\ 1.": ":IY‘S‘“ ..I . . ..2 4.: '.-|.‘|..II:..I..1§II.~\1II.- I;.I.~- {I n.- .I c .1 .I I; I! wanna \ IIIII.IIII.I...I . I. . ...-I- .I .. II1|--II:III:I - Is . I—. If‘. .3‘ -:.‘I l ||.II.III.I .I-I- NJ." 1:. .II III . I 1 l - III, . . '- I 2.11. m in}? . - - . I I. I . 1 II .1 - l. I .1 - . ~ » .,"..,. Lg; . . . I.I, . 1 .I . .II ._I|. .,I II. 1. 1 .1 s IIII|I.1|.II..-I. II a; II; A. ( VL I i . I- l .4... .. .. I .. . 1 I \‘1:L-'-1..~r. hi. “I... . . I H. I |I:.I .- |.2IsI.II.-~.~II.1.I.II.-.I .. . . .I l I.I I: . » I.- I ll.\ \ 1 . . 2 l I. . r .t .I.. .. . ._'..U III- . V ..._ I. I .JII... . .II/ .I I ...I.I.‘>II‘...if ‘-".-I’ . . I ,I U I ;.. - a“. ‘12? . ..,.. I 4:13.111 «.- . F [\I:. \II |/.1I: III-III- :"i‘ii 1... u I I I 4.. h I. Ian. ..I III... .. . .I .I. I... I. .III._ 1 1A 5: I‘m“... .. I I - u.. .‘L‘ )II'IIz “ ‘ II.‘..|II1..'I..| \ .. .I , I I.I.III 1 u.I. r . 3.4 'III' k .I I .nv'u II‘uV‘I — . I I. hi I}: I I.- .I \ \‘ M ’l \ I . l \ t 1 x ' I l . I. ‘4“ II I I I. .: Io Huh." (L ._ . IIIIIII "I|?-|I‘.I.I|I I ' IL I . - I . I IuI-I. II...-II II: I... II - .I I . Ian. LII-$1.“ I, I .I t A . “.42 I “J1, |.I' I». I...I...I.I..|.'.I1I.I‘ r u .11“ ‘Vdnlu «V; .l" l h:~u:1\I\~IZ-fik M:\W II II ' IVAII _I - III ‘IIIJIIIL'|H I‘L.‘ .tfh.‘ ‘III,.:II..I.| I - I L mm...- -- 1s... ILI‘mI‘II II. .I 1 “1.:- J.1Ik.\l.l|r§il ..II. . II. I . u- I I- .«J v\ ..C\||I.|II.: I III 4.9m I | ‘J .I~..I|.|1. .IJI . .. .... II - I. .IIN.I.I.I.'. I II I - 'I.I'.I .1qu .. In I... . 3...». '4‘1‘L‘X-l-(\ .Iqu . mm I ¢ 3.. :I ‘u 1 II." c.......'II. .I, I“... III. .w vn'III' .If...» I IM'fL .. . . ..I. T . I I. ...H....;:; .. .I I .1...“ I. I. I I.I , I . 4 I . r-mmv _|I I. I.. An... In .- v.45." I . I I .II .I1....I wiIIIIII:.I..;I‘IIiII:. . .11 . II‘ I I .IuI My: ‘ I :« 11.5.1”. «In. . _‘ .3 .1511}; .'|. I m- m .«I. I . "1% _. m u . 1 ... : “““mfif‘ .. _ \ . ‘1de s‘gll.‘ 4.4 I .' Ir '1..II‘| .I.I “mu I L.“ . .. II , ,- .n. I. I....n:. 4 U .N. .I I .4 I 3_ g “v.4... L“. I I ... I. I I If...“ I... Hfl-Vl\lth '14..I.| . .. - - II.III II . u I. .III'.I- um; I I. - ?‘ . I/..l'|l,l. 1.11 . - 11 .I \I... ”A.“ . I. I .4 .I | L ' XI“ . . -L'..‘ huuulu - 7 . I l‘ .. mm: “It... \ u..- . II -II .3 Mn . run- 1 I..‘ 1 I II.. ». .IIJ I.IIIII.II,.. |I A I u 4 I . v . | ‘L I I i. .I « MI . ' . I.a.| I . I u mlhl‘-" H-.. . JXI .. . III I . (‘1‘ . .II;IIII'. I...III‘. . . '.. I 4 l I a menu“. Ix ' ‘ I I um l ‘34.“ I 1 - I . IL I [Al-K I I _ 3.13341” .III. 1” -. . .. \f- u. u r ' In I. (L: \Iri'fii 3.4 1'.“ I... l l “(’1‘ I. ‘ MI- qu .LIII‘L A I...“ ‘ .I.I‘€:1......‘ II.‘ ..;...I:;I..III_ . .I..... \x IIIII 61¢ III N,“ r . NIII. Hun-«u: ' II It Al.“ I '-"..“Z I-...,I I“ ‘11 “L I. ‘41. .w l L-u;IIIIII.;II“ .III.I__-ul_ I quhIIavl .{.I.1. mu... (“I‘ltrlh II. ' |J.~"Il'..llVI-h um III: I:- .II. I . .I .4 I... I.I.I.I. ..I Ifii;.1.-.I.I.I IN . mm. In.» I ll-l‘ II. 4.. 3...). 4...- MLIIII... :4 «IIII l ‘ J“ .i‘ I. I.I i I uu-I II'|‘-.1I.I'_ I... '54 “HI. .. .I;.III .l “I Jan. iv. v «an; ...I “I 'I ‘ .4 I ~ I . I In: . Im I.I.|I.I.. . L' I .ImTI-I :III-III. I. IIII... l I l I: q ‘ .I III I .I 'I.:I-J.‘:%I;. ”3.1.. ,. 1 1_ u "I.€-.l.’~.‘-I1 . l 1‘ 1 ' ,‘ 1‘ I .I II I . . EL L . , . , . l I“ .|. I. , . . -I. II...“ I . |.. I I __ .II. . - I1 II? a Mu.” 124:3. JIM. .un ‘. . I I ..~.. . . , ._ w 'I' uI. L Imu. I.“ I In; 1'! .. n. III . .k :1: . , V|I' .m; 5 le‘ '1 us“ I.IIIIII.IE.I{_I- l ., :I .f «I. I \l- m. I. IQ"... . .I .IIIII I .«.I _ l 7M..1.._!' I I ._ . II. I :2 :7: , - I- ..I.. :I .. - I... 1.2:; I . ~‘ In: 41%;: ......p...,.. . ..__ “WWI; ; . .. .. _ I .. _._,I.:. ..L' _f. ' ,.,. ~I: ...I. “"5: z. 3. . I u . I. .‘_ \ II 11.}: IIIII- I. u- k .III..I;| III .u‘j‘ l;.' .41... rl‘;\-u" l I .1 .II. II.“ kl ‘I.I.| "t‘ <(“l I'IIE I...~I-II I I -.I I»! (.1 . I- III ~“‘|7n|1'. . .. I”... I _. .,'.... . ,q l .1 llllw 1 :L 3 1293 00903 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE IN MIDDLE-LEVEL SCHOOLS presented by Jennifer Putnam Cheal has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. dqyeehlEducational Administration Wm" Major profegshr Date July 2, I990 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 Michigan State 3 LIBRARY ! University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE jUN . 4:994 a We 2 o 1996‘ MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution c:\cIrc\datedue.pm3-p,1 ‘________ ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE IN MIDDLE-LEVEL SCHOOLS By Jennifer Putnam Cheal A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1990 .) L21} l' 1 axI::.. ABSTRACT ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE IN MIDDLE-LEVEL SCHOOLS By Jennifer Putnam Cheal The climate of organizations and its relationship to both the quality of production/service outcomes and job satisfaction have received extensive attention in both research and popular literature. During the past 30 years, researchers have explored the organizational climate in industry and business, as well as in colleges, secondary, and elementary schools. In school settings, organizational climate is of interest to administrators, teachers, parents, and students as it has been found to affect many student outcomes, including cognitive and affective behavior, values, and personal growth and satisfaction. However, there is a lack Of research measuring the organizational climate of middle-level schools and its relationship to organizational effectiveness and job satisfaction. Working from the elementary school organizational climate study of Halpin and Croft (l962), the secondary revision undertaken by Kottkamp, Mulhern, and Hoy (1987), the expectancy and motivation research Of Miskel (1962), the measurement of social interactions between teachers and students (Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, I962), and Jennifer Putnam Cheal effective schools literature, the researcher developed an instrument for the measurement Of middle-level organizational climate. Participants for this study were randomly selected from the public middle-level schools in Michigan. Data for the study were collected from the 1,739 individuals representing the 88 middle- level schools that participated in this project. As a result Of numerous factor analyses and reliability analyses, a valid and reliable instrument describing seven dimensions of middle-level school climate was developed. Two dimensions describe the behaviors of the building principal(s) and five pertain to the behavior Of the teachers as a group. Various second-order factor solutions were examined to explore the interrelationships among the seven climate dimensions. In addition, several relationships involving building teacher age, average teacher experience, building gender composition, and instructional organization were examined to help explain school differences in organizational climate. Co-directors: Dr. Frederick Ignatovich Dr. Samuel Moore 11 Copyright by JENNIFER PUTNAM CHEAL I990 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to numerous people who helped make this study a reality. I especially owe a great deal of gratitude to the middle- level teachers, principals, and their superintendents who participated in this project. These people, who must remain anonymous, gave generously of their time and insights. Special thanks are extended to Dr. Louis Romano, MAMSE; Don Elliott, MASA; Jack Bittle, MASSP; and Jack Brisendine, MASSP, for their generous support and encouragement. Dr. George Ferree and Dr. Robert Poland, who graciously agreed to serve on my committee, facilitated the completion of this project at every Opportunity. Dr. Samuel Moore II, co-chairperson of this study and advisor for my doctoral program, consistently was insightful, supportive, and encouraging throughout my entire program at Michigan State University and is a sustaining source of inspiration for this practitioner. Dr. Frederick Ignatovich, co-chairperson of this study, not only' provided intellectual stimulation for this work, but also devoted long hours of personal time to the process of developing and refining the necessary computer programs. There is no question that this study would not have been completed without his tenacious commitment to the statistical precision required in this project. His intense commitment to quality research and genuine concern for my intellectual growth throughout this project are sincerely appreciated. Finally, I wish to recognize the sacrifices Of my husband, William, whose unselfish support, patience, and home management permitted me to balance full-time employment and serious graduate study. Dedication Of this project, however, is extended to my mother, Charlotte Putnam, who taught me that any goal is possible through dedication, perseverance, and hard work. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................... LIST OF FIGURES ....................... LIST OF APPENDICES . . .' .................. Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .................... Background .................... Statement of the Problem ............. Purpose of the Study ............... Significance Of the Study ............. Research Questions ................ Procedural Design ................. Limitations of the Study ............. Definition of Terms ................ II. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND RESEARCH ..... Introduction ................... Conceptual Development of Organizational Climate Organizational Climate Research .......... Major Organizational Climate Measurement Instruments in K-lZ School Settings ....... Unit of Analysis ................. Conceptual Framework for Middle-Level Climate . . . Dimension I ................... Dimension II .................. Dimension III .................. Dimension IV .................. Dimension V Dimension VI .................. Dimension VII .................. Attitude Inventories ............... Organizational Climate Relative to Selected Independent Variables .............. ooooooooooooooooooo Teacher Age and Teacher Experience ....... 48 Teacher Gender ................. 49 Instructional Organization ........... 51 Chapter Summary .................. 52 III. METHODOLOGY ..................... 54 Instrument Development .............. 54 Field Test of Preliminary Instrument ....... 55 Middle-Level Climate Survey--Initia1 Form ..... 58 Sampling Procedures ................ 61 Data Collection .................. 62 Sample Returns ' .................. 64 Summary of Sample Returns ............ 71 Treatment of Data ................. 72 Analysis Procedures for Research Questions . . . . 75 Chapter Summary .................. 77 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA .................. 