The Differences in Professional Development Training Between Private Corporations and Public Education A Proposal Defense ...
Committee Members <ul><li>William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D. </li></ul><ul><li>(Dissertation Chair) </li></ul><ul><li>Ben C. D...
Outline <ul><li>The Problem  </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose of Study </li></ul><ul><li>Research Questions [5] </li></ul><ul><li...
The Whole Pie of Problems
The Problem Slice Professional Development
The Problem <ul><li>“Until we improve the methods used to measure the links among professional development, teacher perfor...
I. Purpose of the Study <ul><li>To compare the professional development training programs in the corporate business world ...
Research Questions (1) <ul><li>What are the differences in  participants’ reactions  regarding the professional developmen...
Research Question (2) <ul><li>What are the differences in  participants learning  in professional development training bet...
Research Question (3) <ul><li>What are the differences in  organizational support  for professional development between pu...
Research Questions (4) <ul><li>What are the differences in  participants’ use of knowledge and skills  gained from their p...
Research Question (5) <ul><li>What are the differences in how the evaluation of  participants’ learning outcomes  is deter...
III. Hypotheses <ul><li>Ho 1  There are no statistically significant differences in participants’ reactions regarding the ...
Hypotheses <ul><li>Ho 2  There are no statistically significant differences in participants’ learning throughout their pro...
Hypotheses <ul><li>Ho 3  There are no statistically significant differences in organizational support for professional dev...
IV. Significance of the Study (1) <ul><li>Education is a business.  Advocates for Human Resource and Educators feel the pr...
Significance of the Study (2) <ul><li>Knowledge gained from the study will provide educational leaders with information ab...
V. Review of Literature <ul><li>PD Overview/Historical </li></ul><ul><li>Past Research </li></ul><ul><li>Variables Investi...
Review of Literature Overview/Historical <ul><li>What is Professional Development? </li></ul><ul><li>NSDC </li></ul><ul><l...
Review of Literature Research linking Professional Development with student achievement in language arts.   Case Study; Qu...
Review of Literature Various sectors beside education should be used by Guskey’s model.   Qualitative only (Interviews)   ...
Review of Literature Variables  <ul><li>Participants’ Reactions </li></ul><ul><li>Participants’ Learning </li></ul><ul><li...
Guskey 2000 Model To improve program design and delivery Initial satisfaction with the experience <ul><li>Questionnaires a...
Guskey 2000 Model <ul><li>To document and improve organizational support </li></ul><ul><li>To inform future change efforts...
Guskey 2000 Model To focus and improve all aspects of program design, implementation, and follow-up To demonstrate the ove...
How to Use Guskey’s Model <ul><li>****Work the model backwards**** </li></ul><ul><li>Level 5 </li></ul><ul><li>Level 4  </...
VI.  Research Design <ul><li>Research Method:  Mixed- Methods using an explanatory design. </li></ul><ul><li>Quantitative ...
Instrumentation Pilot Study <ul><li>Convenience Sampling </li></ul><ul><li>30 NASA employees </li></ul><ul><li>30 Educator...
Subjects of the Study <ul><li>Sampling Method </li></ul><ul><li>Purposive Sampling first, for selection of School District...
Cluster Sampling HS,MS,ES, HS,MS,ES,OS Admin Bldg HS, ES, MS,HS,MS,ES HS,ES,MS,HS,MS,ES HS,MS,ES,HS,MS,ES HS,MS,ES,HS,MS,E...
Analysis of Data <ul><li>Quantitative </li></ul>T-test for  independent variables Weighted Means 1 = SD 2 = D 3 = NA 4 = A...
Analysis of Data <ul><li>Quantitative </li></ul>T-test for independent variables Weighted Means 1 = SD 2 = D 3 = NA 4 = A ...
Analysis of Data <ul><li>Qualitative </li></ul>Surveys/Questionnaire & Interviews Record all I hear Coding Using NVivo Sof...
