Estructura de la població

of school level horizontal social capital, will make distinct contributions to the models and will significantly and positively predict TSE in instruction, engagement, and classroom management.

Results of the level-2 model: PLC aggregates and TSE in instruction. The results of

the level-2 model for the PLC effects on TSE in instruction are presented in Table 6. Once aggregated to the school level, the following PLC component variables, as measures of school level horizontal social capital, were significant and positive predictors of TSE in instruction: reflective dialogue (β05k =.34; t(5762) = 5.62, p < .001), collective focus on student learning (β06k =.50; t(5762) = 9.96, p < .001), and collaborative professional activity (β09k =.17; t(5762) = 8.65,

p < .001). Shared sense of purpose (β07k =.05; t(5762) = 1.21, p = .237) and deprivatized practice (β08k =.11; t(5762) = 1.16, p = .257) were both nonsignificant predictors of individual TSE in instruction once aggregated to the school level. Given that three school level PLC variables were significant in the level-2 model for TSE in instruction, an effect size was

calculated. Overall, the level-2 predictors accounted for approximately 33.02% of the variance in TSE in instruction between schools (R2= τπFUM - τπNEW/ τπFUM).

Independence of level-2 PLC coefficients. To determine whether the three positive and significant school level PLC coefficients were statistically different from one another and that each made a unique contribution to TSE in instruction, pairwise comparisons were made using

123

the Hausman test. The impact of school level collective focus on TSE in instruction was statistically different from the impact of school level reflective dialogue (χ2 = 21.89, p < .001). Its impact was also statistically different from the impact of school level collaborative

professional activity (χ2 = 49.68, p <.001). Additionally, the impact of reflective dialogue was statistically different from that of collaborative professional activity (χ2 = 8.10, p = .004). Given that the coefficients for significant PLC components at level-2 are statistically different from one another, it is valid to argue that collective focus on student learning (β = .50) has a stronger association with TSE in instruction, followed by reflective dialogue (β = .34) and collaborative professional activity (β = .17).

Results of the level-2 model: PLC aggregates and TSE in student engagement. The

results of the level-2 model for the PLC effects on TSE in student engagement are presented in Table 8. Once aggregated to the school level, the following PLC component variables, as measures of school level horizontal social capital, were significant and positive predictors of TSE in student engagement: reflective dialogue (β05k =.36; t(5762) = 8.60, p < .001), collective focus on student learning (β06k =.52; t(5762) = 11.80, p < .001) and collaborative professional activity [β09k =.13; t(5762) = 8.81, p < .001). Shared sense of purpose (β07k =.07; t(5762) = 1.65,

p = .109) and deprivatized practice (β08k =.07; t(5762) = 1.13, p = .269) were both nonsignificant predictors of TSE in student engagement once aggregated to the school level. Overall, the three significant level-2 predictors accounted for approximately 29.87% of the variance in TSE in student engagement between schools (R2= τπFUM - τπNEW / τπFUM).

Independence of level-2 PLC coefficients. Pairwise comparisons using the Hausman test indicated that the impact of school level collective focus on TSE in student engagement was statistically different from the impact of school level reflective dialogue (χ2 _{= 156.37, p < .001).}

124

Its impact was also statistically different from the impact of school level collaborative

professional activity (χ2 _{= 89.35, p <.001). Additionally, the impact of reflective dialogue was}

statistically different from that of collaborative professional activity (χ2 _{= 33.48, p <.001). Given}

that the coefficients for significant PLC components at level-2 were statistically different from one another, it is valid to argue that collective focus on student learning (β = .52) has a stronger association with TSE in student engagement, followed by reflective dialogue (β = .36) and then collaborative professional activity (β = .13).

Results of the level-2 model: PLC aggregates and TSE in classroom management.

The results of the level-2 model for the PLC effects on TSE in classroom management are presented in Table 10. Once aggregated to the school level, the following PLC component variables, as measures of school level horizontal social capital, were significant and positive predictors of TSE in classroom management: reflective dialogue (β05k =.28; t(5762) = 5.65, p < .001), collective focus on student learning (β06k =.53; t(5762) = 10.59, p < .001), and

collaborative professional activity (β09k =.13; t(5762) = 6.99, p < .001). Shared sense of purpose (β07k =.05; t(5762) = 1.55, p = .131) and mean deprivatized practice (β08k =-.01; t(5762) = -.18, p = .856) were both nonsignificant predictors of individual TSE in classroom management once aggregated to the school level. Overall, the three significant level-2 predictors accounted for approximately 28.37% of the variance in TSE in classroom management between schools (R2 ₌

τπFUM - τπNEW / τπFUM).

Independence of level-2 PLC coefficients. Pairwise comparisons using the Hausman test indicated that the impact of school level collective focus on TSE in classroom management was statistically different from the impact of school level reflective dialogue (χ2 _{= 656.91, p < .001).}

125

professional activity (χ2 _{= 74.43, p <.001). Additionally, the impact of reflective dialogue was}

statistically different from that of collaborative professional activity (χ2 _{= 10.31, p = .001).}

Given that the coefficients for significant PLC components at level-2 were statistically different from one another, it is valid to argue that collective focus on student learning (β = .53) has a stronger association with TSE in classroom management, followed by reflective dialogue (β = .28) and collaborative professional activity (β = .13).

In summary, hypothesis 3 was partially confirmed. Three of the five PLC components aggregated to the school level, reflective dialogue, collective focus on student learning, and collaborative professional activity, were significant and positive predictors of TSE in instruction, student engagement, and classroom management. Additionally, their coefficients were

statistically different from one another, indicating that they each had a unique impact on TSE outcomes.

Results for Research Question 4

In the level-3 analyses, the between countries model, the variations in average levels of TSE in instruction, student, engagement, and classroom management are explained by the joint effects of the level-1, level-2, and level-3 variables. Additionally, the full random coefficients model tested whether the relationships between school level PLC components and TSE outcomes varied by country after controlling for the level-3 variable, education expenditure as a percent of GDP. No direct relationships between the level-3 predictors and TSE outcomes were

hypothesized, but the slopes between school level PLC components and TSE were expected to vary by country. Accordingly, any significant variation could subsequently be modeled by adding an interaction effect in the level-3 model. To test hypothesis 4, therefore, country

126

achievement and equity was added as an interaction effect to determine its potential impact on the relationships between school level PLC components and TSE outcomes.

Research question 4. Do the relationships between school level PLC components and

TSE in instruction, student engagement, and classroom management vary by country and, if so, does country achievement and equity impact these relationships?