79 The Problem Reviewed ............... 79 Summary of Analysis Procedures .......... 80 Analysis Procedures: Dimensions of Middle-Level Organizational Climate ............. 80 Analysis Of the Seven Final Dimensions of the Middle School Organizational Climate Survey . . . 97 Dimension 1: EXPECTANCY AND MOTIVATION ..... 97 Dimension 11: ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT ...... 99 Dimension 111: PUPIL CONTROL BEHAVIOR ..... 100 Dimension IV: TANGIBLE ENVIRONMENT ....... 100 Dimension V: ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL ...... 101 Dimension VI: TEACHER INTIMACY ......... 102 Dimension VII: TEACHER FRUSTRATION ....... 102 Summary: Identification of Items by Source . . . 103 Second-Order Factor Analysis ........... 104 Independent Variables and Organizational Climate . 105 Average Age of Teaching Staff .......... 105 Average Years of Teaching Experience ...... 114 Composition of Faculty Gender .......... 120 Instructional Organization ........... 122 Chapter Summary .................. 128 V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ................ 134 Summary of Findings ................ 134 Dimensions of Middle-Level Organizational Climate .................... 134 Second-Order Factor Solution .......... 137 viii Page Exploration of Independent Variables and Climate Factors ................ 137 Discussion and Implications for Future Research . . 138 Comparison of Elementary, Secondary, and Middle-Level Organizational Climate Dimensions .................. 139 Implications for Middle-Level Educators ..... 145 Important Considerations for Future Instrument Use ...................... 147 Middle School Organizational Climate Survey- Final Form: Reduced Items .......... 150 Second-Order Factor Solution .......... 157 Independent Variables .............. 159 Generalizability ................. 161 APPENDICES ......................... 162 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ 214 viii Table awwwwwwwww mooumm-a-wm La .9 0 LIST OF TABLES School Building Membership .............. Professional Instructional Staff Membership ..... Teacher/Student Ratio ................ State Equalized Valuation (SEV) Per State Aid Member . Community Type .................... Chi-Square Distribution by Community Type ...... Median Household Income ............... MEAP Math Scores (Category 4) ............ MEAP Reading Scores (Category 4) ........... MEAP Science Scores (Category 4) ........... Initial Factor Analysis: Principal Components Extraction, 88-Item Set .............. Initial Factor Analysis: Principal Components Extraction, 88-Item Set .............. Rotated Factor Matrix--Seven Factors Specified: Principal Components, 88-Item Set ......... Principal Components Extraction--Seven Factors Specified, 88-Item Set ............... Reliability Analysis--A11 Items Greater Than .40: Seven-Factor Solution ............... Rotated Factor Matrix--Seven-Factor Solution: Reduced 70-Item Set ................ Reduced Item Set--Seven-Factor Solution: Percentage of Variance .................... Page 65 66 66 67 68 68 69 70 70 71 81 86 89 91 92 94 96 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 Item Identification, Alpha Reliability Coefficients, and Percentage of Variance for MSOCS-FF Subtests in Both the Preliminary and Final Data Sets Initial Second-Order Factor Analysis: Percentage of Variance .................... Initial Second-Order Factor Matrix: Rotated Factor Matrix ................... Initial Second-Order Factor Solution: Correlation Matrix ....................... One-Hay Analysis of Variance: Seven Climate Scales/ Average Age of Teaching Staff ........... One-Hay Analysis of Variance: Seven Climate Scales/ Average Years of Teaching Experience ........ One-Hay Analysis of Variance: Seven Climate Scales/ Percentage Female Teachers ............. One-Hay Analysis of Variance: Seven Climate Scales/ Average Instructional Design ............ Comparison of Dimensions and Corresponding Relia- bility Coefficients Present in the Organizational Climate Of Elementary, Secondary, and Middle- Level Schools ................... Rotated Factor Matrix: Middle School Organiza- tional Climate Survey-Final Form, Reduced Items (MSOCS-FF-RI) ................... Item Identification for the Preliminary, Final, and Reduced-Item Data Sets ............. Alpha Reliability and Percentage of Variance for Subtests in the Preliminary, Final, and Reduced Instruments .................... Major School Climate Instruments, Categorized by Tagiuri’s Climate Taxonomy ............. xi Page 98 106 107 107 110 116 123 129 140 152 154 155 162 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4.1 Scree Test: Principal Components, 88-Item Set . . . . 87 4.2 Initia1 Second~0rder Factor Solution: Scree Test . . 106 4.3 Average Age of Teachers ............... 109 4.4 Average Teaching Experience ............. 115 4.5 Percentage of Female Teachers ............ 121 4.6 Instructional Organization .............. 127 xii Appendix A. LIST OF APPENDICES MAJOR SCHOOL CLIMATE INSTRUMENTS, CATEGORIZED BY TAGIURI’S CLIMATE TAXONOMY ........... PANEL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL EXPERT JUDGES ....... LETTER FROM MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATORS ................ PERMISSION TO USE PUBLISHED INSTRUMENTS ...... MIDDLE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY- INITIAL FORM (CLASSIFIED INTO HYPOTHESIZED FACTORS) .................... LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS) SUPERINTENDENT CORRESPONDENCE ........... MIDDLE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY . . . . SUPERINTENDENT FOLLOW-UP TRANSMITTAL ....... PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE ............. SURVEY ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION ......... SURVEY FOLLOW-UP CORRESPONDENCE .......... MIDDLE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY- REVISED SET ................... MIDDLE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SCALE- FINAL FORM ................... MIDDLE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY- FINAL FORM: REDUCED ITEMS ........... xiii Page 162 165 168 169 173 179 180 182 189 190 192 194 195 201 208 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background The climate of organizations and its relationship to both the quality of production/service outcomes and job satisfaction have received extensive attention within both research and popular literature (Argyris, 1958; Austin & Garber, 1985; Brookover, Beady, Flood, Schweitzer, & Nisenbaker, 1979; Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Brookover' et a1., 1978; Feldvebel, 1964; Lezotte & Passalacqua, 1978; Ouchi & Johnson, 1978; Stevens, 1987). Members within an organization share experiences and assumptions that form the ontological structure of their work place. This commonality serves to influence the individuals’ perceptions of what occurs, as well as affecting their behaviors. The extent to which members share certain values and beliefs is central to the concept defined as organizational climate. During the past 30 years, researchers have explored the organizational climate in industry and business as well as in colleges and secondary and e1ementary schools. However, there is a lack of research measuring the organizational climate of middle- level schools and its relationship to organizational effectiveness and job satisfaction. Ongoing theoretical and applied organizational climate research is continuing to make educational leaders aware of how social variables can influence school effectiveness. Hithin school settings, organizational climate is of interest to administrators, teachers, parents, and students as it has been found to affect many student outcomes including cognitive and affective behavior (Barker, 1963; Brookover et a1., 1978; Lezotte & Passalacqua, 1978), values (Vyskocil a Goens, 1979), and the personal growth and satisfaction of students (Coyne, 1975; Vyskocil & Goens, 1979). Halpin and Croft (1962) were among the first to develop an organizational climate instrument specifically designed for research in a school setting. Through their examination of the literature, Halpin and Croft identified nine components necessary for the identification Of an elementary school’s climate. Their instrument, however, purports to measure only the social interactions that occur between the teachers and the principal. Through factor-analytic methods using the individual as the unit of analysis, the dimensions of organizational climate present 'hi an elementary school setting are Operationalized through eight subtests. Four Of the subtests pertain to the characteristics Of the teachers as a group and the other four to the characteristics of the principal as a leader. Retaining the individual as the unit of analysis, Halpin and Croft subjected the scores from the eight subtests to a second-order factor analysis, which revealed three underlying factors. These components were used to produce a climate prototype continuum from "open" to "closed." Concerned with the development of an instrument for the measurement of organizational climate within a secondary school setting, Kottkamp, Mulhern, and Hay (1987) replicated, with some modifications, the research Of Halpin and Croft. Using the secondary school group rather than individuals within the elementary school as the unit of analysis, they replaced, modified, or omitted items from the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (0CDQ). In addition to the OCDQ items that measure the social interactions between the principal and teachers, Kottkamp et al. used scales from other researchers to explore relationships between additional variables and their climate subtests. Working from the research Of Willower, Eidell, and Hoy (1967), they explored the dimension of social interactions between teachers and their students. In addition, correlations between responses on Miskel’s Expectancy Motivation Scale (1982) and the climate subtests identified in the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire- Revised Secondary (OCDQ-RS) were used to explore the relationship between teachers’ expectancy motivation and their school’s climate Openness score. The research of Kottkamp et a1. indicated that secondary schools with more Open climates had teachers who had a higher expectancy motivation than secondary schools with less open climates. Also, they found that the more humanistic the pupil- control ideology of teachers in secondary schools, the higher the expectancy motivation of those secondary school teachers. Through factor-analytic