional commitment. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 303-311.
Weiner, L. (2000). Research in the ’90s: Implications for urban teacher preparation.
Review of Educational Research, 70, 369-406.
Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and 1st-year teachers’ morale,
career choice commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teach-
ing and Teacher Education, 15, 961-879.
Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New
York, NY: Knopf.
Wise, A. (2006). Preface. In H. Sockett (Ed.), Teacher dispositions: Building a teacher
education framework of moral standards (p. 3). Washington, DC: American
Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.

114
Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of effi-
cacy: Their relation and association to teacher experience and academic level.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 181-193.
Wolters, C. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and
self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms.
Instructional Science, 26, 27-47.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and
beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.
Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2000). Educational psychology and teacher education. Educational
Psychologist, 35, 257-270.
Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early
years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 21, 343-356.
Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers’ characteristics: Research on the indicators of
quality. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher educa-
tion: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 157-
260). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

115
APPENDIX A
QUALTRICS SURVEY
Please check the appropriate box.
1. Did you graduate from the [name of program and school]? (“No” responses will end
the survey)
Yes No

2. Did you attend the on-campus or online [name of program and school]?
On-campus Online

3. Did you complete the credential or non-credential program? (“Non-credential”
responses will be directed to Question 5)
Credential Non-credential

4. What type of credential did you earn in the [name of program and school]?
Multiple Subjects Credential
Single English Credential
Single Math Credential
Single Music Credential
Single Science Credential
Single Social Science Credential

5. Did you seek (or retain) employment as a Pk-12 teacher after completion of the
[name of program and school]? (“Yes” responses will be directed to Question 7).
Yes No

6. Please explain why you did not seek employment as a Pk-12 teacher after
completion of the [name of program and school]?
_________________________________________________________________

7. Are you currently employed as a Pk-12 teacher? (“Yes” responses will be directed to
Question 9).
Yes No

8. Please explain why you believe that you did not attain employment as a Pk-12
teacher? (Survey will end for participants who answer this question).
______________________________________________________________

116

9. What is the name and location (city and state) of the school where you are currently
teaching?
_______________________________________________________________
10. Do you consider the school in which you teach to be a “high-need” school? (“No”
responses will be directed to Question 12).
Yes No

11. How long do you plan to continue teaching in a high-need school?

0-2 yrs 2-5 yrs 5-10 yrs 10+ yrs until retirement undecided

12. I am generally satisfied with being a teacher at my current school.
1 2 3 4
strongly somewhat somewhat strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
13. Suppose you could start all over, would you become a teacher again?
Certainly would become a teacher
Probably would become a teacher
Chances about even for and against
Probably would not become a teacher
Certainly would not become a teacher

14. How long do you plan to remain in teaching?
As long as I am able
Until I am eligible for retirement benefits from this job
Until I am eligible for retirement benefits from a previous job
Until I am eligible for Social Security benefits
Until a specific life event occurs (e.g., parenthood, marriage)
Until a more desirable job opportunity comes along
Definitely plan to leave as soon as I can
Undecided at this time

117
A number of statements about organizations, people, and teaching are presented in
the following questions (15-35). The purpose is to gather information regarding the
actual attitudes of educators concerning these statements. There are no correct or
incorrect answers. I am interested only in your frank opinions. Your responses will
remain completely confidential.

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate your personal opinion about each statement by
selecting the appropriate response below each statement.

KEY: 1=Strongly Disagree 4=Agree slightly more than disagree
2=Moderately Disagree 5=Moderately Agree
3=Disagree slightly more than agree 6=Strongly Agree

15. When a student does better than usual, many times it is because I exert a little extra
effort.
1 2 3 4 5 6

16. The hours in my class have little influence on students compared to the influence of
their home environment.
1 2 3 4 5 6

17. The amount a student can learn is primarily related to family background.
1 2 3 4 5 6

18. If students aren't disciplined at home, they aren't likely to accept any discipline.
1 2 3 4 5 6

19. When a student is having difficulty with an assignment, I am usually able to adjust it
to his/her level.
1 2 3 4 5 6

20. When a student gets a better grade than he/she usually gets, it is usually because I
found better ways of teaching that student.
1 2 3 4 5 6

21. When I really try, I can get through to most difficult students.
1 2 3 4 5 6

118

22. A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve because a student's home
environment is a large influence on his/her achievement.
1 2 3 4 5 6

23. Teachers are not a very powerful influence on student achievement when all factors
are considered.
1 2 3 4 5 6

24. When the grades of my students improve, it is usually because I found more
effective approaches.
1 2 3 4 5 6

25. If a student masters a new concept quickly, this might be because I knew the
necessary steps in teaching that concept.
1 2 3 4 5 6

26. If parents would do more for their children, I could do more.
1 2 3 4 5 6

27. If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would know
how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson.
1 2 3 4 5 6

28. The influences of a student’s home experiences can be overcome by good teaching.
1 2 3 4 5 6

29. If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I know
some techniques to redirect him/her quickly.
1 2 3 4 5 6

30. Even a teacher with good teaching abilities may not reach many students.
1 2 3 4 5 6

31. If one of my students couldn't do a class assignment, I would be able to accurately
assess whether the assignment was at the correct level of difficulty.
1 2 3 4 5 6

119
32. If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated
students.
1 2 3 4 5 6

33. When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can't do much because most of a
student's motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment.
1 2 3 4 5 6

34. Some students need to be placed in slower groups so they are not subjected to
unrealistic expectations.
1 2 3 4 5 6

35. My teacher training program and/or experience has given me the necessary skills to
be an effective teacher.
1 2 3 4 5 6

Items 1-11 by Julie Nollner; Items 12-14 from Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)
2007-2008 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES); Items 15-35 from
The Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES), “Teacher Efficacy: A Construct Validation,” by S.
Gibson & M. Dembo, 1984, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. Extracted
items used by permission.

