Yolanda E. Smith - PhD Proposal Defense, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

8/14/2019 Yolanda E. Smith - PhD Proposal Defense, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/yolanda-e-smith-phd-proposal-defense-dissertation-chair-dr-william-allan 1/35

April 2007

The Differences in Professional

Development Training BetweenPrivate Corporations and

Public Education

A Proposal Defense

By

Yolanda E. SmithWilliam Allan Kritsonis, PhD

Dissertation Chair



Committee Members

William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.(Dissertation Chair)

Ben C. DeSpain, Ed.D(Member)

Douglas Hermond, Ph.D.(Member)

David Herrington, Ph.D.(Member)

Camille Gibson, Ph.D.(Outside Member)



Outline

I. The Problem

II. Purpose of Study

III. Research Questions [5]IV. Hypotheses (3)

V. Significance of the Study

VI. Review of Literature

VII. Research Design



The Whole Pie of Problems

Retention

16%

Shortage

16%

P.D

17%

Morale

17%

Salary

17%

Student Achievement

17%



The Problem Slice

ProfessionalDevelopment



The Problem

“Until we improve the methods used to measurethe links among professional development,teacher performance, and student achievement,educators will be unable to convince parents,

community leaders, and local school boards toprovide the sufficient time and funding necessaryto improve our teachers’ understanding and our students’ performance” (Hackett, 2005).



I. Purpose of the Study

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.



Research Questions (1)

What are the differences in participants’

reactions regarding the professional

development training between educators

and corporate employees as measured bythe Professional Development

Assessment Tool?

(Quantitative)



Research Question (2)

What are the differences in participants

learning in professional development

training between public educators and

corporate employees as measured by theProfessional Development Assessment

Tool?

(Quantitative)




What are the differences in organizational support for professional developmentbetween public educators and corporateemployees as measured by theProfessional Development AssessmentTool?

(Quantitative)



Research Questions (4) 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?

(Qualitative)

(Qualitative)




What are the differences in how theevaluation of participants’ learning outcomes is determine between private

corporation and public education asmeasured by Guskey’s model?

(Qualitative)



III. Hypotheses

Ho1There are no statistically significant

differences in participants’ reactions

regarding the professionaldevelopment training provided

between public educators and

corporate employees as measured

by the Professional DevelopmentAssessment Tool.



Hypotheses

Ho2There are no statistically significant

differences in participants’ learning

throughout their professionaldevelopment training outcomes






Hypotheses

Ho3There are no statistically

significant differences in

organizational support for professional development training






IV. Significance of the Study (1)

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.



Significance of the Study (2)

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.



V. Review of Literature

PD Overview/Historical

Past Research

Variables InvestigatedGuskey Model



Review of Literature

Overview/Historical

What is Professional Development?

NSDC

ASTD

Guskey

History




Miller, 2006

Professional

Development in a

Large School

District: An

Application of

Guskey’s Model

Grade one teachers, mentors

and principals Participants’ Reactions,Knowledge and Skills,Organizational Support,Participants’ Use of

knowledge, Impact

Case Study; Quantitative

and Qualitative Research linkingProfessionalDevelopment withstudentachievement in

language arts.

Greene, 2005Quality Matters: A DifferentPerspective on theRelationship Between SchoolResources and Student

Outcomes

303 Public ComprehensiveHigh Schools in New Jersey

Outcome Variables(Language Arts, Mathgain scores) Predictor Variables (Environment& Resource)

Quantitative(Correlational)

Research onmore efficientand effectiveallocationstrategies

Author's/year/Title Population/Sample Variables Methodology Future Research



Review of LiteratureAuthor's/year/Title Population/Sample Variables Methodology Future Research

Tsarouhas, 2004

Understanding

organizational context for

the evaluation of training

outcomes: A multi-site case

study in the community

mental health sector

Four organizations in themental health sector. 22participants were

interviewed

Guskey 3rd level(Organizational supportand change)

Qualitative only

(Interviews) Various sectorsbeside educationshould be usedby Guskey’s

model.

Lowden, 2003

Evaluating the Effectivenessof Professional Development

Certified K-12 teachers intwo districts in New York state.

Participants’Satisfaction,Participants’ Learning,Organizational Support

and Change,Participants’Knowledge, Studentlearning, TeachersAttitudes/beliefs

Quantitative (Surveyonly)

Research on PD based on the New Reform;Replicated on a

larger population;Teacher

perception of PD & teacher evaluation

process




Variables

• Participants’ Reactions

• Participants’ Learning

• Organizational Support• Participants’ Use of Knowledge and

Skills

• Students Outcomes



Guskey 2000 Model

EvaluationLevel

What Questions AreAddressed?

How will information begathered?

What is Measured or Assessed? How will information be used?

1. Participants’ Reactions •Did they like it?•Was their time well spent?•Did the material make sense?•Will it be useful?•Was the leader knowledgeableand helpful?•Were the refreshments fresh

and tasty?•Was the room the righttemperature?•Were the chairs comfortable?

