130
unspecified number of factors, five factors and six factors. As hypothesized, the teacher efficacy survey consisted of five subscales, and it therefore consisted of
five factors. From the factor analysis involving the unspecified number of factors, five and six factors, the results were relatively the same in terms of the
loading of the items in the survey. Differences were found in the degree of the loading but not in the number of factors or the items loaded in the factors.
Because the results were relatively the same regardless of the number of factors specified, they were reported based on the unspecified number of factor.
Detailed results can be found in Section 4.9.2 of this chapter.
Factor analysis in the teacher work engagement was also carried out by varying the number of the factors. As hypothesized, the teacher work engagement
survey consisted of three factors as vigor, dedication and absorption. In doing the factor analysis, the researcher varied the number of factors using an
unspecified number of factors, two factors and three factors. Detailed results of the factor analysis were reported in section 4.9.2.
4.8.1 Results of the exploratory factor analyses on the teachers’ efficacy data
The teachers‘ efficacy survey was hypothesized to consist of five factors in two general parts. The first part consisted of three factors of general teacher efficacy
beliefs which was made up of three factors addressing the efficacy for instructional strategies, classroom management and student engagement. The
second part of the survey consisted of two subscales developed by the
131
researcher to address the specific context of teachers‘ work life in Indonesia. Those two subscales were hypothesized to represent two factors consisting of
the teachers‘ efficacy for English and teachers‘ efficacy for curriculum implementation.
As stated previously, results of the exploratory factor analyses on the teacher efficacy scale reported in this section were based on the factor analysis using an
unspecified number of factors. The first reason of choosing to report on the analysis based on this unspecified number of factors is that it yielded consistent
results among the analysis using the unspecified number of factors, and the analyses using five factors and six factors. The second reason was that by using
an unspecified number of factors, the researcher assumed that there was no by- design factor effect, thus minimizing the intervention.
The results of factor analysis suggested that principal component extraction and varimax rotation methods came up with an extraction of five factors with more
than one eigenvalues. While the two factors designed by the researcher sat nicely on two separate factors, see Table 5.6, problems appeared with respect to
the three factors drawn from the published Ohio States Teacher Self-Efficacy Scales OSTES. Based on the loading patterns found in the data, seven items in
the teacher efficacy for instructional strategies were loaded as one single factor, while the remaining item, the item about the teacher efficacy for providing
challenges for capable students, was loaded in a different factor.
132
In the teacher efficacy for classroom management, only five items were loaded as one factor, while the other three items appeared to have cross loading with
heavier loading on different factors from the other five items. Special treatment was done for this subscale, by doing factor analysis separately using two and
three factors factor analysis. Results from this special treatment confirmed the assumption that in this present study it appeared that the efficacy for classroom
management subscale had a high order factor consisting of two different factors. The fir
st factor seemed to be related to teachers‘ control, with three items related to the teachers‘ efficacy in dealing with disruptive, troubled and defiant
students items number 1, 7 and 8 and the other factor was related to the teachers‘ efficacy for managing the classroom in general items number 2, 3, 4,
5, and 6. Interestingly item number 5, the item about teacher efficacy for calming disruptive and noisy students did not load on the teachers‘ control,
regardless of the word calming disruptive and noisy students in the statement. The two factors resulted from these factor analyses can be argued due to the
different perception among the teachers in the sample about the ideas if controlling and managing the class. Further explanation about this difference in
perception is discussed in the discussion and interpretation section.
Another problem was also found in the teacher efficacy for student engagement subscale, where only five of the eight items in the subscale were loaded on one
factor. The other three items were loaded on two different factors. In addition, the five factors loaded as one factor were identified as the same factor as the
133
classroom management factor. One item in the subscale was loaded as the same factor as the teacher efficacy for curriculum implementation subscale, and the
other two items were loaded as a different factor. Although the three subscales adopted from the OSTES were loaded as three factors, the third factor that
consisted of five items was derived from items coming from all the three different subscales.
4.8.2 Results of Exploratory Factor Analyses on Work Engagement Data