120
APPENDIX B
E-MAIL SOLICITATION FOR SURVEY
Dear MAT@USC graduate,
I am launching a research project about the MAT@USC in an effort to learn
about graduates’ employment information and feelings regarding the teaching profession
after completion of the program. This information will then be used to assist the
MAT@USC in its continual development.
This Web survey should take about 20 minutes to complete. At the end of the
survey, you can enter a drawing where four randomly selected respondents will receive
an iPod touch, a $100 Amazon.com gift certificate, a $50 Amazon.com gift certificate, or
a $25 gift certificate. The odds of winning are 4 in 154 or better, depending on the
number of respondents.
Your participation is voluntary, and your responses will be kept completely confidential.
Your place of employment will never see your responses, and the MAT@USC program
will not see any identifiable data. Codes will be assigned to all participants that are
analyzed; no names will be used.
I realize that you are all very busy, but I would greatly appreciate your time. The
survey will remain open for 4 weeks to provide ample time for you to take it at a
convenient time.
To take the survey, please click the link below:
https://usceducation.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_1Gmm8Db4hE88uUY

121
You may start and stop the survey, but please use the same computer and browser
to avoid any technical problems.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Julie Nollner
Doctoral Candidate – Educational Psychology
USC Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
nollner@usc.edu

If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, contact:
University Park IRB
Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement
Stonier Hall, Room 224a
Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146
213-821-5272
upirb@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined teacher efficacy and teacher commitment in recent graduates of a preservice teacher education program. Specifically, an exploratory analysis on the qualities of these graduates that were related to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment after completion of the preservice teacher education program was conducted. ❧ Participants included 58 recent graduates of an on-campus and online preservice teacher education program at a leading research university. Multiple and linear regression analyses were conducted to identify factors that were related to teacher efficacy and the desire to serve and commit to the teaching profession after completion of the program. Also, a series of paired t tests was conducted to compare teacher efficacy and teacher commitment scores for participants who assumed employment in high-need schools and those who did not. And one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to identify differences between the online and on-campus graduates. ❧ Results of the regression analyses indicated that age was a significant predictor of general teacher efficacy, and content grade point average was a significant predictor of teacher commitment. Additionally, t tests revealed no significant differences in mean scores for teacher efficacy and teacher commitment between teachers in high-need schools and those in traditional settings. One-way ANOVA results indicated no significant differences between the online and on-campus groups in terms of the identified variables.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

What are the relationships among program delivery, classroom experience, content knowledge, and demographics on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy?

PDF

Teacher perceptions of Marzano's instructional strategies in traditional and virtual classrooms

PDF

The perceptions of principals towards proprietary online teacher credential programs and their effect on hiring

PDF

A comparative study of motivational predictors and differences of student satisfaction between online learning and on-campus courses

PDF

A professional development program evaluation: teacher efficacy, learning, and transfer

PDF

Values and beliefs related to diversity amongst students being prepared as teachers

PDF

The relationships between teacher beliefs about diversity and opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students, reflectiveness, and teacher self-efficacy

PDF

Differentiated motivations of preservice teachers to enter the teaching profession in Hawai‘i

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

A comparison of student motivation by program delivery method: self-efficacy, goal orientation, and belongingness in a synchronous online and traditional face-to-face environment

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Urban teacher persistence: self-efficacy, affect, and values

PDF

The implementation of online learning for ESL programs: factors and perspectives

PDF

What is the relationship between early childhood teachers' training on the development of their teaching self-efficacy?

PDF

Better together: teacher attrition, burnout, and efficacy

PDF

The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment

PDF

Self-efficacy beliefs and intentions to persist of Native Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors

PDF

Examining mathematics anxiety and mathematics teaching self-efficacy of elementary school teachers in a Hawaii school district

PDF

One Hawai’i K-12 complex public school teachers’ level of computer self-efficacy and their acceptance of and integration of technology in the classroom

PDF

A quantitative study on southeast Asian and Latino student's perceptions of teachers' expectations and self-efficacy

Asset Metadata

Creator Nollner, Julie Elizabeth (author)

Core Title An examination of prospective teacher qualities related to teacher efficacy and teacher commitment

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 09/14/2012

Defense Date 09/13/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag admissions,OAI-PMH Harvest,online education,teacher commitment,teacher education programs,teacher efficacy

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee chair), Slayton, Julie M. (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email julienollner@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-96965

Unique identifier UC11289326

Identifier usctheses-c3-96965 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-NollnerJul-1198.pdf

Dmrecord 96965

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Nollner, Julie Elizabeth

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA