Proposal Defense

1
Proposal Defense
PERCEPTION AND PRACTICE A TRIANGULATION STUDY OF
FIVE IDENTIFIED TRAITS RELATED TO SUCCESS IN
DELAWARE AND MARYLAND PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS

• Sean M. Lennon

2
Research Action Committee

• Members
• Dr. Calo
• Dr. Costello
• Dr. Miller
• Dr. Wray
• Deans Representative
• Chair
• Dr. Lane
• Acknowledgements
• Dr. Gong
• Dr. Savini

3
Introduction to the Study

• To determine possible traits that relate to
  success for a public high school in Delaware and
  a public high school in Maryland
• Define possible traits that may, or may not lead
  to success
• Determine if literature, defining possible traits
  or concepts relates to success

4
Background of the Problem

• Accountability
• Mandates and Reforms
• Knowledge being necessary to good government and
  the happiness of mankind, schools and the means
  of education shall forever be encouraged
• Time frame of American public education
• Public school system originally controlled by
  local community with specific needs and wants
• Intrusiveness of federal oversight meets local
  resistance
• Federal and state oversight increase in dominance
  or control over local school systems
• State and Local grievances

(Thorpe, 1909, p. 957)
5
Background of the Problem

• Defining Success
• Definitions and expectations differ within select
  populations and groups
• Behaviorist/Holistic Approach
• The process or proof of learning
• Prevalent among educators
• Lack of accountability
• Assessment Approach
• Utilization of assessment driven data
• Prevalent among policy makers, general populace
• Assessments limited to specific indicators
• Tests not designed or utilized to specific
  purpose or population

(Kochan, et al, 1996)
(Cheng, 1997)
(Popham, 2002)
6
Successful Schools

• Defined by No Child Left Behind
• Assessment Approach
• Established set parameters for
• Testing benchmarks
• School performance
• Growth
• Demographic/group performance
• School accountability
• AYP and AMO

(Delaware Department of Education, 2005)
7
Need For the Study

• Define success
• To meet testing (new) benchmarks
• Delineate traits that relate to success
• Determine traits that may have no relation to
  success
• Utilize modern statistical methodologies
• Study
• Combines delimited traits with the new testing
  accountability standards while utilizing mixed
  methods research techniques
• The utilization of this methodology to traits
  associated with assessments appears to be unique
• Internet search yielded no correlations

8
Purpose of This Study

• To sample two successful schools
• Determined through published test data
• State web sites
• Delaware Dept. of Education
• Maryland Dept of Education
• Utilizing
• Separate school systems
• Separate states
• Separate accountability systems
• Isolate common practices, traits and/or
  ideologies
• Find commonalities related to success
• Confer these commonalities to the general
  educational system

9
Significance of This Study

• Better implement and meet assessment and
  accountability programs
• Federal
• State
• To determine best practices
• Assist schools with limited resources and time to
  focus on what works
• Delineate the published data
• Find possible traits/practices for all public
  (American) high schools
• To highlight local successful schools

10
Educational Leadership

• Leadership
• Educational Leadership
• Usually defined in terms of goal attainment or
  accountability
• Federally mandated criteria
• State criteria
• Local criteria

a process whereby an individual influences a
group of individuals to achieve a common goal
(Northouse, 2004, p. 61)
the process of persuasion by which a group is
induced to pursue objectives
(Senge, 2000, p. 14)
11
Educational Leadership

• Personal Experience
• Teacher with personal experience with
  accountability
• Experienced with the nuances of the classroom and
  school environment beneficial/detrimental to
  success
• Relationship of leadership to this study
• Determine what works or not in leading a
  successful school
• Determine what success is, as defined by
  different constituents
• Determine influential traits in relation to
  limited or dwindling resources
• Determine the extant, history and implications of
  the accountability movement and assessments
• Learn how to be a successful educational leader

12
Indicators of Success

• cumulative trait chart. doc
• Delineated 5 traits from literature
• Collaborative work
• High expectations
• Professional Development
• School culture
• Strong leadership
• Frequency chart
• Utilized literature containing multiple
  indicators
• Not limited to educational
• Counted the most frequencies, or times a trait
  was mentioned
• Culture was defined by component parts as
  described by Deal Peterson (1999) than weighted
  as 0.5 or ½ a point