Analysis of Data Quantitative TEA/Districts/School Data/ Companies HR Data base/Fill in the blanks surveys Qualitative Int...
Selected References <ul><li>Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006).  How to design and evaluate research in education.  (6t...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Yolanda E. Smith, PhD Proposal Dissertation Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair/Major Professor

1,860 views

Published on

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Chair for Yolanda E. Smith, PVAMU, Member of the Texas A&M University System

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,860
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
16
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
41
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Good Morning, This study is important to me because….. In reading literature regarding professional development, most of what I found related to how educators were dissatisfied with the quality of their professional development training and how they felt it wasn’t related to their daily work performance. In other words it was Ineffective. Since I’ve worked as both an educator and a corporate employee, I thought it would be Interesting to look at the differences in professional development training provided to employees and see how each organization defines quality or effective training. I was more curious to see if corporate employees had the same complaints as educators regarding their professional development training programs. (go to next slide)
  • Before I get started, I first want to personally thank all of my committee members for your guidance and support with my research. I hope after today, you will see how I’ve capture your comments. Most importantly, after my presentation, I hope I’ve answer all of your concerns and questions. Now let’s proceed.
  • For the purpose of this presentation, I will follow a basic format. Read the slide.
  • Here we have a whole pie full of problems…………. (Read the diagram) It has been said throughout this program that we must tackle only a slice of the pie. My problem slice is…………
  • Often the public views teachers as merely glorified baby-sitters that get paid huge salaries for nine months of work and the expenditure of funds toward professional development that takes them out of the classroom is seen as a breach of the public trust and a waste of money (Marczely, 1996)
  • (Read the slide) first It is said that corporate companies spend a higher percentage of their budget for professional development of their employees than education. This leads to an assumption that the amount of money being spent affects the overall effectiveness of the training being provided. This study will look at the differences in how Private Corporations evaluate their professional development programs verses how Public Education evaluates their professional development programs for overall effectiveness. The Guskey’s model is used to evaluate professional development. It was develop by Thomas R. Guskey. (We will talk more about the Guskey model later) To accomplish goals of this study, I hope to answer the following research questions:
  • The three (Quantitative) Research questions will be answered using the Professional Development Assessment Tool (PDAT). The PDAT instrument was guided by Guskey’s model and developed by the researcher to aid in this study. You can find the PDAT on page 59. The PDAT instrument was validated for content by Stephanie Hirsh of the National Staff Development Council, Dr. Shirley Hord of Southwest Educational Development Laboratory in Austin, Texas and by Dr. Herrington for adult learners. Corrections and modifications has been made base on their inputs.
  • (Read the slide) first Along with the PDAT instrument, the researcher will also look at the budget allocated for Professional Development training by the Corporate company and by the school district selected.
  • The two (Qualitative) research questions will be answered in two parts. The first part will come from the questionnaire portion of the PDAT instrument. The second part will come from the interviews given to the Directors, first line and second line managers of the Training and Development departments of the Private Corporation. And from the Asst. Superintendent of Professional Development Services, Regional Superintendents, Directors, Asst. Directors of the school district participating. Interview questions are guided from Guskey 2000 book Evaluating Professional Development
  • The Hypotheses that will be address in this study are:
  • Enhancing their performance will increase students’ outcomes. If you remember the whole pie of problems, this study can help address some of the other problem slices in the whole pie.
  • We will now look at the following Review of Literature.
  • The National Staff Development Council goal is that all teachers in all school will experience high quality professional learning as part of their daily work. NSDC believes that staff development must be results-driven, standards-based, and job-embedded. The American Society for Training and Development believes through exceptional learning and performance we create a world that works better. Thomas Guskey defines professional development as a process that is (a) intentional, (b) ongoing, (c) systemic. The history from the literature reveals the dissatisfaction with the quality of professional development given to educators. There lack of choice, lack of participation, and lack of relevance are some of the biggest complaints. Dennis Sparks said that “ if teachers are to successfully teach all students to high standards, virtually everyone who affects student learning must be learning virtually all the time. That includes not only teachers and principals, but superintendents and other district administrators, school board members, and school support staff. Let’s look at some recent studies….