techniques, the dimensions of organizational climate present in secondary school settings were Operationalized through five subtests. Two of the subtests pertain to the characteristics of the principal as a leader and the other three to the teachers as a group. The five subtests were subjected to a second-order factor analysis, which revealed a two-factor underlying structure. One factor contained two subtests pertaining to the principal and two subtests pertaining to the teachers as a group. Collectively, these four subtests interrelate to form a climate Openness scale. The fifth subtest, pertaining tO the social interaction of the faculty, emerged as a single independent factor in the second—order solution. Statement of the Problem The research of Halpin and Croft (1962) and Kottkamp et a1. (1987) has contributed to the understanding Of the kinds of behaviors on the part of teachers and principals that are associated with the organizational climate differences found in various elementary and secondary schools. The problem identified in this study is the lack of comparable organizational climate measurement scales for use 'hi middle-level schools. Due to a lack of research in middle schools, middle-level schools must currently use organizational climate scales developed and tested in the elementary or secondary school setting. The middle—level school serves children typically between the ages of 10 and 14. This period of human development bridges the gap between elementary childhood and high school adolescence. Educators concerned with this preadolescence stage have recognized that this unique period of human development is characterized by rapid social, emotional, intellectual, and physical changes (Eichorn, 1968). The need to address this developmental age group was recognized as early as 1888, when secondary education was reorganized by Charles W. Eliot, President Of Harvard University. The first junior high school was opened in 1909 in Columbus, Ohio, which paralleled developmental psychologists recognizing the uniqueness Of early adolescence and the need for a special program (Klingele, 1979). This period of rapid maturational development structures the philosophical basis for middle-level schools. Curriculum, instructional strategies, personnel, and structural facilities are developed as an educational program distinct from both the self- contained elementary schools and departmentalized senior high schools. Middle-level schools are organizational environments as unique as the students they serve. Consequently, this study was based on the assumption that organizational climate scales used in a middle- 1evel setting should be developed and psychometrically defended within the environments they purport to measure. Purpose of the Study The writer’s primary purpose in this study was to operationalize the construct of climate through the development of an instrument. to identify and describe the dimensions that are present in the organizational climate of middle-level schools. Working at the middle-school level, the dimensionality of organizational climate was explored through a review Of the related literature and scales developed by previous researchers. A11 33 items from Kottkamp et al.’s (1987) OCDQ-RS and 13 items common to both Kottkamp et al.’s and Halpin and Croft’s (1962) instruments were included in the initial form of this instrument. In addition, the dimensions of pupil control behavior and expectancy and motivation were incorporated by including modified items from Willower’s (1967) Pupil Control Ideology Scale and Miskel’s (1982) Expectancy Motivation Scale. Developed from a review Of the literature, 64 original items were included for use in the initial form of 'the middle-level climate survey. These items, not contained in the instruments cited above, were used to represent the dimensions hypothesized to be present in the organizational climate of middle-level schools. Given an identified dimensionality of middle-level organiza- tional climate, the writer’s second purpose in this study was to explore whether or not the various dimensions relate to each other through an examination Of a second-order factor solution of organizational climate. The identification Of a defined factor structure also allowed a third research purpose. A stable factor structure permitted a review of various independent variables to explore whether or not they had an influence on the differences found in the dimensions of organizational climate. Significance of the Stggy Using the comprehensive studies of Halpin and Croft (l962), Kottkamp et a1. (1987), Miskel (1982), and Willower et a1. (1967), along with original items generated from related literature that were designed to address the unique characteristics of middle-level schools, an attempt was made to identify the domain of organizational climate in selected middle-level public schools. It is hoped that this study will contribute to the understanding Of the kinds Of behaviors on the part of teachers and principals that are associated with the differences found in various middle-level school organizational climates. Definition of these differences could be useful to the research community fOr comparisons of organizational climate differences in elementary, secondary, and middle-level school settings. The development of a valid and reliable instrument for the measurement of organizational climate in middle-level schools could be of practical use as applied in middle school settings. Identification, definition, and measurement of organizational climate dimensions will permit practitioners to analyze a school’s climate and develop a plan to support change in organizational effectiveness and job satisfaction. Teacher age, experience, and gender are factors that influence school district issues such as the selection, retention, transfer, and promotion Of school personnel. Identified variables that account for differences in the dimensions of organizational climate will Offer additional information for educational leaders responsible for future policies and procedures. Teaming as an instructional strategy has been identified as an important factor in determining an effective middle school program (Romano, Georgiady, G Heald, 1973). A comparison of the different instructional arrangements in middle-level schools and their relationship to the dimensions of organizational climate could serve to disclose an additional rationale in support of various organiza- tional strategies. Resear h uestions I. a. What are the number Of dimensions present in the organizational climate of middle-level schools? b. What are the qualities Of the climate dimensions that are identified to be present in middle-level school settings? Working from the related literature, seven dimensions were hypothesized to represent the organizational climate in middle-level school settings. The following descriptions define the seven concepts and structure the organization of the items chosen to represent the various dimensions. Dimension 1: Principal(s) efforts to control the internal functioning of their school through the coordination of work. This dimension describes actions by the principal(s) that are interpreted by the faculty as controlling and authoritarian in nature. Dimension 11: Interactions between the building principal(s) and the instructional staff that serve to create a climate that is perceived to be a cooperative working environment by the faculty. Dimension II: Interactions between the teachers and their students that indicate the degree of control exerted over the student population. This dimension measures the faculty’s perception of the level of control needed to maintain an educationally conducive climate. Dimension IV: The faculty’s force of motivation toward their school’s academic orientation to student achievement. This dimension was measured through the faculty’s perception of expectancy, instrumentality, and valence as rewards for their collective efforts. Dimension V: The faculty’s perceptions of their colleagues’ attitudes toward their professional relationships. This dimension reflects the staff’s interpretations of the professional attitudes and actions of their peers. Dimension VI: Teachers’ close social relationships among faculty members. This dimension reflects the teachers’ perception of personal social interactions among staff members. Qjmension VII: The physical and material aspects Of an organization as perceived by the faculty. II. a. If through statistical procedures the dimensions of organizational climate can be defined, will they reduce to a second-order factor solution? 10 b. If the dimensions do reduce to a second-order factor solution, what are the qualities of this underlying structure? III. If, once again, the dimensions of organizational climate can be defined, do the independent variables of teacher age, teacher experience, teacher gender, and instructional organization account for differences in organizational climate in middle-level schools? a. What effect does the average age of a teaching staff have on the dimensions of organizational climate in a middle-level school? b. What effect does the level of years of experience have on the various dimensions of organizational climate in a middle-level school setting? c. What effect does the percentage of faculty gender have on the dimensions of organizational climate ir: a middle-level school? d. What effect does the instructional organization of a middle-level school have on the dimensions Of organiza- tional climate? Pr cedur es‘ n Working from a review of the research literature, seven dimensions were identified to serve as the structural base for the development Of an instrument to measure organizational climate in middle-level settings. Drawing from the research of Halpin and Croft (1962), Kottkamp et al. (1987), Willower et a1. (1967), and ll Miskel (1982), as well as additional related literature, items were modified and created to represent each of the seven identified climate dimensions. A panel of middle-level expert judges assisted in the field testing and content validity of the preliminary form Of the survey. Following a modification of the survey instrument, a revised survey form was developed for use in this research. Two hundred thirty- five middle-level schools in Michigan were randomly selected to participate in this study and asked to respond to the Middle School Organizational Climate Survey-Initia1 Form (MSOCS-IF). The data for this study were Obtained through a series of mailed-survey procedures. The data were subjected to numerous clerical and analytical procedures before arriving at final identification of climate dimensions. Limitations of the Study The population for this study was defined as the middle-level schools in Michigan. Although the sample was randomly drawn from the Michigan population, participation in this research study was voluntary and, therefore, subject to a degree of self-selection. To provide for consistency in this study, standardized procedures were defined for the administration of the climate survey. However, completion and collection of the survey instruments were accomplished at the building level and were subject to indeterminate modifications. 