13
Sample Frame

• A sampling frame is the list or quasi list of
  elements from which a probability sample is
  selected.
• Sample Frame needs to include
• Public high schools
• 2 states
• Deemed successful or high performing
• Faculty from two selected schools
• Administration from two selected schools
• Faculty and administration of a successful public
  high school in Delaware and a successful public
  high school in Maryland

(Babbie, 2002)
14
American Public Education System
Delaware
Maryland
15
Delaware Public School System
Sussex Technical School District Sussex
Technical High School
Maryland Public School System
Talbot County Public Schools Easton High
School
16
Sample Design

• Nonprobability
• Specific constructs
• Convenience
• Schools near each other
• Schools near the researcher
• Purposive
• It can be appropriate to select a sample on the
  basis of knowledge of a population, its elements
  and the purpose of the study
• Public high school faculty and administrators
• Faculty and administration of Easton High School
  (MD) and Sussex Technical High School (DE)

(Babbie, 2002, p. 178)
17
Delmarva (Southern Delaware) High Schools
(Delaware Department of Education, 2005)
18
Delmarva (Maryland) High Schools
(Maryland Report Card, 2005)
19
Easton High School
Easton High Web Page
(Public School Review, 2005)
20
Sussex Technical High School
Sussex Technical Web Page
(Public School Review, 2005)
21
Limitations/Delimits

• Limitations
• Traits may not infer to other schools
• Ambiguity in defining/assessing success
• Bias
• Specific demographics to the localized region
• Limited demographic variances in target schools
• Delimitations
• Limit to two schools
• Quantitative sample group limited to 100
  respondents
• Qualitative sample group limited to 4 respondents
• Traits, or indicators limited to 5 variable
• Instrument limited to less than 4 questions per
  domain/variable
• Qualitative questionnaire limited to 1 central
  question and f sub-questions

22
Research Design

• Mixed Method
• Suggested/conceptualized in 1959
• Not accepted until the 1980s
• Utilization of qualitative and quantitative
  concepts and methodologies
• The third wave or third research movement
• Recent increase in use or popularity is due to
  its pluralism or eclecticism, which frequently
  results in superior research
• Utilizes two or more modes of inquiry
• Garner a higher level of validity or
  corroboration
• To limit or find fault possibly missed in a
  monomethod study

(Rocco, et al, 2003)
(Johnson Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 17)
(Johnson Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 14)
23
Mixed Method becomes more accepted in Social
Research
24
(Rocco, et al, 2003)
(Johnson Onwuegbuzie, 2004)
25
Concurrent Triangulation Method

• John Creswell
• Earliest proponent of mixed method research
• Considered the sage of this movement
• One of the most common of the mixed method
  approaches
• Uses inherent strengths of each paradigm to
  cancel out their weaknesses
• Triangulation can note the convergence of the
  findings as a way to strengthen the knowledge
  claims of the study or to explain any lack of
  convergence that may result
• Details
• Utilizes both qualitative and quantitative
  methods
• Done simultaneously
• Each component corroborated against the other for
  convergence or collaboration

(Creswell, Trout Barbuto, 2002)
(Creswell, 2003, p. 217)
26
Research Design
(Creswell, 2003)
27
Research Question

• Question
• Are there commonalities, or common attributes for
  success, in two different, geographically
  separated, high achieving public schools that can
  be inferred to the general public high school
  population?
• Sub-questions
• Is collaborative work an indicator of success and
  a common attribute in successful schools?
• School culture?
• High expectations?
• Professional development?
• Strong leadership?

