You are on page 1of 35

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

April 2007
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

Student Achievement Retention


17% 16%

Salary Shortage
17% 16%

Morale P.D
17% 17%
The Problem Slice

Professional
Development
The Problem
“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).
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 by
the 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 the
Professional Development Assessment
Tool?

(Quantitative)
Research Question (3)
 What are the differences in organizational
support for professional development
between public educators and corporate
employees as measured by the
Professional Development Assessment
Tool?

(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)
Research Question (5)
 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?

(Qualitative)
III. Hypotheses
Ho1 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.
Hypotheses
Ho2 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.
Hypotheses
Ho3 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.
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 Investigated
Guskey Model
Review of Literature
Overview/Historical

What is Professional Development?


NSDC
ASTD
Guskey
History
Review of Literature
Author's/year/Title Population/Sample Variables Methodology Future Research

Miller, 2006 Grade one teachers, mentors Participants’ Reactions, Case Study; QuantitativeResearch linking
Professional Knowledge and Skills, Professional
Development in a and principals Organizational Support, Development with
and Qualitative
Participants’ Use of student
Large School achievement in
District: An
knowledge, Impact
Application of language arts.
Guskey’s Model

Greene, 2005 303 Public Comprehensive Outcome Variables Quantitative Research on


Quality Matters: A Different High Schools in New Jersey (Language Arts, Math (Correlational) more efficient
Perspective on the gain scores) Predictor and effective
Relationship Between School Variables (Environment allocation
Resources and Student & Resource) strategies
Outcomes
Review of Literature
Author's/year/Title Population/Sample Variables Methodology Future Research

Tsarouhas, 2004 Four organizations in the Guskey 3rd level Qualitative only Various sectors
mental health sector. 22 (Organizational support beside education
participants were and change) (Interviews) should be used
Understanding by Guskey’s
organizational context for interviewed
the evaluation of training model.
outcomes: A multi-site case
study in the community
mental health sector

Lowden, 2003 Certified K-12 teachers in Participants’ Quantitative (Survey Research on PD


two districts in New York Satisfaction, only) based on the
Evaluating the Effectiveness state. Participants’ Learning, New Reform;
of Professional Development Organizational Support Replicated on a
and Change, larger
Participants’ population;
Knowledge, Student Teacher
learning, Teachers perception of
Attitudes/beliefs PD & teacher
evaluation
process
Review of Literature
Variables
• Participants’ Reactions
• Participants’ Learning
• Organizational Support
• Participants’ Use of Knowledge and
Skills
• Students Outcomes
Guskey 2000 Model
Evaluation What Questions Are How will information be What is Measured or Assessed? How will information be used?
Level Addressed? gathered?

1. Participants’ Reactions •Did they like it? •Questionnaires administered at Initial satisfaction with the To improve program design and
•Was their time well spent? the end of the session. experience delivery
•Did the material make sense? •Focus groups
•Will it be useful? •Interviews
•Was the leader knowledgeable •Personal learning logs
and helpful?
•Were the refreshments fresh
and tasty?
•Was the room the right
temperature?
•Were the chairs comfortable?

2. Participants’ Learning Did participants acquire the •Paper-and-pencil instruments New knowledge and skills of To improve program content,
intended knowledge and skills/ •Simulations and participants format, and organization
demonstrations
•Participant reflections (oral
and/or written)
•Participant portfolios
•Case study analyses
Guskey 2000 Model
Evaluation What Questions Are Addressed? How will information be What is Measured or Assessed? How will information be used?
Level gathered?

3. Organization support and •What was the impact on the •District and school records The organization’s advocacy, •To document and improve
change organization? •Minutes from follow-up support, accommodation, organizational support
•Did it affect organizational meetings facilitation, and recognition. •To inform future change efforts
climate and procedures? •Questionnaires
•Was implementation advocated, •Focus groups
facilitated, and supported? •Structured interviews with
•Was the support public and participants and school or district
overt? administrators
•Were the problems addressed •Participants portfolios
quickly and efficiently?
•Were sufficient resources made
available?
•Were successes recognized and
shared?

4. Participants’ use of new •Did participants effectively •Questionnaires •Degree and quality of
knowledge and skills apply the new knowledge and •Structured interviews with implementation
skills/ participants and their supervisors •To document and improve the
•Participant reflections (oral implementation of program
and/or written) content
•Participant portfolios
•Direct observations
•Video-or audiotapes
Guskey 2000 Model
Evaluation What Questions Are How will information be What is Measured or Assessed? How will information be used?
Level Addressed? gathered?

5. Student learning • What was the impact on • Student records •Student learning outcomes: To focus and improve all
outcomes students? aspects of program design,
• School records -Cognitive (performance and implementation, and follow-up
• Did it affect student • Questionnaires achievement)
performance or achievement? To demonstrate the overall
impact of professional
• Structured interviews -Affective (attitudes and
• Did it influence students’ dispositions)
with students, parents, development
physical or emotional well
being? teachers, and/or
-Affective (attitudes and
administrators
• dispositions)
• Are students more confident Participant portfolios
Psychomotor (skills and
as leaders?
behaviors)
• Is student attendance
improving? Are dropout
decreasing?
How to Use Guskey’s Model
****Work the model backwards****

Level 5
Level 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/questionnaire
tool.
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.
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, 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

HS,MS,ES,
HS,MS,ES,OS
Admin Bldg
Analysis of Data
• Quantitative
Research Questions Hypothesis Independent Dependent Statistics
Variables Variables
What are the differences in Ho1 There are no statistically Two Groups: Participants’ Reactions T-test for independent
participants’ reactions significant difference in
regarding the professional participants’ reactions
variables
development training between regarding the professional
Public Educators
pubic educators and corporate development training between Weighted Means
employees as measured by the pubic educators and corporate Corporate Employees
Professional Development employees as measured by the
1 = SD
Assessment Tool? Professional Development 2=D
Assessment Tool? 3 = NA
4=A
5 = SA

What are the differences in Ho2 There are no statistically Two Groups: Participants’ Learning T-test for independent
participants’ learning in significant differences in
professional development participants’ learning in
variables
training between public professional development
Public Educators Weighted Means
educators and corporate training between public 1 = SD
employees as measured by the educators and corporate Corporate Employees 2=D
Professional Development employees as measured by the
Assessment Tool? Professional Development 3 = NA
Assessment Tool? 4=A
. 5 = SA
Analysis of Data
• Quantitative
Research Questions Hypothesis Independent Dependent Statistics
Variables Variables
What are the differences in Ho1 There are no statistically Two Groups: Organizational Support T-test for independent
organizational support significant difference in
regarding the professional organizational support
variables
development training between regarding the professional
Public Educators
pubic educators and corporate development training between Weighted Means
employees as measured by the pubic educators and corporate Corporate Employees
Professional Development employees as measured by the
1 = SD
Assessment Tool? Professional Development 2=D
Assessment Tool? 3 = NA
4=A
5 = SA
Analysis of Data
Qualitative

Surveys/Questionnaire
& Interviews

Coding Using Use Frequency Table


NVivo Percentages will be
Record all I hear
Software Calculated and Listed
In Descending order
Analysis of Data
Quantitative

TEA/Districts/School Data/
Companies HR Data base/Fill in the
blanks surveys

Qualitative
Triangulation
Validation

Questionnaires of
Interview of employees
Educators &
Corporate Management
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.