12 NO attempt was made to verify the percentage of building staff members who did not participate in this study or who may have chosen to respond in an unauthentic manner to the survey items. Definition of Terms Organizational climate. The interrelatedness of situational and personnel factors within an organization, which creates an internal working environment. The construct of climate is defined through the perceptions of the workers functioning within the organization. Middle-level school. A public educational institution that draws its median membership from the 10- to 14-year-old population. Middle-level student. A student in the pre-adolescence stage Of development often referred to as "transescence." Eichorn (1968) defined transescence as follows: Transescence is the stage of development which begins prior to the onset of puberty and extends through the early stages of adolescence. Since puberty does not occur precisely at the same chronological age in human development, the transescent designation is based on the changes that appear prior to the puberty cycle to the time when the body gains a practical degree Of stabilization over these complex changes. (p. 11) Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (0CDQ). Developed by Halpin and Croft (1962), this is one of the first organizational climate instruments specifically designed fOr research in a school setting. This instrument purports to measure the social interactions that occur between the teachers and the principal in an elementary school. 13 Organizatignel Climete Description Questionnaire-Revised Secondery (OCDQ-RS). Instrument used in a replication of the study of Halpin and Croft using the secondary school as the unit of study. Kottkamp et a1. (1987) also explored the social interactions between teachers and their students and the relationship between academic expectancy/motivation and organizational climate. Eupjl contrgl behavigr (PCB). A research study by Willower et a1. (1967) that adopted a complex topography for the measurement of student control that uses a continuum ranging from "custodialism" at one end to "humanism" at the other extreme. Expectancy and Motivation Scale. Measurement scale developed by Miskel (1982), which uses the aggregate expectancy motivation of faculty members to characterize the academic orientation of that school. Independent variable of instructional organization. Organiza- tion of students for the purpose of instructional services. Each middle-level school was assigned an aggregate score based on its level of participation in the following organizational strategies: 1. Self-contained classroom-~0ne teacher and one group of students for all academic subjects for an extended period of time. 2. Departmentalized--one teacher instructs different groups of students in his/her area of certification for a discrete period of time. 3. Teaming-~two or more teachers together plan, teach, and evaluate a selected number of students. 14 Independent variable of tflher ege. Computation of average teacher age for each Of the middle-level buildings to examine the relationship between organizational climate dimensions and the average age of the faculty. Independent variable of teacher experience. Computation Of average number of years Of teaching experience for each Of the middle-level schools to examine the relationship between organiza- tional climate and the level of years of faculty experience. Independent variable of teacher gender. Computation of the percentage of building faculty gender for use in the examination Of the relationship between organizational climate dimensions and faculty gender percentage. Organization of the Dissertation This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter I served as an introduction and rationale, as well as outlining a brief overview Of the report. The relevant literature and research that served as the conceptual framework for this study are reviewed in Chapter II. The climate instrument design and the methodology used in collecting and analyzing the data for this research project are discussed in Chapter III. The study findings are presented in Chapter IV. In Chapter V, closure is brought to this project through a summary discussion of the findings, and implications and recommendations for future research. CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND RESEARCH Introduction The concept of organizational climate has been a concern of both organizational theorists and practitioners for ‘the past 30 years. A. common theme throughout the various climate research disciplines is the agreement that climate is an abstract, individual perception that may occur at an organizational, group, and/or individual level (Field & Abelson, 1982). Tagiuri (1968) proposed a definition that is suitable for use within the various disciplines studying the effects of organizational climate: Climate is the relatively enduring quality of the internal environment of an organization that (a) is experienced by its members, (b) influences their behavior, and (c) can be described in terms of the values Of a particular set Of characteristics (or attributes) Of the organization. (p. 27) Indeed, studying human behavior in any organizational setting demands "ordering and conceptualizing a buzzing confusion of simultaneously existing, multilevel, mutually interacting variables" (Argyris, 1958, p. 501). Conceptual Development of Organizational Climate Early behavioral psychologists explained human activity simply through the chained association of a stimulus to a response. Stimulus-response psychology, however, tends to assimilate the 15 16 entire environment into the term "stimulus,“ consequently taking many environmental features for granted. Yet many aspects of the environment, when singled out for attention, are not assimilable into any proper definition of ”stimulus." Concerned with a clearer analysis of the components that created the stimulus environment, early research by Lewin and Tolman began an examination of the intrapersonal segment of a stimulus experience. Later, searching within as well as outside the individual for explanations Of behavior, psychologists used the term "ecological environment" to describe the summation of events in which a behavior is involved. The ecological environment presents an array of events that interact and transform into an ordered output or response. Furthermore, Barker (1963) stated that the ecological environment does not demand a particular behavior, but that it is, rather, permissive, supportive, or resistive to the resulting response behavior. The events in the environment were now seen to imply a triggering function for the response, as in stimulating, evoking, or instigating the resultant behavior. Neurophysiologists and contemporary psychologists began to identify the brain as the selector of the stimuli that caused the response behavior. With this theory, dispositions of personality, combined with specific and transient situational influences, were believed to determine the direction, vigor, and persistence of action (Atkinson & Cartwright, 1964). The concept of organizational climate began to take shape as psychologists and sociologists continued their evaluations of the l7 objective physical and social environments in which individuals were immersed. Organizational Climate Research Early organizational climate research, from which school climate research has evolved, began in industrial and business settings. Argyris (1958), in his case study of interpersonal relations in a bank, pointed to the pervasive influences of an organizational environment, particularly on employee morale, productivity, and turnover. Researchers agreed that the working environment had an important influence on employees, but developed divergent theories on both the underlying concepts and measurement techniques to be employed. While business and industry were focusing on situational characteristics that affected individual behavior, educators were still preoccupied with differences within the individual. The 19605, however, brought. greater' awareness that schools were not providing an equal education for all children. Whether individual differences were attributed to genetic or environmental factors, researchers consistently disclosed that schools had little effect on achievement when social class was held constant. Schools appeared unable to overcome initial individual learner differences in students who attended different schools. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 initiated the reevaluation of American education. The Coleman Report (1966), along with federal evaluations of the 1965 compensatory education programs, provided 18 evidence that challenged the "individual-differences" theory. Gradually, educational researchers shifted their causal assumptions away from the psychology of individual differences--the problem is within the student--to the school as a uniquely fUnctioning social system--why do some schools function better than others? (Austin & Garber, 1985). One important long-term finding of the Coleman Report was that resources expended in a school do not have as much influence on achievement as the social-psychological processes and norms that characterize interactions between staff and students within the school. One of the first attempts to study the school social system rather than the educability of individual students was the work on school climate. Early instrument development in school climate was found to be closely linked to the instruments and theory in organizational climate research of business and industry (Anderson, 1982). Major Organizational Climate Measurement Instruments in K-12 School Settinqs In an analysis of the recurring pattern of relationships that emerged from the organizational climate literature, Tagiuri (1968) identified four major dimensions he found present in the environmental quality of an organization. This organizing taxonomy includes the following dimensions: a. Ecology--the physical and material aspects; b. Milieu--the social dimension concerned with the presence Of persons and groups; 19 c. Social system--the social dimension concerned with the patterned relationships of persons and groups; and d. Culture--the social dimension concerned with belief systems, values, cognitive structures, and meaning. (pp. 21-22) The major organizational climate measurement instruments used in K-12 school settings have been sorted into Tagiuri’s organizing scheme and listed in Appendix A as analyzed by Anderson (1982) and Mulhern (1984). Anderson (1982) found the topology formed by these broad environmental dimensions to be a useful organizing device in the delineation of school climate literature, although she cautioned that the assignment criteria may be somewhat arbitrary. Tagiuri’s dimensions are perhaps too broad to be precisely defined in an operational sense, and some of the dimensions seem to overlap considerably. Still, the pattern of relationships of the factors measured by major climate instruments does appear to be heavily weighted conceptually in the direction of social system and cultural constructs. Anderson (1982) found that most instruments used to measure organizational climate in schools are really designed to address a limited number of variables within the broad social systems and cultural dimensions of the school organization. Halpin and Croft (1962) were among the first to develop an organizational climate instrument specifically designed for research in a school setting. Indeed, the influence of the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) has been 20 widely recognized by researchers, reviewers, and practitioners (Brown & House, 1967; Thomas, 1976). In the early 19605, Halpin and Croft began a preliminary study to describe and differentiate the organizational climates of elementary schools. They identified numerous components necessary for identification of a school’s climate: the socioeconomic status of the school’s patrons, the biographical and personality characteristics of the principal and teachers, the "quality" of the students, the attitudes of parents toward the school, the school’s physical plant, the teachers’ salary schedule, the educational and administrative policies of the school district, the location of the school, and especially the social interactions that occur between the teachers and the principal. In developing their survey instrument, Halpin and Croft (1962) stated that, in their context, organizational climate referred "exclusively to 'the social interaction between the principal and teachers-—to the social component of the organizational climate" (p. 9). Through their examination of the literature preceding the construction of the OCDQ, Halpin and Croft selected three schemata, which they used for classifying the attributes of leadership and group behavior. The OCDQ items then were generated to reflect categories represented by one of three basic taxonomies commonly used for classifying group phenomena. The first group of classifications used the following originators for group interactions: 21 l. Interactions determined primarily by the leader’s behavior; 2. Behavior attributable to characteristics of the group gee group; 3. Interactions determined by procedures or by actions of an executive in a position hierarchically superior to the leader himself (e.g., the superintendent and the Board of Education limit the principal’s range of decisions); and 4. Interactions determined primarily and hence associated directly with the "personality" assets and liabilities of the individual. (Halpin & Croft, 1962, p. 19) A second means fOr classification was based on the "effectiveness" and "ineffectiveness" of the group. Four "ideal types" of organizations were defined through the following cate- gories: (a) the effective organization, (b) the social-needs- oriented organization, (c) the task-oriented organization, and (d) the ineffective organization. The third and final basis for classifying group interactions concerned the relationship between the social needs of the individual and the social control imposed on him/her as a member of a group. To become a member of a group, an individual must sacrifice some measure of freedom. A balance between the satisfaction of an individual’s social needs and the organization’s requirements for social control is created. Individuals submit to social controls that are inherent in the group arrangement and that are frequently reinforced by the norms of the culture. Halpin and Croft (1962) identified the need to account for the balance maintained between the satisfaction of the individual’s social needs and the organization’s requirements for social control as one of the 22 conditions for formulating constructs associated with organizational climates. As their strategy for constructing the OCDQ, Halpin and Croft collected items that represented all the categories encompassed by these three ways of classifying group phenomena. Items were then classified based on how well they fit into the cells of each of the three taxonomies described above. Much of the work of assigning items to the ”correct" cell was done on an intuitive, common-sense basis. Several preliminary instruments were constructed and tested in different samples of schools, and item clusters were reviewed to determine to what extent dominant clusters were consonant with any one or more of the guiding taxonomies. Through this process, items were selected for more rigorous testing. Thus a combination of inductive and deductive methods was used to assemble items for the survey instrument, and these items did, in fact, yield eight subtests that were "verified" by factor analysis before the construction of a final instrument (Halpin & Croft, 1962). The eight dimensions of organizational climate that correspond to the eight subtests of the OCDQ include four dimensions of teacher behavior and four dimensions of principal behavior: Teachers’ Behavior 1. Oisengagement refers to the teacher’s tendency to be just panning the motions in regard to a task-oriented situation. 2. Hingrance refers to the teachers’ perception that the principal is burdening them with unnecessary "busy work." The teachers perceive that the principal is hindering rather than facilitating their work. 23 w Esprit refers to the morale of the staff. 4. Intimacy refers to the teachers’ enjoyment of friendly social relations with each other. Principal’s Behavior 5. Aloofness refers to behavior by the principal that is characterized as formal and impersonal. 6. Production Emphasis refers to behavior by the principal that is characterized by close supervision of the staff in a one-way communication manner. 7. Thrust refers to behavior by the principal that is charac- terized by his/her attempts to motivate through personal example. 8. Consideration refers to behavior by the principal that is characterized by attempts to do personal favors. Retaining the individual as the unit of analysis, the eight subtests were subjected to a second-order factor analysis to see which subtests clustered together. Through this second-order factor analysis procedure, Halpin and Croft (1962) determined that a three- factor solution best represented the underlying structure of the eight subtests. The subtests of Intimacy and Consideration merged to form the factor Social Needs, which represents individual social relationships. Factor two describes behaviors of the group and contains the subtests Esprit and Thrust. Halpin and Croft called this second factor Esprit. The third factor describes social control as exerted by the principal and is composed of the leader subtests Aloofness and Production Emphasis. This third and final factor was entitled Social Control. 24 Shifting to the school as the unit of analysis, a climate prototype continuum was created for use with the OCDQ. Working from the second-order factor structure described above, schoOl profile scores were standardized and subjected to a three-factor solution as determined by the three factors identified in the second-order factor solution. Halpin and Croft (1962) found six major patterns of factor loadings among the profiles and then categorized each school profile with respect to one of these six patterns. The six patterns were named and ranked to create a climate prototype continuum that ranges from "open" on one end to ”closed" at the other extreme. Much criticism has been generated toward the reliability and validity of the open/closed continuum used in the OCDQ (Thomas, 1976; Watkins, 1968). In fact, Halpin and Croft (1962) themselves admitted the limitations of their scale: We have said that these climates have been ranked in respect to Openness versus Closedness. But we fully recognize how crude this ranking is. As is the case in most methods of ranking or scaling, we are much more confident about the climates described at each end of this listing than we are about those described in between. (p. 78) The OCDQ has also received much recent criticism for confounding school (between-group) and individual (within-group) differences (Sirotnik, 1980). The between-group differences are estimated by group means, whereas the within-group differences are estimated by the deviation of an individual’s score from the group mean. This issue is discussed in some detail later in this chapter. 25 According to Brown and House (1967), more than 100 studies on the OCDQ were completed between 1963 and 1967 alone. Indeed, extensive use of the OCDQ in various K-12 settings subsequently led educators to question the validity of the instrument at the high school and junior high levels. In schools that had instructional staffs of more than 25, it was found that the OCDQ was not a suitable measure of organizational climate (Carver & Sergiovanni, 1969; Hoy & Clover, 1986; Watkins, 168). Based on the three major flaws described above and the many changes that have occurred in the staffing, curriculum, and demographic components of American schools in the 26 years since the OCDQ was developed, a secondary revision was undertaken by Kottkamp et al. in 1987. The purpose in developing the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire-Revised Secondary (OCDQ-RS) was to: l. Replicate the OCDQ research using a sample of secondary schools in New Jersey; 2. Expand the scope of the modified organizational climate instrument to include a component for investigating the social interactions between teachers and their students; 3. Identify the academic orientation of each school in terms of expectancy motivation and investigate the relationship between expectancy motivation and the relative openness of school climate; and 4. Investigate the relationship between the expectancy motivation of schools and social interactions that most directly reflect teachers’ attitudes toward their students. (Mulhern, 1984, p. 8) As their strategy for constructing the OCDQ-RS, Kottkamp et al. (1987) reviewed the original 64 items of the OCDQ (Halpin & Croft, 26 1962). Those items judged to be inappropriate for use in secondary schools or found to have poor measurement characteristics were eliminated or modified. As a result of the application of factor- analytic techniques to assess factor patterns and construct validity and the systematic calculation of alpha coefficients to assess reliability, the preliminary form of the OCDQ-RS was revised through elimination and regrouping of items to produce the final instrument form. The resultant OCDQ¥RS contains 33 items that correspond to the following five subtests reflecting two dimensions of principal behavior and three dimensions of teacher behavior: Principal Behavior 1. Principal Support Behavior--Principal works hard, sets example, uses constructive criticism, and is concerned about personal and professional welfare of the staff. 