Guest Researcher ~ Christine Moloney

  • 483 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
483
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Guest Researcher Presentation for WSU Graduate Students Christine Moloney Director of Instructional Leadership Puyallup School District molonecn@puyallup.k12.wa.us molonecn@cityu.edu
  • 2. Introductions Name Current Position and Professional Goal Share with us: How you spent Memorial Day week-end (optional) One reason you believe research is important
  • 3. Why Research? Research allows you to pursue your interests, to learn something new, to hone your problem-solving skills, to challenge yourself in new ways and . . .
  • 4. Learning Targets • Gain an understanding of the process a researcher is taking to address a problem • Identifying the problem of practice/leadership problem • Narrowing the topic • Developing the research questions • Finding research—where to look and writing the literature review • Keeping an annotated bibliography • Determining the data collection and analysis methods • Presenting the findings • Discussing the results and implications • Gain an understanding of the mixed methods data analysis coding process • Help provide validity and reliability to a data analysis in process (be part of the research process) • Know what homework is required for Dr. Malone–check the blog 
  • 5. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a P-12 Public School District’s Organizational Structure Christine Moloney, Doctoral Student at City University of Seattle
  • 6. Introduction • The change in a Washington state P-12 public school district’s organizational structure from a traditional hierarchical structure to a regional model structure will be formally evaluated in this study. • The original goals set forth by the superintendent for the change in the organizational structure of the district are the basis of this evaluation. • A mixed methods approach will be conducted to provide more comprehensive answers to the research questions. • The results of the study will fill a gap in the literature on public school district organizational structures and provide research for current and future school district leaders when seeking possible actions they can take to support increased achievement for their students.
  • 7. The Problem • In this study, an evaluation will be conducted of one school district’s change in its organizational structure to a three-region model. The change in the traditional organizational structure of this Washington state P-12 school district was implemented in July of 2008 to better organize professional time of the employees within the district in an effort to increase student achievement and efficiency (T. Apostle, personal communication, 2007). • The superintendent who initiated this change stated that the change in the district’s organizational structure must do the following: (a) prioritize increased planning time for staff, b) increase opportunities for collaboration, and (c) intensify efforts to increase professional learning opportunities for certificated and classified staff (T. Apostle, personal communication, March 22, 2007). • The problem is that no formal evaluation of the change in the school district’s organizational structure was conducted to indicate whether or not the organizational structural change resulted in the accomplishment of the goals stated by the superintendent. For this study the researcher proposes to conduct a formal evaluation of the results of the district’s organizational structure change according to the original goals set forth by the superintendent.
  • 8. Research Questions/Hypothesis • The proposed study is focused around the following research questions: • Did the implementation of a regional model of a district organizational structure of a P-12 Washington state public school district increase collaboration among classified staff, certificated staff, principals, and central office leadership as measured through an online survey? • Did the implementation of a regional model of a district organizational structure of a P-12 Washington state public school district increase planning time for staff as measured by data collected through an online survey? • Did the implementation of a regional model of a district organizational structure of a P-12 Washington state public school district increase opportunities for professional development for staff as measured by data collected through an online survey?
  • 9. Research Questions/Hypothesis • Is there a relationship between the implementation of the regional model and student achievement as measured by the estimated on-time graduation rates and the 10th grade reading, writing, and math state assessments (High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE), Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), End of Course (EOC) exam)? • The hypotheses in this mixed methods study that will help answer research question number four is: • H1: There is no significant difference between the district’s student achievement data, measured by the 10th grade reading, writing, and math state assessments (HSPE/WASL/EOC) and estimated on-time graduation rates, before and after the implementation of the three-region organizational structure model.