  • (Talk about each research on the chart)
  • (Talk about each research on the chart) Now tie in my research with the findings of the research above. Move to next slide.
  • In looking at participants’ reactions , this study will look at how employees feel about the professional development training they are receiving. (Guskey states: This is the simplest form of evaluation.) With participants’ learning , the main goals is the change affective category. It’s intended to change the participants’ attitudes, beliefs, and dispositions. For Organizational Support , this study will look at how much does each district/company allocate to professional development training of their employees. This will include (Tuition Reimbursements); Overall factor, do they consider PD as an investment or just a requirement being met. We will also look at how management supports their employees in their implementation of the new knowledge and skills just learned. Guskey remains us that if changes at the individual level are not encourage and supported at the organizational level, even the most promising innovation will fail. Organizational Support is the one factor that was missing in Kirkpatrick’s model of evaluation. Kirkpatrick model had all the other elements but was used in the Corporate world. Participants’ Uses of Knowledge and Skills will entail how do participants’ implement their new skill learned. In the past, students score high on test but sit at zero for implementation. The don’t know when to implement the new skill learned. And finally, Students Outcomes is derived from the overall quality and effectiveness that will come from looking at two things: First, does the amount of money/time/and availability contributes to the quality; and second, quality will be evaluated by how much of the training received by employees is being implemented through job performance. (Depending on time talk more what others are saying about these variables)
  • Guskey states that “ Evaluating Professional Development programs has two important goals: To improve the quality of the program, and To determine its overall effectiveness. (Now read the chart)
  • 5 (Begin with the improvement in learning that you are seeking.) 4 Based on research, determine what is required in terms of policies and practices to facilitate this learning 3 Look at changes in the organization that will be required for successful implementation of these policies 2 Look at the knowledge and skills staff will require to successfully implement the policies and practices 1 Look at the professional development that will be required to provide staff with the required knowledge and skills. What process do developers take in order to ensure the effectiveness of the program should be done in the planning stage.
  • Purposive sampling of the 64 contractors to NASA and of all the school districts in Region IV District of Texas. Out of those, my purposive sampling will consist of companies and school districts with Professional development departments and with professional employees of at least 3000. Total Revenue will also play a factor in the selection of participants’. The most important factor here is the Professional Development or Training and Development department must be in existence. (Explain the Apples to Apples theory) Data regarding School Districts will come from Region 4 and School District Directory, Texas Education Agency (TEA) Budget Financial Data, and Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) Currently There are 7 school districts that meet the criteria needed. Data regarding Private Corporations will come from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) web-page, the Greater Houston Partnership web-page, and the Private Corporations web-page. (Go to next slide and talk about Cluster Sampling)
  • Once permission is granted by a school district and a private corporation, cluster sampling will take place. Schools within the school district will be selected as well as departments within the private corporation will be selected. Fraenkel and Wallen states that cluster random sapling is similar to random sampling except that groups rather then individuals are randomly selected. One advantage to cluster sampling mentioned by Fraenkel and Wallen is that it can be used when it is difficult or impossible to select a random sample of individuals. Right now I have a commitment with United Space Alliance to participant as the private corporation for this study. There is a good chance the HISD is on board. So if we look at my diagram, let’s pretend this is HISD. The above circle consist of all of the schools in HISD, which are 304 Schools and 6 Administration buildings. I will put all the 38 High schools in one basket, the 49 Middle schools in another basket, the 207 Elementary schools in the other basket, the 10 other schools in a basket and the 6 administration building in the next basket. Each school will be assigned a number. I would then pull 8 from the HS, 10 from MS, 40 from ES, 2 from Other, and 1 from the Area Administration. I will pull out 61 schools which will give me 20% of the population. I would send the survey out to all professionals (teachers, principals, asst. principals, and counselors) in each of the 61 schools. This population will represent the district. We are looking at about 3000 employees out of 15000. The same will be done with United Space Alliance. I will put all departments into a bag. And proceed in the same manner as HISD.