2. Principel Control Behevior--Principal is autocratic, domineering and supervises staff closely. Teacher Behavior 3. Teacher Engagement Behavior--Teachers are enthusiastic, have a positive attitude toward work, and respect each other and their students. 4. Teacher Frustration Behavior--Teachers are frustrated by interference of nonteaching responsibilities and adminis- trative paperwork and are hostile toward each other. 5. Teacher Intimacy Behavio --Teachers socialize with each other and share personal closeness. (Mulhern, 1984, pp. 62- 65) Following the work Of Halpin and Croft (l962), Kottkamp et a1. (1987) subjected their five subtests to a second-order factor solution. Their research, however, revealed a two-factor solution. 27 The first factor contained the subtests of Principal Support Behavior, Principal Control Behavior, Teacher Engagement Behavior, and Teacher Frustration Behavior. The second factor was the single subtest for Teacher Intimacy Behavior. After calculating a standardized subtest score for each school, Kottkamp et a1. developed an openness score, working from the four subtests contained in the first factor. The positive subtests of Principal Support Behavior and Teacher Engagement were summed, and the two negative subtests of Principal Control Behavior and Teacher Frustration were subtracted to produce a standardized openness score. The dimension described by the subtest Teacher Intimacy Behavior addressed staff interaction associated with social need satisfaction and did not contribute to the formula used to determine the openness continuum. The four dimensions described by the subtests included within the openness continuum appear to assess the relative satisfaction of staff’ regarding both task achievement and social needs. This finding was consistent with the conceptualization of openness as described by Halpin and Croft (1962). The Open Climate describes an energetic, lively organization which is moving toward its goals, and which provides satisfaction for the group members’ special needs. Satisfaction regarding both social needs and task achievement appears to be readily attainable by faculty members. The principal sets an example by working hard himself/herself and provides both professional direction and personal support to the staff. Leadership acts emerge appropriately from both the leader and the group. A characteristic of this climate is the authenticity of the behavior that occurs among all the organization members. Schools with open climates tend to have high scores on Principal Support and Teacher Engagement and low scores on Principal Control and Teacher Frustration. 28 The gloseg glimate is characterized by a high degree of frustration on the part of members of the organization. The organization is not "moving." Teacher Engagement is low because the group members secure neither social needs satisfaction nor the satisfaction that comes with task achievement. The members’ behavior can be construed as "inauthentic," indeed the organization seems to be stagnant. Schools *with closed climates tend to have high scores on Principal Control and Teacher Frustration and low scores on Principal Support and Teacher Engagement. (Mulhern, 1984, pp. 00- 0 Dnit of Analysis In his review of the unit-of—analysis "problem" for the study and psychometric phases of climate instrument development, Sirotnik (1980) described three data-analysis procedures that yield different operational and statistical results. Total analysis involves computing relationships between the variables across individuals while ignoring possibly relevant grouping factors. Another individually based approach, within analysis, holds group differences constant by computing correlations across individuals within each group separately and then "averaging" these correlations across groups for a pooled-within analysis. ‘The between analysis uses the group as the unit of analysis. Within each group, variable means across individuals are determined before correlations are computed across groups. A between-group analysis tends to produce constructs that are sensitive to between-group differences. Anderson (1982), Austin and Garber (1985), Burstein (1980), and Sirotnik (1980) cautioned that researchers must select their data- analysis procedure by coordinating the rationale for psychometric analyses with the intention for subsequent field applications. In 29 his review of organizational climate measurement instruments, Sirotnik found 60% of the instruments used total analysis in the psychometric phase of’ development but employed a between-group analysis for field application of the instrument. Used in this manner, total-analysis construction confounded between and within effects as well as confounding person and group variances. In conclusion, Sirotnik indicated that the appropriate unit of analysis for the construction of an organizational climate instrument is the group, not the individual. Conceptual Fremework for Middle-Level Climete A review of the organizational climate literature revealed a pattern of relationships of recurring components throughout the many disciplines studying the effects of organizational climate. The seven dimensions identified for operationalization in this research study are outlined below. Following their introduction, each dimension is, in turn, identified and defined. Dimension I: Principal(s) efforts. to control the internal functioning of their school through the coordination of work. This dimension describes actions by the principal(s) that are interpreted by the faculty as controlling and authoritarian in nature. Dimension II: Interactions between the building principal(s) and the instructional staff that serve to create a climate that is perceived to be a cooperative working environment by the faculty. Dimensipn III: Interactions between the teachers and their students that indicate the degree of control exerted over the 30 student population. This dimension measures the faculty’s perception of the level of control needed to maintain an educationally conducive climate. Dimensipn IV: The faculty’s force of motivation toward their school’s academic orientation to student achievement. This dimension was measured through the faculty’s perception of expectancy, instrumentality, and valence as rewards for their collective efforts. Dimensjon y: The faculty’s perceptions of their colleagues’ attitudes toward their professional relationships. This dimension reflects the staff’s interpretations of the professional attitudes and actions of their peers. Dimension VI: Teachers’ close social relationships among faculty members. This dimension reflects the teachers’ perception of personal social interactions among staff members. Dimension VII: The physical and material aspects of an organization as perceived by the faculty. Dimension I Over the past 20 years, it has become common in educational and organizational literature to describe school systems as loosely coupled, weakly controlled organizations (Bidwell, 1966; Meyer & Rowan, 1978; Tyler, 1985; Weick, 1966). Many researchers have attempted to define and explain the internal functioning of educational institutions and collectively have suggested that managers coordinate the school’s symbolic environment instead of the 31 technical core (Bidwell, 1966; Burlingame, 1981; Meyer 9 Rowan, 1978; Weick, 1966). Teacher-preparation programs provide a similar curriculum core that serves to promote common professional norms. Strengthened by common socialization experiences of the instructional staff, administrators promote key values and themes that serve to define the building organizational environment but leave the technical activities of classroom teaching to the judgment of individual teachers. In the exploration of coupling and control in educational organizations, Gamoran and Dreeben (1986) reported that coupling in educational institutions was accomplished through the coordination of work. Even though administration has an acknowledged effect on technical work through the regulation of resource flow, the coordination of activity is accomplished through important internal linkages that enable teachers to perform their tasks. These routine linkages work to create common experiences and expectations that form the internal environment of the individual work place. Principals’ efforts to control the internal functioning of their school through the coordination of work are hypothesized to be one dimension present in the organizational climate of a middle school building. Dimension 11 In The Human Side of Enterprise, McGregor (1960) developed what he called the "managerial climate," defined in terms of the manifestations of the assumptions of management. 