TPC-Journal-V3-Issue1

10 Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Comparisons on Measures of Teachers’ Specific and General Irrational Beliefs at Posttest Control Face-to-Face Online ( n = 21) ( n = 9) ( n = 5) DV M ( SD ) M ( SD ) M ( SD ) F d % p SDA 22.95 a (4.49) 16.89 a (4.57) 24.6 (6.88) 5.97 1.58 22 .006 LFTA 10.62 (3.79) 7.78 (3.19) 12.2 (2.28) 3.13 1.27 16 .057 ASO 16.95 (2.36) 13.89 (5.95) 20.0 (2.74) 4.78 1.68 22 .15 AATS 15.43 b (4.07) 10.78 b (3.67) 17.4 (2.61) 6.35 1.73 28 .004 TIB 65.95 c (9.66) 49.33 c (15.57) 74.2 (13.41) 8.80 2.09 35 < .001 Note. DV = dependent variable. SDA = Self Downing Attitudes. LFTA = Low Frustration Tolerance Attitudes. ASO = Attitudes to School Organization. AATS = Authoritarian Attitudes Toward Students. TIB = Teacher Irrational Beliefs. d = effect size calculated using Cohen's d . % = percentage of variance explained, calculated from eta squared. Degrees of Freedom ( df ) = 2 for each ANOVA. Significance set at p < .05. a Tukey HSD = 5.86, p < .05. b Tukey HSD = 4.59, p < .05. c Tukey HSD = 14.31, p < .05. It also was expected that participants receiving the treatments would report higher levels of efficacy than the control group. Results indicated no statistical significance across groups in terms of teacher sense of efficacy (TSE), F (2, 33) = 1.56, p = .225. Additional analyses were conducted on the subscales of the TSES. Analyses measuring the group differences in terms of efficacy in instructional strategies (EIS), F (2, 33) = .29, p = .752, and efficacy in classroom management (ECM), F (2, 33) = .38, p = .685, yielded no significant difference. A statistically significant difference was found on efficacy in student engagement (ESE) when the three groups were compared, F (2, 33) = 4.52, p = .018, accounting for 22% of the variance. A post hoc comparison indicated the mean of the face-to-face treatment ( M = 7.03, SD = .74) was not significant in terms of ESE when compared to the control group ( M = 7.09, SD = .77). However, the mean of the online group ( M = 5.94, SD = .87) was significantly less than the mean of the control group. The effects of the treatments on the participants’ irrational thoughts are presented in Table 3. Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Group Comparisons on Measure of Specific and General Teacher Efficacy at Posttest Control Face-to-Face Online ( n = 21) ( n = 9) ( n = 5) DV M ( SD ) M ( SD ) M ( SD ) F d % p ESE 7.09 a (.77) 7.03 (.74) 5.94 a (.87) 4.52 1.46 22 .019 EIS 7.56 (.61) 7.57 (.55) 7.32 (1.03) .29 .38 1 .752 ECM 7.39 (.98) 7.42 (.77) 6.98 (1.43) .38 .44 2 .685 TSE 7.4 (.70) 7.34 (.64) 6.80 (.69) 1.56 .87 8 .225 Note. DV = dependent variable. ESE = Efficacy in Student Engagement. EIS = Efficacy in Instructional Strategies. ECM = Efficacy in Classroom Management. TSE = Teacher Sense of Efficacy. d = effect size calculated using Cohen's d . % = percentage of variance explained, calculated from eta squared. Degrees of Freedom ( df ) = 2 for each ANOVA. Significance set at p < .05. a Tukey HSD = .94 , p < .05. The Professional Counselor \Volume 3, Issue 1