  • In looking at Guskey’s model backwards, Interviews with the developers (Management) will allow me to see what process was taken in the planning stage to determine how they would evaluate their program for effectiveness (Level 5). Questionnaires from the employees will help in determining if they implemented any of the new skills learned during their training (Level 4). And finally, the quantitative data from the survey and budget allocation will complete the triangulation validation of overall effectiveness of a program.
  • Yolanda E. Smith, PhD Proposal Dissertation Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair/Major Professor

    1. 1. The Differences in Professional Development Training Between Private Corporations and Public Education A Proposal Defense By Yolanda E. Smith William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Dissertation Chair
    2. 2. Committee Members <ul><li>William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D. </li></ul><ul><li>(Dissertation Chair) </li></ul><ul><li>Ben C. DeSpain, Ed.D </li></ul><ul><li>(Member) </li></ul><ul><li>Douglas Hermond, Ph.D. </li></ul><ul><li>(Member) </li></ul><ul><li>David Herrington, Ph.D. </li></ul><ul><li>(Member) </li></ul><ul><li>Camille Gibson, Ph.D. </li></ul><ul><li>(Outside Member) </li></ul>
    3. 3. Outline <ul><li>The Problem </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose of Study </li></ul><ul><li>Research Questions [5] </li></ul><ul><li>Hypotheses (3) </li></ul><ul><li>Significance of the Study </li></ul><ul><li>Review of Literature </li></ul><ul><li>Research Design </li></ul>
    4. 4. The Whole Pie of Problems
    5. 5. The Problem Slice Professional Development
    6. 6. The Problem <ul><li>“Until we improve the methods used to measure the links among professional development, teacher performance, and student achievement, educators will be unable to convince parents, community leaders, and local school boards to provide the sufficient time and funding necessary to improve our teachers’ understanding and our students’ performance” (Hackett, 2005). </li></ul>
    7. 7. I. Purpose of the Study <ul><li>To compare the professional development training programs in the corporate business world with the professional development training programs in the public education systems using Guskey 2000 model. </li></ul>
    8. 8. Research Questions (1) <ul><li>What are the differences in participants’ reactions regarding the professional development training between educators and corporate employees as measured by the Professional Development Assessment Tool? </li></ul><ul><li>(Quantitative) </li></ul>
    9. 9. Research Question (2) <ul><li>What are the differences in participants learning in professional development training between public educators and corporate employees as measured by the Professional Development Assessment Tool? </li></ul><ul><li>(Quantitative) </li></ul>
    10. 10. Research Question (3) <ul><li>What are the differences in organizational support for professional development between public educators and corporate employees as measured by the Professional Development Assessment Tool? </li></ul><ul><li>(Quantitative) </li></ul>
    11. 11. Research Questions (4) <ul><li>What are the differences in participants’ use of knowledge and skills gained from their professional development training program provided by private corporations and public education as measured by Guskey’s Model? </li></ul><ul><li>(Qualitative) </li></ul><ul><li>(Qualitative) </li></ul>
    12. 12. Research Question (5) <ul><li>What are the differences in how the evaluation of participants’ learning outcomes is determine between private corporation and public education as measured by Guskey’s model? </li></ul><ul><li>(Qualitative) </li></ul>
    13. 13. III. Hypotheses <ul><li>Ho 1 There are no statistically significant differences in participants’ reactions regarding the professional development training provided between public educators and corporate employees as measured by the Professional Development Assessment Tool. </li></ul>