•Questionnaires administered atthe end of the session.•Focus groups•Interviews•Personal learning logs

Initial satisfaction with theexperience

To improve program design anddelivery

2. Participants’ Learning Did participants acquire theintended knowledge and skills/

•Paper-and-pencil instruments•Simulations anddemonstrations•Participant reflections (oraland/or written)•Participant portfolios•Case study analyses

New knowledge and skills of participants

To improve program content,format, and organization



Guskey 2000 Model

3. Organization support andchange

•What was the impact on theorganization?•Did it affect organizationalclimate and procedures?•Was implementation advocated,facilitated, and supported?•Was the support public and

overt?•Were the problems addressedquickly and efficiently?•Were sufficient resources madeavailable?•Were successes recognized andshared?

•District and school records•Minutes from follow-upmeetings•Questionnaires•Focus groups•Structured interviews with participants and school or district

administrators•Participants portfolios

The organization’s advocacy,support, accommodation,facilitation, and recognition.

•To document and improveorganizational support•To inform future change efforts

4. Participants’ use of new

knowledge and skills

•Did participants effectively

apply the new knowledge andskills/

•Questionnaires•Structured interviews with

participants and their supervisors•Participant reflections (oraland/or written)•Participant portfolios•Direct observations•Video-or audiotapes

•Degree and quality of

implementation•To document and improve theimplementation of programcontent

EvaluationLevel

What Questions Are Addressed? How will information begathered?

What is Measured or Assessed? How will information be used?



Guskey 2000 ModelEvaluation

LevelWhat Questions Are

Addressed?How will information be

gathered?What is Measured or Assessed? How will information be used?

5. Student learningoutcomes

• What was the impact onstudents?

• Did it affect studentperformance or achievement?

• Did it influence students’physical or emotional wellbeing?

• Are students more confidentas leaders?

• Is student attendanceimproving? Are dropout

decreasing?

• Student records

• School records

• Questionnaires

• Structured interviews

with students, parents,

teachers, and/or

administrators•Participant portfolios

•Student learning outcomes:

-Cognitive (performance andachievement)

-Affective (attitudes and

dispositions)

-Affective (attitudes anddispositions)

Psychomotor (skills and

behaviors)

To focus and improve allaspects of program design,implementation, and follow-up

To demonstrate the overallimpact of professional

development



How to Use Guskey’s Model

****Work the model backwards****

Level 5Level 4

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1



VI. Research Design

Research Method: Mixed- Methods using an explanatory design.

Quantitative

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/questionnairetool.

http://pdat.speedsurvey.com

Qualitative

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.

http://pdat.speedsurvey.com/

http://pdat.speedsurvey.com/



Instrumentation

Pilot Study

Convenience Sampling

30 NASA employees

30 Educators within HISD

Test-Retest Reliability

Trust-worthiness (Fair-Clear-Free of

Bias)

Changes based on inputs

Participants Excluded



Subjects of the Study

Sampling Method

Purposive Sampling first, for selection of School

District and Private Corporation.

Cluster Random Sampling second, for selecting the

schools and departments.



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



Analysis of Data

• QuantitativeResearch Questions Hypothesis Independent

VariablesDependentVariables

Statistics

What are the differences in participants’ reactionsregarding the professionaldevelopment training between

pubic educators and corporateemployees as measured by theProfessional Development

Assessment Tool?

Ho1

There are no statistically

significant difference in participants’ reactionsregarding the professional

development training between pubic educators and corporateemployees as measured by theProfessional Development

Assessment Tool?

Two Groups:

Public Educators

Corporate Employees

Participants’ Reactions T-test for independentvariables

Weighted Means1 = SD2 = D3 = NA4 = A5 = SA

What are the differences in participants’ learning in professional developmenttraining between publiceducators and corporateemployees as measured by theProfessional DevelopmentAssessment Tool?

Ho2

There are no statistically

significant differences in participants’ learning in professional developmenttraining between publiceducators and corporateemployees as measured by theProfessional DevelopmentAssessment Tool?.

Two Groups:

Public Educators

Corporate Employees

Participants’ Learning T-test for independentvariablesWeighted Means1 = SD2 = D3 = NA4 = A5 = SA



Analysis of Data

• Quantitative

Research Questions Hypothesis IndependentVariables

DependentVariables

Statistics

What are the differences inorganizational supportregarding the professionaldevelopment training between pubic educators and corporateemployees as measured by theProfessional Development

Assessment Tool?

Ho1 There are no statisticallysignificant difference inorganizational supportregarding the professionaldevelopment training between pubic educators and corporateemployees as measured by theProfessional Development

Assessment Tool?

Two Groups:

Public Educators

Corporate Employees

Organizational Support T-test for independentvariables

Weighted Means1 = SD2 = D3 = NA4 = A5 = SA



Analysis of Data

Qualitative

Surveys/Questionnaire

& Interviews

Record all I hear

Coding Using

NVivo

Software

Use Frequency Table

Percentages will be

Calculated and Listed

In Descending order



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



Selected References

Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate

research in education. (6th ed.) McGraw Hill: New York, N.Y.

Guskey, T.R. (2000). Evaluation professional development. Corwin

Press, Inc. Thousand Oaks, California.

Hackett, J. (2005). Exploring the links among professional

development: Teacher performance, and student achievement.

(Dissertation) Pro-Quest Information and Learning Company, (UMI

No. 3169621).

National Staff Development Counsel (2006). Standards. Retrieved

on October 27, 2006. from http://

www.nsdc.org/standards/about/index.cfm.

http://www.nsdc.org/standards/about/index.cfm.%20on%20October%2027







Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	anonymous-sewu7e6
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Yolanda E. Smith - PhD Proposal Defense, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

Documents