Increasing Efficacy in a Population-level Implementation

Abstract

This study examines the changes in teacher efficacy and interaction effects based on perceived effectiveness and level of implementation for teachers trained in the PAX Good Behavior Game and subsequent PAX Next Steps professional development training as measured by the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale. Previous studies have shown improved outcomes for teachers with the PAX Good Behavior Game including a reduction in teacher stress and improved teacher efficacy among in-service and pre-service teachers. This study found that PAX Next Steps professional development training increased overall teacher efficacy as well as efficacy in instructional strategies, student engagement, and classroom management for teachers already trained in the PAX Good Behavior Game regardless of their own level of implementation or their perceived effectiveness of the PAX Good Behavior Game program. These outcomes highlight the importance of culturally competent professional development as a key feature in the sustainability of a population-level implementation of any evidence-based program. Two models were developed to determine interaction effects of two variables from the post training survey on efficacy according to the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy scores for the same participants. Level of implementation was the first variable tested for interaction effects with sense of efficacy. For the first model, in which the implementation question was used as a moderator of change in self-efficacy, we found that 57 teachers responded with a 1 (signifying a low level of implementation), 50 responded with a 2 (moderate level of implementation), and 20 responding with a 3 (high level of implementation). Results indicated that the interaction effect of implementation and time on self-efficacy was not significant, F (2,127) =1.24, p = .29. The main effect of implementation on self-efficacy was not significant, F (2,127) = 1.79, p = .17, but the main effect of time on self-efficacy was significant, F (1,127) = 147.17, p < .001, partial η 2 = .54, indicating a substantial gain in self-efficacy during the training course, regardless of the level of implementation. Levene’s test indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not violated at the pre-test, F (2,127) = 2.24, p = .11, or the post-test, F (2,127) = 2.61, p = 08. Perceived effectiveness of the PAX GBG was the second variable tested for interaction effects with sense of efficacy. For the second model, in which the perceived effectiveness question was used as a moderator of change in self-efficacy, we initially found that only 2 teachers responded with a 1 (signifying a very low level of perceived effectiveness) and only 14 teachers responded with a 4 (signifying a very high level of perceived effectiveness). Thus, we collapsed the four groups into two by combining the lower two and upper two responses. As a result, we had 49 teachers who responded 1 or 2 (signifying a low level of perceived effectiveness), and 81 teachers who responded 3 or 4 (signifying a high level of perceived effectiveness). Results indicated that the interaction effect of perceived effectiveness and time on self-efficacy was not significant, F (1,128) =.38,