    14. 14. Hypotheses <ul><li>Ho 2 There are no statistically significant differences in participants’ learning throughout their professional development training outcomes between public educators and corporate employees as measured by the Professional Development Assessment Tool. </li></ul>
    15. 15. Hypotheses <ul><li>Ho 3 There are no statistically significant differences in organizational support for professional development training between public educators and corporate employees as measured by the Professional Development Assessment Tool. </li></ul>
    16. 16. IV. Significance of the Study (1) <ul><li>Education is a business. Advocates for Human Resource and Educators feel the pressure to prove that the efforts giving to professional development training is making a difference in performance. </li></ul>
    17. 17. Significance of the Study (2) <ul><li>Knowledge gained from the study will provide educational leaders with information about how the quality of professional development training may eliminate teacher shortages and enhance their performance. </li></ul>
    18. 18. V. Review of Literature <ul><li>PD Overview/Historical </li></ul><ul><li>Past Research </li></ul><ul><li>Variables Investigated </li></ul><ul><li>Guskey Model </li></ul>
    19. 19. Review of Literature Overview/Historical <ul><li>What is Professional Development? </li></ul><ul><li>NSDC </li></ul><ul><li>ASTD </li></ul><ul><li>Guskey </li></ul><ul><li>History </li></ul>
    20. 20. Review of Literature Research linking Professional Development with student achievement in language arts. Case Study; Quantitative and Qualitative Participants’ Reactions, Knowledge and Skills, Organizational Support, Participants’ Use of knowledge, Impact Grade one teachers, mentors and principals Miller, 2006 Professional Development in a Large School District: An Application of Guskey’s Model Research on more efficient and effective allocation strategies Quantitative (Correlational) Outcome Variables (Language Arts, Math gain scores) Predictor Variables (Environment & Resource) 303 Public Comprehensive High Schools in New Jersey Greene, 2005 Quality Matters: A Different Perspective on the Relationship Between School Resources and Student Outcomes Future Research Methodology Variables Population/Sample Author's/year/Title
    21. 21. Review of Literature Various sectors beside education should be used by Guskey’s model. Qualitative only (Interviews) Guskey 3rd level (Organizational support and change) Four organizations in the mental health sector. 22 participants were interviewed Tsarouhas, 2004 Understanding organizational context for the evaluation of training outcomes: A multi-site case study in the community mental health sector Future Research Methodology Variables Population/Sample Author's/year/Title Research on PD based on the New Reform; Replicated on a larger population; Teacher perception of PD & teacher evaluation process Quantitative (Survey only) Participants’ Satisfaction, Participants’ Learning, Organizational Support and Change, Participants’ Knowledge, Student learning, Teachers Attitudes/beliefs Certified K-12 teachers in two districts in New York state. Lowden, 2003 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Professional Development
    22. 22. Review of Literature Variables <ul><li>Participants’ Reactions </li></ul><ul><li>Participants’ Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Organizational Support </li></ul><ul><li>Participants’ Use of Knowledge and Skills </li></ul><ul><li>Students Outcomes </li></ul>
    23. 23. Guskey 2000 Model To improve program design and delivery Initial satisfaction with the experience <ul><li>Questionnaires administered at the end of the session. </li></ul><ul><li>Focus groups </li></ul><ul><li>Interviews </li></ul><ul><li>Personal learning logs </li></ul><ul><li>Did they like it? </li></ul><ul><li>Was their time well spent? </li></ul><ul><li>Did the material make sense? </li></ul><ul><li>Will it be useful? </li></ul><ul><li>Was the leader knowledgeable and helpful? </li></ul><ul><li>Were the refreshments fresh and tasty? </li></ul><ul><li>Was the room the right temperature? </li></ul><ul><li>Were the chairs comfortable? </li></ul>1. Participants’ Reactions How will information be used? What is Measured or Assessed? How will information be gathered? What Questions Are Addressed? Evaluation Level To improve program content, format, and organization New knowledge and skills of participants <ul><li>Paper-and-pencil instruments </li></ul><ul><li>Simulations and demonstrations </li></ul><ul><li>Participant reflections (oral and/or written) </li></ul><ul><li>Participant portfolios </li></ul><ul><li>Case study analyses </li></ul>Did participants acquire the intended knowledge and skills/ 2. Participants’ Learning