  • 10. The Literature Review • Theoretical Frameworks • Theory Generation • Punch (2006) defined theory generation as the process of developing a theory to explain the results of a study. • Theory generation is typically used in qualitative studies (Punch, 2006). • Theories of Organizational Change (Blanchard, Blanchard, & Zigarmi, 2007; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Groşanu, Rachişan, & Berinde, 2011; Kenny, 2006) • Organizational Structures in Public Education • Organizational Structures in Business and Other Non-educational Organizations • Leadership • Professional Learning Communities and Collaboration
  • 11. Methodology Study Setting • Demographics • Financial Status • Regional Model Organizational Structure Origins Research Method • Qualitative and Quantitative Design Components
  • 12. Methodology cont. Research Design • Mixed Methods Convergent Parallel Design • Quantitative and qualitative data collected simultaneously, strands analyzed separately, and then data analysis is mixed for the overall interpretation (Creswell & Clark, 2011) • Triangulation of data through qualitative data collected on the online survey, quantitative data collected in the online survey, and quantitative data collected through OSPI • Survey Instrument • Advantages and Disadvantages • Expert Panel • Protection of Survey Participants • Participants
  • 13. Methodology cont. Research Design cont. • Data Analysis Methods • Quantitative Analysis • Ex post facto design (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010) • Descriptive statistics • Wright (2006), Leary (2008), and Salkind (2011) suggested that a t-test was appropriate in a situation where the researcher was more interested in examining the gain of each group than looking for the reasons why there are differences. • The t-test will allow the researcher to either accept or reject the null hypothesis, H1. • Data Analysis Methods • Qualitative Analysis • Constant comparative method (Malone, 2012) • Substantive categories created through the coding process • Substantive categories are descriptive and are considered “emic” as the categories are taken from a participant’s own words or concept (Maxwell, 2005). • A joint qualitative and quantitative data table will provide an overall interpretation of all of the data collected.
  • 14. Methodology cont. Research Design cont. • Limitations • Validity • Reliability • Ethical and Sampling Issues
  • 15. Coding Process • What does coding look like? http://youtu.be/nxIErzX3aQQ • First, look for themes within each question within each subgroup • Record these themes on the overall organizational category sheet provided • Second, look for themes within each question inclusive of all of the groups by resorting the sentence(s) • Record these themes on the overall organizational category sheet provided Discussion and Agreement on Themes 1. Prepare Data Sets 2. Watch Video 3. Sort Sentences 4. Identify Themes (use an ‘emic’ category)
  • 16. Planning Time Coding Process • First, look for themes within the classified answers to Question #6 (repeat for each subgroup of certificated, building administrator, and central office administrator) • Record these themes on the overall organizational category sheet provided • Second, look for themes within each question inclusive of all of the groups by resorting the sentence(s) • Record these themes on the overall organizational category sheet provided • At end of process turn in all three theme sheets to Christine. Thank you! Discussion and Agreement on Themes 1. Prepare Planning Time Data Sets 2. Sort Sentences within each subgroup 4. Identify Themes (use an ‘emic’ category) 4. Discussion and Agreement on Themes
  • 17. Sample Table for Recording Themes Question Topic Classified Certificated Building Administrator Central Office Administrator All Subgroups Combined Other Comments Q6 Class Plan List themes here List themes here Q7 Cert Plan Q8 BA Plan Q9 CA Plan
  • 18. Planning Themes Question Topic Classified Certificated Building Administrator Central Office Administrator All Subgroups Combined Other Comments Q6 Class Plan Q7 Cert Plan Q8 BA Plan Q9 CA Plan
  • 19. Collaboration Themes Question Topic Classified Certificated Building Administrator Central Office Administrator All Subgroups Combined Other Comments Q11 Class Collab Q12 Cert Collab Q13 BA Collab Q14 CA Collab
  • 20. Professional Development Themes Question Topic Classified Certificated Building Administrator Central Office Administrator All Subgroups Combined Other Comments Q16 Class PD Q17 Cert PD Q18 BA PD Q19 CA PD
  • 21. Final Discussion/Reflection • Did we meet the learning targets? • What new learning are you taking away with you tonight? • Share one thing that you learned tonight that you will use in the near future • Other comments and questions
  • 22. References • Blanchard, K., Blanchard, S., & Zigarmi, D. (2007). Servant leadership. In K. Blanchard (Ed.), Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating high performing organizations (pp. 249-276). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. • Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. • Creswell, J. & Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. • English, F. W. (2008). The art of leadership: Balancing performance and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. • Groşanu, A., Rachişan, R. P., & Berinde, S. R. (2011). Creativity of Romanian restructuring strategies. International Journal of Business Strategy, 11(1), 173-179. • Kenny, J. (2006). Strategy and the learning organization: A maturity model for the formation of strategy. The Learning Organization, 13(4), 353-368. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470610667733 • Leary, M. R. (2008). Introduction to behavioral research methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. • Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. (may be useful) • Malone, G (2012). Washington State superintendents and K-12 online learning: Leadership perceptions, challenges, & opportunities. Washington State University. http://gradworks.umi.com/35/17/3517416.html • Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. • Punch, K. F. (2006). Developing effective research proposals (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. • Salkind, N. J. (2011). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. • Wright, D. B. (2006). Comparing groups in a before--after design: When t test and ANCOVA produce different results. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 663-675. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true&db=pbh&AN=22557798&site=ehost-live
  • 23. Thank you! And best of luck in your future research endeavors!