32 The day-by-day behavior of the immediate superior and of other significant people in the managerial organization communicates something about their assumptions concerning management which is of fundamental significance. Many behavioral manifestations of managerial attitude create what is often referred to as the psychological climate of the relationship. (pp. 133-134) The relationship between administrators and teachers can influence a school’s climate for achievement. Isolation of teachers and the absence of collegiality can be detrimental, while rapport with and a positive perception of the principal as leader can improve climate and subsequent student achievement (Bell, 1979; Breckenridge, 1976; Ellett & Wallberg, 1979). Anderson (1982) and Feldvebel (1964) supported these findings and suggested that teachers’ perceptions of the principal as hindering them in their work (burdening them with unnecessary jobs) are correlated significantly with lower student achievement. Feldvebel and Anderson, who cited numerous dissertation studies using the OCDQ, all reported a significant relationship between teacher perception of principal consideration and student achievement. Staff participation and leadership in decision making appear as important social system variables in the educational literature. Ellett and Wallberg (1979) found a significant relationship between staff participation and student achievement in a study of teacher and student perceptions of school climate. Group decision making was related to achievement by Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, and Smith (1979) and to coherence in Wynne’s (1980) observational research in the schools. Similarly, in a Phi Delta Kappa (1980) study, it was discovered that there was a consistent pattern of 33 staff involvement in decision making in high-achieving elementary schools, along with high consideration given to teachers by the administration. Good communication, coupled with an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect, is closely related to staff participation and leadership. Writing about the effects of collective bargaining on climate, Vyskocil and Goens (1979) argued that qualities of trust, respect, and care were necessary for a positive climate. In his extensive study of the nation’s schools, Silberman (1970) related qualities of trust and caring to student achievement as well. The interactions between the building principal(s) and the teaching staff that serve to create a supportive working environment were hypothesized to be a measurable dimension in middle-level organizational climate. imension II Willower et a1. (1967) found control to be one of the internal linkages present in service organizations. Public schools, along with prisons and mental hospitals, fall into a category where the organization has no control over client selection and clients have no choice concerning their participation. Control, then, is seen as a central element in the internal linkages of public schools and implies a requirement for and restraints on behavior. Two levels of control have been found to be internal linkages in any school environment: (a) administration as managers of teachers and (b) management of teachers over students. In Dimensions I and II, the 34 administrator was described as a manager of teachers. Teachers as managers of their students is the concept to be discussed in Dimension III. Student management is insured through a system of rewards, penalties, or sanctions. Sanctions may be primarily punitive, using devices such as coercion, ridicule, and the withholding of rewards. Or they may be nonpunitive, based on the understanding, emphasizing appeal to the individual’s sense of right and wrong and self- discipline rather than imposed external discipline. As organizational climate literature has evolved, findings have supported the hypothesis that the internal linkage of teacher interactions with students is an important dimension in school climate. Willower et al. (1967) adopted a complex topography fer the measurement of student control that used a continuum ranging from "custodialism" at one extreme to "humanism" at the other end. The prototype for the custodial orientation describes an educator who perceives students as irresponsible and undisciplined persons who must be controlled through punitive measures. Consistent with McGregor’s (1960) Theory X, teachers holding a custodial orientation view the school organization as an autocratic institution in which students are expected to accept the decisions of teachers without question and relationships with students are maintained on an impersonal basis. The Theory Y prototype conceives of the school as an educational cOmmunity in which members learn through participatory 35 activity rather than the passive absorption of facts. The humanistic teacher believes that through personal relationships and the positive aspects of friendship and respect, students will develop self-disciplining behavior. Willower et a1. (1967) determined that pupil control problems were found to play a major part in teacher-teacher and teacher- administrator relationships. Pupil control was found to be important in both the structural and the normative aspects of the school culture. In each of the schools that participated in the OCDQ-RS study (Kottkamp et a1., 1987), one of three instruments was completed by a different randomly selected group of teachers. Data regarding organizational climate, pupil control ideology (Willower et a1., 1967), and expectancy motivation (Miskel, 1982) were collected on separate survey instruments. The 20-item Pupil Control Ideology (PCI) fornn developed by Willower et a1. (1967) was administered to ascertain a measure of the pupil control orientation of the staff of each school. Willower et al. reported the reliability and validity of the PCI form and concluded that the instrument was relatively reliable and valid. In their work, application of the Spearman-Brown formula yielded corrected reliability coefficients ranging from .91 to .95. Mulhern (1984) used the school mean PCI score as a measure of pupil control orientation in each school and found the alpha reliability coefficient for the PCI form to be .77. 36 In addition to Halpin’s eight OCDQ subtests, 15 items from the PCI form (Willower et a1., 1967) were modified to reflect teacher behavior and were then included as a subtest in the preliminary form of the OCDQ-RS. Factor analysis and reliability studies led Kottkamp et a1. (1987) to the formation of a subtest for teacher engagement behavior that was composed of items from both the initial Esprit and Pupil Control Behavior subtests. The five Pupil Control Behavior items that converged with original Esprit items to form the Teacher Engagement Behavior subtest were used as a measure of pupil control behavior. Kottkamp et a1. hypothesized that the perceptions of a school’s faculty regarding the pupil control behavior of teachers are a dependable index of the "real" behavior and that the pupil control ideology of teachers will reflect how teachers behave with regard to pupil control. Mean pupil control ideology (PCI) scores that were obtained from the random sampling yielded a correlation coefficient of .44 with mean pupil control behavior (PCB) scores and indicated that the more humanistic the pupil control ideology of teachers in secondary schools, the more humanistic the pupil control behavior of those teachers. Mulhern (1984) reported alpha reliability coefficients of .74 and .64 for the PCB measure in the two subsets of their sample population and admitted that more work is needed to refine this measure. He reported that the instrument used to gather information regarding pupil control ideology was designed to elicit individual personal perceptions, whereas the instrument used to describe pupil 37 control behavior was designed to assess perceptions of the behavior of the group. This individual versus group inconsistency is likely to have obscured the correlational test applied to the data. Kottkamp et a1. (1987) further suggested that additional items be written and perhaps combined with the five items they used in the OCDQ-RS to explore further the concept of teacher-student control linkages. WLLV Expectancy has long been incorporated into cognitive approaches to motivation and can be used to explain the emergence of both teacher‘ and student behavior (Litwin & Stringer, 1968). Vroom (1964) developed the first explicit formulation of expectancy theory applied to organizational behavior. Although variations on the model exist, most conceptualizations employ the concepts of expectancy, valence, and instrumentality. Expectancy refers to the subjective probability between behavior and performance levels. Expectancy is high if an educator believes that high effort will yield outcomes such as high student achievement and positive attitudes. Valence refers to the attractiveness or desirability of a reward for an individual. Academic achievement and positive attitudes of students hold high valences for most teachers. Instrumentality refers to the perceived probability that a reward with a valence will be coming, after a given level of performance. If teachers think that high student 38 achievement and positive attitudes in their classrooms are likely to result in their being rewarded, instrumentality is high. Teacher expectation for student academic performance is gaining support. as an influential factor in the motivation of academic achievement levels. The *work of Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) supporting the positive relationship between teacher expectations and student achievement was given much early attention and later considerable criticism regarding their methodology and theoretical foundation. Since that time, expectancy effects on student performance have been found to be significant in a number of studies (Brookover et a1., 1977; Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Cooper, 1979; Meichenbaum, Bowers, &. Ross, 1969; Rothbart, Dalfen, & Barrett, 1971; Schneider, Glasheen, & Hadley, 1979). Researchers in several studies have found a relationship between high expectations and high achievement, which is a stronger relationship than that which exists for race or socioeconomic status and achievement (Brookover et a1., 1979; Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Schneider et a1., 1979; Weber, 1971). High expectations of administrators for staff also are related to student outcomes (Brookover et a1., 1979; Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Edmonds, 1979; Phi Delta Kappa, 1980). An academic emphasis usually accompanies high expectations for student achievement and is related to student performance and to student aspirations (Brookover' et a1., 1978; Brookover’ & Lezotte, 1979; Edmonds, 1979; Weber, 1971). Anderson (1982) reported that the level of expectation teachers and administrators hold for each other and especially for students 39 is the attitude most frequently associated with climate and student outcomes. Anderson’s review of the literature included the observation that the staff in high-achieving schools consistently "manifest attitudes of confidence that students will be able to succeed academically" (p. 403). Teacher commitment to improve students’ academic performance has been established