    24. 24. Guskey 2000 Model <ul><li>To document and improve organizational support </li></ul><ul><li>To inform future change efforts </li></ul>The organization’s advocacy, support, accommodation, facilitation, and recognition. <ul><li>District and school records </li></ul><ul><li>Minutes from follow-up meetings </li></ul><ul><li>Questionnaires </li></ul><ul><li>Focus groups </li></ul><ul><li>Structured interviews with participants and school or district administrators </li></ul><ul><li>Participants portfolios </li></ul><ul><li>What was the impact on the organization? </li></ul><ul><li>Did it affect organizational climate and procedures? </li></ul><ul><li>Was implementation advocated, facilitated, and supported? </li></ul><ul><li>Was the support public and overt? </li></ul><ul><li>Were the problems addressed quickly and efficiently? </li></ul><ul><li>Were sufficient resources made available? </li></ul><ul><li>Were successes recognized and shared? </li></ul>3. Organization support and change <ul><li>Degree and quality of implementation </li></ul><ul><li>To document and improve the implementation of program content </li></ul><ul><li>Questionnaires </li></ul><ul><li>Structured interviews with participants and their supervisors </li></ul><ul><li>Participant reflections (oral and/or written) </li></ul><ul><li>Participant portfolios </li></ul><ul><li>Direct observations </li></ul><ul><li>Video-or audiotapes </li></ul><ul><li>Did participants effectively apply the new knowledge and skills/ </li></ul>4. Participants’ use of new knowledge and skills How will information be used? What is Measured or Assessed? How will information be gathered? What Questions Are Addressed? Evaluation Level
    25. 25. Guskey 2000 Model To focus and improve all aspects of program design, implementation, and follow-up To demonstrate the overall impact of professional development <ul><li>Student learning outcomes: </li></ul><ul><li>Cognitive (performance and achievement) </li></ul><ul><li>Affective (attitudes and dispositions) </li></ul><ul><li>Affective (attitudes and dispositions) </li></ul><ul><li>Psychomotor (skills and behaviors) </li></ul><ul><li>Student records </li></ul><ul><li>School records </li></ul><ul><li>Questionnaires </li></ul><ul><li>Structured interviews </li></ul><ul><li>with students, parents, </li></ul><ul><li>teachers, and/or </li></ul><ul><li>administrators </li></ul><ul><li>Participant portfolios </li></ul><ul><li>What was the impact on students? </li></ul><ul><li>Did it affect student performance or achievement? </li></ul><ul><li>Did it influence students’ physical or emotional well being? </li></ul><ul><li>Are students more confident as leaders? </li></ul><ul><li>Is student attendance improving? Are dropout </li></ul><ul><li>decreasing? </li></ul>5. Student learning outcomes How will information be used? What is Measured or Assessed? How will information be gathered? What Questions Are Addressed? Evaluation Level
    26. 26. How to Use Guskey’s Model <ul><li>****Work the model backwards**** </li></ul><ul><li>Level 5 </li></ul><ul><li>Level 4 </li></ul><ul><li>Level 3 </li></ul><ul><li>Level 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Level 1 </li></ul>
    27. 27. VI. Research Design <ul><li>Research Method: Mixed- Methods using an explanatory design. </li></ul><ul><li>Quantitative </li></ul><ul><li>The quantitative data will be collected first on Participants’ Reaction, Participants’ Learning, Organizational Support, & Participants’ Use of Knowledge and Skills using the PDAT web-based survey/questionnaire tool. </li></ul><ul><li>http://pdat.speedsurvey.com </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative </li></ul><ul><li>The qualitative data will be collected in two parts; Questionnaires and interviews in order to identify the over all quality and effectiveness of professional development provided to employees. </li></ul>