28
Independent Variables

• Variables that (probably) cause, influence or
  affect outcomes
• Variables controlled by the experimenter
• Independent variables are the five indicators or
  domains
• Collaborative work
• School culture
• High expectations
• Professional development
• Strong leadership
• Discrete variables
• Variables that take on a small set of possible
  values

(Cresswell, 2003, p. 94)
(Howell, 2004, p. 22)
(Howell, 2004, p. 22)
29
Dependent Variable

• Success is the dependent variable
• Defined through the assessment approach
• Federal standards (NCLB)
• Continued growth (AYP)
• Delineated to specific demographic groups meeting
  success (AMO)
• Safe Harbor utilize other criterion standards
  to meet AYP
• 100 success rate by 2014
• State standards
• Delaware Student Testing Program
• Compares districts and schools
• Offers dual diplomas
• Maryland High School Assessment
• Compares districts and schools
• Required successful completion for graduation
  (class of 2009)
• Both schools have met AYP in the previous testing
  block and are in the top tier for state testing

(U.S. Department of Education, n.d.)
(Delaware Department of Education, 2003)
(Maryland State Department of Education, 2003)
30
Instrumentation

• Qualitative
• Questionnaire
• Central Question
• What makes your school successful?
• 5 sub-questions pertaining to each domain
• Utilizes a frequency chart
• Content coding analysis
• Imbedded Likert Scales (5 point)
• Quantitative
• Survey
• 5 Domains
• Likert Scaled
• 5 point scale
• 3 to 4 questions per domain
• Combined
• Both instruments utilize same statistical scaling
• Testing
• Triangulation

31
Table 6 Instrument Question Pilot Study Subject
M/F Certification
Experience. Ethnicity 1 M
SS 5 years
AA 2 M SS
5 -10 years
Caucasian 3 M English 20
years Caucasian 4 F
FL 10 years
Caucasian 5 F Science
10 years Caucasian 6 F
LS 20 years
Caucasian 7 M
SS 20 years Caucasian 8
M SS
10 years Caucasian 9 M
CTE 5 years AA 10
F FL
5 years Hispanic 11
F English 20 years
Caucasian 12 F SS
20 years
Caucasian 13 F CTE
20 years AA 14 M
NS 5 -10 years
Caucasian 15 F Math
20 years Caucasian 16 M
Math 5 -10
years Caucasian 17 F
Sp. Ed. New
Caucasian 18 M CTE
New
Caucasian 19 M H./P.E.
20 years Caucasian 20 F
FL. 20
years Caucasian 21 F
Math 5-10 years
Caucasian
32
Reliability/Validity

• Reliability
• The consistency or reproducibility of test
  scores
• Determined differently through qualitative and
  quantitative methodologies
• Qualitative is produced by the consistency of the
  interviewer through repeated measures
• Quantitative is produced with the consistency of
  the instrument and its questions through repeated
  responses
• Validity
• Qualitative and Quantitative methodologies
  conceptualize validity differently
• Qualitative
• Not a fixed construct or concept
• A continual, rigorous process of the research
  design
• Quantitative
• Validity refers to the extent to which an
  empirical measure adequately reflects the real
  meaning of the concept under consideration
• Usually refers to the instrument

(Fairchild, n.d., p. 3)
(Weber, 1990)
(Garson, n.d.)
(Morse, et al, 2002)
(Babbie, 2002)
33
Reliability
Quantitative Survey Instrument Cronbachs Alpha ?
(Internal Consistency) by Domain Domain of
Questions ? score Collaborative
Work 4 .822 Culture
3 .772 High Expectations
3 .719
Leadership 4 .737
Professional Development
4 .818
Performed by SYSTAT Version 9 for Windows
34
Validity
Quantitative Instrument

• Construct Validity
• Factor Analysis
• Assumes the use of interval or ratio data
• Ordinal can be used but makes interpretation of
  the results harder to define
• Factor analysis was performed
• Canonical Correlations were deemed too high to be
  reliable
• Data was assumed to be compromised and removed
  from the study
• Criterion Validity
• Not applicable due to originality of the
  instrument and limited by time constraints of the
  research design
• Face and Content Validity
• Content Validity
• 3 experts or educators possessing experience
  and/or terminal degrees were asked to asses the
  instruments
• Dr. Sue Lester
• Dr. Carol Visintainer
• Dr. Pat Savini

