#### 3.1.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis of Teaching Practice
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Component**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Initial Eigenvalues**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sums of Squared**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sums of Loads Squared**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Initial Eigenvalues**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Extraction Charges**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**by Rotation ***} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Total** & **\% Variance** & **\% Accumulated** & **Total** & **\% Variance** & **\% Accumulated** & **Total** \\ \hline  
\hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Final total variance explained by the underlying factors of teaching practice. Figure 1: Teaching practice measurement model (standardized loads). e1-e21 = error. TP1-TP35 = items. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Extraction Methods**} \\ \cline{2-6}
**Item** & **Principal** & **Unweighted** & **Principal Axis** & **Alpha Factorization** & **Image Factoring** \\  & **Components Analysis** & **Least-Squares** & **Factorization** & **Alpha Factorization** & **Image Factoring** \\ \hline PD1 & 0.909 & 0.861 & 0.869 & 0.864 & 0.737 \\ \hline PD2 & 0.919 & 0.904 & 0.897 & 0.891 & 0.744 \\ \hline PD3 & 0.599 & 0.366 & 0.366 & 0.375 & 0.351 \\ \hline PDS & 0.901 & 0.797 & 0.793 & 0.777 & 0.587 \\ \hline PD6 & 0.838 & 0.772 & 0.776 & 0.787 & 0.563 \\ \hline PDS & 0.589 & 0.445 & 0.445 & 0.431 & 0.321 \\ \hline PD9 & 0.679 & 0.543 & 0.543 & 0.548 & 0.367 \\ \hline PD10 & 0.731 & 0.601 & 0.601 & 0.607 & 0.394 \\ \hline PD11 & 0.595 & 0.445 & 0.445 & 0.430 & 0.325 \\ \hline PD17 & 0.589 & 0.541 & 0.541 & 0.525 & 0.491 \\ \hline PD19 & 0.558 & 0.468 & 0.468 & 0.495 & 0.423 \\ \hline PD20 & 0.722 & 0.594 & 0.595 & 0.636 & 0.537 \\ \hline PD21 & 0.813 & 0.802 & 0.802 & 0.795 & 0.698 \\ \hline PD22 & 0.640 & 0.625 & 0.625 & 0.604 & 0.558 \\ \hline PD26 & 0.554 & 0.544 & 0.544 & 0.528 & 0.483 \\ \hline PD27 & 0.625 & 0.610 & 0.610 & 0.585 & 0.555 \\ \hline PD28 & 0.623 & 0.601 & 0.600 & 0.585 & 0.539 \\ \hline PD32 & 0.525 & 0.458 & 0.458 & 0.457 & 0.403 \\ \hline PD33 & 0.810 & 0.626 & 0.626 & 0.630 & 0.500 \\ \hline PD34 & 0.780 & 0.711 & 0.710 & 0.719 & 0.527 \\ \hline PD35 & 0.513 & 0.428 & 0.428 & 0.425 & 0.360 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Factor loadings by the method of extraction of the teaching practice items. From Table 8, the following can be observed:  
* The F1 factor is well-represented by items PD1, PD2, and PD3, with PD1 being the strongest indicator (0.717) and PD3 the weakest (0.660). This means that all items contribute significantly to the construct, but PD1 is the item that most influences the definition of F1, while PD3 has a somewhat smaller contribution. * The F2 factor is mainly defined by PD6 (0.852), which has a very strong relationship with the factor, while PD5 also contributes significantly (0.741), although to a lesser degree. PD6 is the best indicator of F2, suggesting that the aspects captured by this item are crucial to the measurement of the construct. * Factor F3 is moderately well-represented by its four items, with PD8 being the strongest indicator (0.615) and PD9 the weakest (0.560). Although all items are statistically significant, PD8 has the strongest influence on the definition of F3, while PD9 contributes the least. * Factor F4 is well-represented by items PD21, PD22, PD26, PD17, PD19, PD20, PD32, PD28, and PD27, with PD26 being the strongest (0.691) and PD20 the weakest (0.505). Although all items contribute significantly to the construct, PD26 has the strongest influence on the definition of F4, while PD20 has a lower weight in comparison. * In the case of factor F5, PD35 is the strongest indicator (0.699) and PD33 the weakest (0.470), indicating that PD35 plays a crucial role in defining the factor. Although PD33 is significant, its lower weight suggests that it contributes less to the F5 construct.