    28. 28. Instrumentation Pilot Study <ul><li>Convenience Sampling </li></ul><ul><li>30 NASA employees </li></ul><ul><li>30 Educators within HISD </li></ul><ul><li>Test-Retest </li></ul><ul><li>Reliability </li></ul><ul><li>Trust-worthiness (Fair-Clear-Free of </li></ul><ul><li>Bias) </li></ul><ul><li>Changes based on inputs </li></ul><ul><li>Participants Excluded </li></ul>
    29. 29. Subjects of the Study <ul><li>Sampling Method </li></ul><ul><li>Purposive Sampling first, for selection of School District and Private Corporation. </li></ul><ul><li>Cluster Random Sampling second, for selecting the schools and departments. </li></ul>
    30. 30. Cluster Sampling HS,MS,ES, HS,MS,ES,OS Admin Bldg HS, ES, MS,HS,MS,ES HS,ES,MS,HS,MS,ES HS,MS,ES,HS,MS,ES HS,MS,ES,HS,MS,ES, OS, Admin Bldg, Admin Bldg Admin Bldg
    31. 31. Analysis of Data <ul><li>Quantitative </li></ul>T-test for independent variables Weighted Means 1 = SD 2 = D 3 = NA 4 = A 5 = SA Participants’ Learning Two Groups: Public Educators Corporate Employees Ho 2 There are no statistically significant differences in participants’ learning in professional development training between public educators and corporate employees as measured by the Professional Development Assessment Tool? . What are the differences in participants’ learning in professional development training between public educators and corporate employees as measured by the Professional Development Assessment Tool? T-test for independent variables Weighted Means 1 = SD 2 = D 3 = NA 4 = A 5 = SA Participants’ Reactions Two Groups : Public Educators Corporate Employees Ho 1 There are no statistically significant difference in participants’ reactions regarding the professional development training between pubic educators and corporate employees as measured by the Professional Development Assessment Tool ? What are the differences in participants’ reactions regarding the professional development training between pubic educators and corporate employees as measured by the Professional Development Assessment Tool ? Statistics Dependent Variables Independent Variables Hypothesis Research Questions
    32. 32. Analysis of Data <ul><li>Quantitative </li></ul>T-test for independent variables Weighted Means 1 = SD 2 = D 3 = NA 4 = A 5 = SA Organizational Support Two Groups : Public Educators Corporate Employees Ho 1 There are no statistically significant difference in organizational support regarding the professional development training between pubic educators and corporate employees as measured by the Professional Development Assessment Tool ? What are the differences in organizational support regarding the professional development training between pubic educators and corporate employees as measured by the Professional Development Assessment Tool ? Statistics Dependent Variables Independent Variables Hypothesis Research Questions
    33. 33. Analysis of Data <ul><li>Qualitative </li></ul>Surveys/Questionnaire & Interviews Record all I hear Coding Using NVivo Software Use Frequency Table Percentages will be Calculated and Listed In Descending order
    34. 34. Analysis of Data Quantitative TEA/Districts/School Data/ Companies HR Data base/Fill in the blanks surveys Qualitative Interview of Educators & Corporate Management Questionnaires of employees Triangulation Validation
    35. 35. Selected References <ul><li>Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. (6th ed.) McGraw Hill: New York, N.Y. </li></ul><ul><li>Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluation professional development. Corwin Press, Inc. Thousand Oaks, California. </li></ul><ul><li>Hackett, J. (2005). Exploring the links among professional development: Teacher performance, and student achievement. (Dissertation) Pro-Quest Information and Learning Company, (UMI No. 3169621). </li></ul><ul><li>National Staff Development Counsel (2006). Standards. Retrieved on October 27 , 2006. from http:// www.nsdc.org/standards/about/index.cfm . </li></ul>

    ×