This study was conducted to analyze the principal efficacy between the first year students (Cohort 8) and the second year students (Cohort 7) of the Masters Educational Leadership University Program. The principal efficacy can be measured via analyzing the responses obtained across the various items of the questionnaire exploring areas of time management, enthusiasm, organizational management, policies and several more. For this reason, the foremost research question is as follows:
Is there a significant difference in the mean efficacy scores for cohort 7 and cohort 8?
It was therefore hypothesized that the principal efficacy of cohort 7 is greater that cohort 8 as shown below:
Ho: u1=u2
Ha: u1>u2
Where U1= mean of cohort 7
U2= mean of Cohort 8
This hypothesis was tested using an independent T-test via SPSS. This is due to the fact that both the cohorts are independent of each other where it is an example of a categorical variable as compared to the continuous efficacy variable. The output obtained is as follows:
Hence, an independent – samples t-test was conducted to compare the efficacy scores for cohort 7 and cohort 8. The results therefore show that there is a significant difference in scores for cohort 7 (M= 6.5, S.D= 0.65) and cohort 8 (M= 5.6, S.D= 0.9; t (21.5)= -2.618, p=.016, two-tailed). The magnitude of the difference in the means (mean difference= -.84, 95% CL: -1.5 to -.17) was large (eta squared= .25). This shows that 25% of variance in efficacy is explained by the cohort. Since the mean of cohort 7 (6.5) is greater that the mean of cohort 8 (5.6), it shows that the principal efficacy of cohort 7 is greater than the efficacy of cohort 8. In this way, the hypothesis holds statistically significant.
Note that in the above, equal variances is not assumed as the sig value for the Levene’s test (as shown in table 1) is less than .05. Moreover, the value of eta squared shows the effect size which is quite large in this case where eta square is calculated using the following formula: tsquare/ tsquare + (N1+N2-2).
Since this study incorporated a control group of administrators, it is also important to look at the difference between the efficacy of the administrators and cohort 7 and cohort 8 respectively. For this reason it was hypothesized that the efficacy rate of the current administrators would be greater than cohort 7:
Ho: u1=u2
Ha: u1>u2
Where U1= mean of administrator
U2= mean of Cohort 7
Hence, an independent -samples t-test was conducted to compare the efficacy scores for the current administrators and cohort 7. The results therefore show that there is a significant difference in scores for administrator (M= 6.88, S.D= .384) and cohort 7(M= 6.5, S.D= .65; t (13)= -1.095, p=.262, two-tailed). The magnitude of the difference in the means (mean difference= .293 95% CL: -1.15 to .37) was small (eta squared= .08). This shows that 8% of variance in efficacy is explained by the cohort. Since the mean of administrator (6.88) is slightly greater that the mean of cohort 7 (6.5), it shows that the principal efficacy of the current administrator is slightly greater than the efficacy of cohort 7. In this way, the hypothesis holds statistically significant.
It was also hypothesized that the efficacy rate of the current administrators would be greater than cohort 8:
Ho: u1=u2
Ha: u1>u2
Where U1= mean of administrator
U2= mean of Cohort 8
Hence, an independent -samples t-test was conducted to compare the efficacy scores for the current administrators and cohort 8. The results therefore show that there is a significant difference in scores for administrator (M= 6.88, S.D= .384) and cohort 8(M= 5.6, S.D= 0.9; t (12.77) = -3.86, p=.002, two-tailed). The magnitude of the difference in the means (mean difference= -1.22, 95% CL: -1.9 to -.5) was large (eta squared= .5). This shows that 50% of variance in efficacy is explained by the cohort. Since the mean of administrator (6.88) is greater that the mean of cohort 8 (5.6), it shows that the principal efficacy of the current administrator is greater than the efficacy of cohort 8. In this way, the hypothesis holds statistically significant.
Apart from this, it is also essential to examine the role of demographics on the efficacy of the first year and the second year students. In this regard, the respondents were between 24 and 54 years of age. In order to see if age had an impact on the principal efficacy rate and how it differed across the various groups including administrators and the two cohorts of this study, a correlation between the age group and the mean efficacy score was conducted. Correlation analysis show the association between two variables of a study. The results are demonstrated in the following tables:
As the sig value is greater than .05, hence the correlation results are statistically insignificant. In other words, it shows that age is not associated with the efficacy score in either of the groups.
In a similar manner, it might also be vital to find out the impact of teaching experience on the principal efficacy. Despite a common observation that experience will have a strong positive impact on efficacy score, results are as follows:
Like age, even for the analysis of experience, the value of sig is greater than .05. This shows that the results are statistically insignificant. In other words, teaching experience is not correlated with the efficacy score for either of the group present in this study.
In contrast, when the administrators were asked about their experience as an administrator in the current school, the results are demonstrated below:
In this case, the value of significance p<.05 which shows that the test is statistically significant where there is a very strong negative correlation between the years of experience in the current school and the efficacy score of the administrators. This in other words means that an increase in the year of experience, results in a decrease in the efficacy scores of the administrators. For the case of correlation the following holds true:
0 > r < 0.25= weak correlation
0.3 > r < 0.5= moderate correlation
0.6 > r < 1= strong correlation (where values closer to 1 indicate a strong correlation).
In contrast, the correlation between total experience as an administrator and the efficacy score for administrators hold statistically insignificant as shown below
Thus, the results of the study show that although demographics include age and experience do not have a significant impact on the principal efficacy scores, the administrators have a higher efficacy score followed by Cohort 7 where as Cohort 8 has the least score for principal efficacy.
