Demographics

Table 1.1 Demographics information of the participants in the sample.

Category
Age

Gender
Ethnicity

Frequency
19-23
24-28
29-33
34-38
Male
Female
White

Percent
48
8
5
3
16
48
47

75
12.5
7.8
4.7
25
75
73.4

Black

12.5

Hispanic
Asian
Mixed

2
1
6

3.1
1.6
9.4

Figure 1.1 Bar graph demographics of the frequency distribution of participants in the
sample.
60

Frequency

50
40
30
20
10
0

Demographics findings:

Most of the respondents were between the ages of 19-23.

There were more females than males respondents.
The majority of participants were whites.
A plurality of the respondents were social studies majors

Reliability of the survey instrument

Table 1.2 Cronbachs Alpha reliability statistics of the instrument.

Cronbach's Alpha

.857

This calculation indicates that the overall reliability of the entire instrument is .86,
which is good/high.

Table 1.3 Cronbachs reliability Statistics of the Teacher Intentions Scale

Cronbach's Alpha

.692

The reliability of this scale is poor/ weak

Table 1.4 Inter item correlation for teacher intention scale

q40
q39
q38
q37
q36
q35
q34

q40
1.000
.297
.373
.262
.083
.120
.296

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

q39
q38
q37
q36

q35

q34

1.000
.194
.183
.267
.062
.369

1.000
.221

1.000

1.000
.059
.140
.493
.427

1.000
.359
.042
.382

1.000
.171
.231

Not all of the items are correlating highly on this scale. Most of the correlations are
low, which seems to suggest that all of the items are not measuring the same thing.
This is not surprising since the reliability for this scale is low.

Table 1.6 Cronbachs Alpha reliability for teacher Awareness Scale

Cronbach's
Alpha

.955

The reliability of the teacher awareness scale is very high.

Table 1.7 inter item correlation of Teacher Awareness Scale

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
q9
q9

q10

q11

q12

q13

q14

q15

q16

q17

q18

q19

q20

q21

q22

q23

q24

q25

q26

q27

q28

q29

q30

q31

q32

q33

1.000

q10

.729 1.000

q11

.869

.782 1.000

q12

.746

.662

.851 1.000

q13

.726

.668

.838

.631 1.000

q14

.693

.488

.830

.760

.661 1.000

q15

.263

.082

.316

.296

.134

.329 1.000

q16

.784

.750

.870

.935

.703

.704

.277

1.000

q17

.765

.630

.882

.698

.933

.731

.286

.703

1.000

q18

.765

.668

.905

.765

.800

.870

.286

.769

.867

q19

.175

.169

.265

.296

.286

.329

.650

.277

.286

.286 1.000

q20

.643

.515

.671

.729

.484

.587

.369

.751

.484

.557

.369

1.000

q21

.746

.623

.851

.661

.900

.689

.296

.668

.967

.832

.296

.508

1.000

q22

.643

.432

.744

.656

.630

.816

.369

.606

.703

.776

.369

.760

.729

q23

.141

.066

.215

.240

.232

.266

.810

.224

.232

.232

.810

.299

.240

.299

q24

.141

.173

.215

.240

.046

.266

-.040

.224

.046

.232

-.040

-.108

-.135

-.108

q25

.710

.613

.790

.864

.559

.678

.317

.873

.627

.696

.317

.710

.586

.635

.257

.257

1.000

q26

.804

.720

.924

.707

.936

.746

.268

.772

.936

.871

.268

.511

.905

.655

.217

.217

.642

1.000

q27

.693

.568

.807

.689

.661

.855

.329

.704

.731

.870

.329

.510

.689

.663

.266

.266

.749

.746

1.000

q28

.369

.176

.388

.389

.256

.432

.762

.364

.376

.376

.762

.484

.389

.484

.617 -.052

.417

.352

.432

1.000

q29

.784

.788

.847

.802

.703

.704

.277

.803

.703

.703

.277

.679

.668

.679

.224

.224

.736

.772

.635

.364

1.000

q30

.726

.783

.793

.631

.733

.661

.286

.703

.733

.733

.286

.411

.698

.484

.232

.232

.627

.805

.731

.376

.769

q31

.635

.645

.659

.511

.627

.447

.179

.601

.627

.556

.179

.538

.582

.538

.080

.080

.638

.646

.521

.321

.671

.698

1.000

q32

.281

.095

.353

.345

.333

.383

-.057

.322

.333

.333

-.057

.283

.345

.283

-.046 -.046

.232

.312

.244

-.075

.058

-.067

-.026

1.000

q33

.099

.047

.151

.168

.163

.187

.568

.157

.163

.163

.568

.209

.168

.209

.701 -.023

.180

.152

.187

.433

.157

.163

-.082

-.033

Generally, the items on this scale are correlating well together

1.000

1.000
1.000
-.032 1.000

1.000

1.000

Research Questions
RQ 1 What are the participants level of awareness in relation to the changes in education
policy as outlined in the 2013 NC Senate Bill 402?
Table 1.10 Level of awareness of the Bill
Level of Awareness
High
Moderate
Low

Frequency
14

Percentage (%)
21.9

15

23.4

36

54.7

The majority of participants (54.7 %) have low level of awareness about the bill.
15 (23.4%) of the respondents have moderate knowledge of the bill
14 (21.9%) of the respondents are well aware of the bill.

