Journal of K-12 Educational Research 37 Scale (TSDES). Teachers responded to these items using a Likert scale ranging from 1, indicating low or no confidence, to 9, indicating high confidence. Next, demographic questions regarding certification, assigned campus, and teaching experience were included. The final section of the online survey included an opportunity for teacher respondents to volunteer for the second phase of research, qualitative interviews. Participation for the initial phase of quantitative data collection, which sought individual teachers’ selfperceptions of efficacy in teaching, was solicited via QR code at the 2024 winter staff development meeting. To further encourage participation, divisional principals shared the online survey link with all instructional staff for the following 3 weeks via school email. There were 63 responses to the quantitative survey. In order to better understand teachers’ areas of self-perceived strengths and opportunities for improvement, quantitative analyses were conducted using multiple parametric and non-parametric tests. A One-Way Within-Subjects ANOVA was performed to compare the means of the TSES subtests: student engagement, instruction, and classroom management. A One-Way Within-Subjects ANOVA was also performed to compare the means of the TSDES subtests: instruction, teacher support, professionalism, classroom management, and related duties. The final test, a dependent samples t-test, compared the overall mean scores of Likert scale responses of the TSES and TSDES. Post hoc tests and histograms were used to analyze and confirm quantitative results. Respondents volunteered for participation in qualitative interviews by providing contact information at the end of the online survey. Though 36 teachers volunteered to participate in qualitative interviews, 15 interview participants were selected in order to obtain a representative sample based on campus, grade level, and area of teaching. Interviews were conducted and recorded via Zoom. Qualitative data analysis was performed to segment and code interview transcripts resulting in five themes and associated codes. Research Questions The research questions which guide the current study were: Research Question 1 (RQ1) To what extent does the sense of efficacy in teaching among general education teachers in Christian schools vary based on factors such as student engagement, instructional practices, and classroom management? Research Question 2 (RQ2) To what extent does the sense of efficacy in teaching students with disabilities among general education teachers in Christian schools vary based on factors such as instruction, professionalism, teacher support, classroom management, and related duties? Research Question 3 (RQ3) Do Christian school general education teachers perceive differences in their ability to meet the needs of students with and without disabilities within the general education classroom? Research Question 4 (RQ4) What are Christian school general education teachers’ perceptions of their ability to meet the needs of students with dyslexia and related disorders in the general education classroom? Summary of Findings and Interpretation of Results The first step in quantitative data analysis was conducted with a within-subjects ANOVA to evaluate for RQ1 by comparing the means of each TSES subscale. The TSES measures general teacher efficacy using these three subscales: student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management. The ANOVA compared TSES subscales against each other, looking for differences between them. The highest mean score for the TSES subscales was in the area of classroom management, which was followed closely by instructional strategies. This means that teachers felt most confident in managing general student behaviors and the day-to-day operations of the classroom, yet less confident in their ability to use alternate instructional strategies and a variety of assessments to meet the different needs of students in their classroom. A second within-subjects ANOVA was conducted for RQ2, which compared the means of TSDES subscales for significant differences. The TSDES subscales are
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODc4ODgx