(Garson, n.d.)
35
Qualitative Component

• Philosophical differences between qualitative
  methodologies and quantitative methodologies
• Reliability and validity
• Purists argue these terms are pertinent to
  quantitative rather than qualitative
• Substitutes have been suggested including
• Inquiry
• Post hoc assessments
• Peer debriefing
• Triangulation
• Internal validity versus external validity
• Internal able to confer relationship to
  variables being tested
• Not as strict in qualitative
• External able to infer results to other
  populations
• No importance in qualitative
• Reliability
• If the principles of qualitative inquiry are
  followed, the analysis is self-correcting
• Reliability is a process of the methodology and
  design, incorporated throughout the research

(Morse, et al, 2002)
(Winter, 2000)
(Morse, et al, 2002, p. 12)
36
Data Collection

• Easton High School
• Survey
• Presented at faculty meeting
• Researcher will read from script then direct
  respondents
• Collect immediately
• Questionnaire
• Face to face interview in respondent's office or
  neutral location
• Questionnaire collected immediately
• Sussex Technical High School
• Survey
• Placed in faculty mailboxes
• Directions will be stated through cover letter
• Completed surveys will be collected in by
  district receptionist and placed securely in her
  office
• Questionnaire
• Face to face interview in respondent's office or
  neutral location
• Questionnaire collected immediately

37
Statistical Tests

• Inferential
• Bivariate
• Multiple variables
• Discrete
• Non-parametric
• Sensitive (more) to medians than means
• No assumption of the distribution
• Controversy between ordinal or interval data?

(Howell, 2004, p. 467)
38
Ordinal v. Interval

• Likert Scales can be argued as both
• The level of measurement depends upon properties
  of the scale
• of scales can also be a factor
• If ordinal nonparametric tests are normally used
• If interval parametric tests are normally used
• What do you pick?

(Goldstein Hersen, 1984)
(Clason Dormody, 2005)
(Mogey, 1999)
Likert Scale
39
Advantages for nonparametric

• Doesnt rely on normal distribution of the
  population
• More sensitive to medians than means
• Utilize rankings-more applicable to Likert Scales
• More objective if rankings are ordinal
  measurements

(Howell, 2004)
(Clason Dormody, 2005)
(Dallel, 2003)
40
Disadvantages to Nonparametric

• Can be limited in specificity
• Lack of parameters
• Lack Power
• The probability of rejecting Ho
• Statistical Power
• note Power can be increased through sampling
  size
• ARE (Asymptotic Relative Efficiency)
• Controversial

(Dallel, 2003)
(Wikepedia, 2006)
(Dallal, 2003)
(Lane, 2006)
41
Differences

• Kruskal-Wallis
• Corresponds to the One way analysis of variance
  test (F test)
• 3 or more samples
• Test
• Each question from Easton High group (1-18) to
  Sussex Technical High group (I-XVIII)
• Mann Whitney
• Common test
• Corresponds to the t test (for independent
  samples)
• 2 independent samples
• Tests
• Every question within each domain or trait in
  both groups (individually tested)
• Qualitative tested to quantitative domain in each
  group

(Dallal, 2000)
(LTDI, 1999)
(Dallal, 2000)
(Howell, 2004)
42
Association

• Spearman rank correlation coefficient
• Spearman Rho
• Corresponds to the Pearson correlation
  coefficient
• Utilizes ranking not variables
• Correlates ranked data
• Measure of monotonic relationship
• Line is always falling or rising though not
  always straight
• Tests
• Each question (1-18) from Easton High group to
  Sussex Technical High group (I-XVIII)
• Each domain (1-5) from Easton High group to
  Sussex Technical High group (I IV)
• Each complete sample group, including both
  qualitative and quantitative questions (Easton
  High School) to the other complete sample group
  (Sussex Technical High School)

(Dallal, 2000)
(Howell, 2004)
43
Testing Matrix
44
Closure/Supplemental Data

• Equation Key
• Dissertation Database
• References
• Closure
• A triangulation study of a high school in
  Delaware to a high school in Maryland
• 5 traits related to success
• Thank you for your time
• Questions?