RQ 1A - What are participant professional intentions after learning about the bill?
Table 1 shows how participants rate their overall professional intentions after learning
about the bill
Intentions

Percentage (%)

High/Great

12.5

Moderate

38

59.4

Low

Frequency

18

28.1

Most participants (59.4%) are not sure about or undecided about what their overall
intentions are after learning about the bill.

RQ 1B - What is the relationship between participants awareness and their intentions?

Table1. Correlation between participants awareness and their intentions.

TotalAw Intention
a
s
TotalAw Pearson
a
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Intention Pearson
s
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

.106

64

.406
64

.106

.406
64

64

The results show that there are no significant (p> .05, r=.106) between participants
level of awareness of the bill and their professional intentions as a whole.

Table 1. Chi square

Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association

df
240
240

Sig. (2sided)
.224
1.000

.401

Results show no statistical significant (p=.224, df= 240) relationship between

participants level of awareness and their overall professional intentions.

RQ2: What professional intentions are most impacted by the changes in education policy?
Table 2.1 Frequency distribution of
Do you plan on remaining in North Carolina after graduation?
Frequenc
Cumulative
y
Percent
Percent
No
14
21.9
21.9
Yes
50
78.1
100.0

Prior to being asked by Senate bill 402, most of the respondents (78 %) have plans
to remain in NC after graduation.

Table 2.2
My interest in considering teaching positions in states outside of North Carolina.
Frequen
Cumulative
cy
Percent Percent
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

3.1

3.1

6
21

9.4
32.8

12.5
45.3

35

54.7

100.0

Most of the respondents (87.5%) will consider teaching positions outside of NC as a

result of the Bill.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics showing mean and standard deviation between these two
previous results.
Group Statistics

My interest in
considering teaching
positions in states
outside of North
Carolina.

Do you plan on
remaining in North
Carolina after
graduation?
Yes
No

50

Mean
2.940

Std.
Deviation
1.3763

Std. Error
Mean
.1946

14

4.000

.0000

.0000

Table 2. Results of the t test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances
F
My interest
in
considerin
g teaching

Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed

12.359

Sig.
.001

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means
t

Sig. (2tailed)

df

Mean
Std. Error
Difference Difference

95% C
Inter
Lower

-2.865

62

.006

-1.0600

.3700

-1.799

-5.446

49.000

.000

-1.0600

.1946

-1.451

The results of the t test shows that there is a statistical significant difference among
participants who want to remain in NC after graduation and those who are
considering teaching positions outside of NC (t=-2.865, df=62, p<.05)

Differences among groups

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics from the multivariate analysis of variance(MANOVA) test of
participants overall intentions.
Descriptive Statistics

AGE
23

28

19-

24-

33

34-38

GENDER
Male

Female

Race
White

Black

Hispanic

29-

Intentions
Low
Moderate
High
Total
Low
Moderate
High
Total
Low
Moderate
High
Total
Low
Moderate
High
Total
Low
Moderate
High
Total
Low
Moderate
High
Total
Low
Moderate
High
Total
Low
Moderate
High
Total
Low
Moderate

Mean
.833
.737
.625
.750
.222
.263
.250
.250
0.000
.316
.375
.234
.222
.105
.500
.188
.167
.289
.250
.250
1.667
1.368
1.500
1.469
.667
.789
.625
.734
.333
.211
.250
.250
.167
.079

Std.
Deviation
.3835
.4463
.5175
.4364
.6468
.6851
.7071
.6667
0.0000
.9330
1.0607
.8115
.9428
.6489
1.4142
.8522
.3835
.4596
.4629
.4364
.7670
.9421
.9258
.8903
.4851
.4132
.5175
.4452
.7670
.6220
.7071
.6667
.7071
.4867

N
18
38
8
64
18
38
8
64
18
38
8
64
18
38
8
64
18
38
8
64
18
38
8
64
18
38
8
64
18
38
8
64
18
38

Asian

Mixed

High
Total
Low
Moderate
High
Total
Low
Moderate
High
Total

0.000
.094
0.000
.105
0.000
.063
.556
.263
1.250
.469

0.0000
.5261
0.0000
.6489
0.0000
.5000
1.6169
1.1315
2.3146
1.4689

8
64
18
38
8
64
18
38
8
64

Generally there is not a vast difference in the mean and standard deviations of the
groups.

Table 2. Results of MANOVA test statistics of difference in overall intentions among the
different groups.
Multivariate Testsa

Effect
INTENTIONS Pillai's
Trace
Wilks'
Lambda
Hotelling's
Trace
Roy's
Largest
Root

Sig.

Partial
Eta
Observed
Squared Powerd

Error df

.507

108.000

.950

.078

.334

.499

106.000

.953

.078

.328

.491

104.000

.957

.078

.321

.653

54.000

.747

.098

.285

The MANOVA result show that the groups are not significantly different in their
overall intentions after the Bill (f=.507, p=.950, 2 =.078).
The variance accounted for by the differences in intentions among the groups is
very low 2 =.08.

Table 2. Results of the Analysis of variance for the MANOVA test

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source
INTENTIONS Age1
Age2
Age3
Age4
Male
Female
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Mixed

df
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

F
.666
.022
1.064
.723
.476
.684
.735
.202
.308
.335
1.563

Sig.
.517
.978
.351
.489
.624
.508
.484
.818
.736
.717
.218

Partial
Eta
Observed
Squared Powerl
.021
.157
.001
.053
.034
.228
.023
.167
.015
.124
.022
.160
.024
.169
.007
.080
.010
.097
.011
.101
.049
.319

The ANOVA test found that the groups are not statistically significantly different
about their overall professional intentions.