as a significant variable in school climate, as measured usually by student perception that teachers care (Brookover et a1., 1979; Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Phi Delta Kappa, 1980). ‘These studies and others (Maxwell, 1967) also have related the expectancy motivation variable to student achievement. Based on a cognitive approach to motivation, Miskel (1982) found a high correlation between expectancy climate and his school- effectiveness criteria. The aggregate expectancy‘ motivation of faculty members of a particular school was used to characterize the academic orientation of that school. The Miskel motivation and reward instrument requires that subjects respond to valence items in terms of "importance of reward" and instrumentality items in terms of "likelihood of getting reward" on a five-point Likert scale ranging from "very unlikely" to "very likely." The expectancy measure is also on a five-point scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." The focus of the expectancy measure emphasizes student achievement as an indicator of attainment of educational goals. Miskel, Bloom, and McDonald (1982) completed a review of their instrument in terms of 40 content, construct, convergent, and predictive validity, as well as internal consistency and test-retest reliabilityu In their study, Miskel et al. found the alpha coefficients for reliability to be .79 for the valence scale, .83 for the instrumentality scale, and .71 for the expectancy scale. Kottkamp et a1. (1987) attempted to investigate the relationship between the openness of school climate and expectancy motivation. The random assignment of Miskel’s (1982) expectancy motivation scale to one-third of the surveyed building staff yielded evidence that schools with supportive principals and with engaged teachers who were not frustrated tended to have teachers with generally more positive expectations regarding the value of teacher initiative and hard work. The high level of satisfaction from reaching task objectives that is characteristic of the open climate apparently has considerable valence value to teachers, and the optimistic outlook toward work sustained by engaged teachers is likely to be reflected in the belief that most students can learn and that hard work on the part of the teacher will facilitate that learning. In their study, Kottkamp et a1. (1987) found the alpha coefficients to be .75 for the valence scale, .83 for the instrumentality scale, and .73 for the expectancy scale. From their research, Mulhern (1984) reported that mean pupil control ideology scores correlated significantly and in a positive direction with mean pupil control behavior scores: r = .44, p < .01. They also concluded that mean pupil control ideology scores correlated 41 significantly and in a positive direction with mean expectancy motivation scores: r = .40, p < .01. The researchers cautioned about interpretation of their data due to the confounding of the unit of measurement used in their climate instrument (perceptions of the behavior of the group) and expectancy motivation (aggregate individual perceptions). Even within the limitations cited, the milieu dimension of group expectancy motivation appears to warrant inclusion as a dimension of climate in middle-level schools. Dimension V Tagiuri’s (1968) milieu factor, which is concerned with patterned relationships of persons and groups, includes several teacher-teacher relationship dimensions. A group characteristic found to be present in both the OCDQ and the OCDQ-RS was teacher morale. Ellet and Walberg (1979) reported that teacher attitude toward work correlated with school climate as perceived by elementary students. They also reported a significant relationship between teacher morale and both attendance and achievement for elementary and secondary students. Using interviews in addition to questionnaires, Brookover and Lezotte (1979) noted the same relationship in eight elementary schools. In the OCDQ, Halpin and Croft (1962) defined the dimension of Esprit. This subtest included statements that described teacher morale as teachers feeling that their social needs are being satisfied, while at the same time enjoying a sense of accomplishment 42 in their job. In the OCDQ-RS, Kottkamp et a1. (1987) defined two dimensions that reflected teacher-teacher professional relation- ships. Teacher Engagement Behavior described teachers who are enthusiastic and have a positive attitude toward work, and Teacher Frustration Behavior described teachers who are hostile toward each other. Indeed, teacher morale has shown a consistent association with school climate, in that teachers who express satisfaction with school tend to perceive the school climate as being more positive (Kalis, 1980). Many researchers also have reported a relationship between teacher morale and student attendance and achievement (Brookover & Lezotte, 1979). Teachers’ perceptions of their colleagues’ attitudes toward their professional relationships are hypothesized to be a measurable dimension of middle-level organizational climate. Dimension VI Another dimension suggested as an important climate variable is teachers’ social relationships with other teachers. Rutter et a1. (1979) and a Phi Delta Kappa (1980) study indicated that in exemplary schools, teacher-teacher cooperation and concern were high. Wynne (1980) found that a positive school climate was associated with the amount of socialization among faculty. In the second-order factor analysis of climate subtests, Halpin and Croft (1962) found the dimension of Intimacy (teachers’ social relationships) loaded primarily on the factor of Social Needs and 43 had a loading close to zero on the factor of Social Control. This pattern led Halpin and Croft to conclude that Intimacy was a relatively "pure" measure of behavior, which was oriented to social needs. Following the work of Halpin and Croft (l962), Kottkamp et a1. (1987) completed a second-order factor analysis of their five climate subtests and found two distinct factors. The first factor seemed to assess the relative satisfaction of staff regarding both task achievement and social needs and included the four subtests of Principal Support Behavior, Principal Control Behavior, Teacher Engagement Behavior, and Teacher Frustration Behavior. 'The second factor appeared to address only staff interactions associated with social need satisfaction and included only the single subtest fOr Teacher Intimacy Behavior. Even though evidence has suggested that the degree to which teachers socialize on a personal level really does not seem to affect their work relationships or professional attitudes consistently, personal friendliness among teachers has been found to be an independent but consistent subtest in elementary and secondary school climates and should be included in the measurement of middle- level organizational climate. Dimension VII Tagiuri’s (1968) fourth taxonomy dimension of ecology describes the physicaland material aspects of an organization. Anderson (1982) reported that most ecology variables have shown low or 44 inconsistent relationships with student outcomes. No relationship has been documented between the age of' a building and student outcomes, although Rutter et a1. (1979) and a Phi Delta Kappa (1980) study of eight high-achieving schools both reported that the decoration and care of the school and classrooms were associated with higher student achievement. In a comparison study of inner- city academically successful versus unsuccessful schools, Weber (1971) concluded that the successful schools had eight factors in common that were not usually present in unsuccessful inner-city schools, including "a safe and orderly atmosphere" (p. 25). Edmonds (1979) summarized effective schools research literature and defined those school variables over which a school has control and that may influence student achievement. Effective schools were found to have a blend of specific variables that can positively influence successful student performance, including "a school climate which is orderly without being rigid, quiet without being oppressive, and conducive to the instructional business at hand" (p. 17). Although schools differ, and therefore reflect climate factors in different ways, research has indicated that effective schools consistently include (a) quiet and clean physical appearance, (b) little evidence of vandalism, and (c) repairs to the physical plant showing evidence of being completed promptly, preserving a cared-for appearance (Roueche & Baker, 1986). The physical and material aspects of a "fiddle-level organization were the seventh and final dimension identified for measurement in this study. 45 To operationalize these seven dimensions hypothesized to be present in the climate of middle-level organizations, it is necessary to develop a psychometrically defensible measurement instrument. Drawing from her review of the climate literature, Anderson (1982) identified the following critical issues regarding the difficulty of portraying organizational climate realistically: (a) climate as a reflection of organizational versus individual attributes, (b) the validity of perceptual versus objective climate measures, and (c) the distinction between perception and attitude. These issues were considered in the development of a climate instrument as it was designed to record individuals’ attitudes toward their internal working environment. Attitude Inventories Individual members of an organization record their perceptions of the internal climate through written responses entered on an attitude inventory. Attitude, the final product of the socialization process, is believed to significantly influence an individual’s responses to a situation, other persons, and groups of persons. If the attitude of a person toward a given object(s) is known, it can be used in conjunction with situational and other dispositional variables to predict and explain reactions of the person to that class of objects. To the extent that principles governing the change of attitudes are known, they may be used to manipulate the individual’s reactions to relevant objects (Shaw & Wright, 1967). It is not surprising, then, that the study of 46 attitudes continues to occupy prominent importance in social psychology. Social theorists have presented varying definitions of the term "attitude." Shaw and Wright (1967) synthesized a definition of attitude into the following statement: A relatively enduring system of evaluative, affective reactions based upon and reflecting the evaluative concepts or beliefs which have been learned about the characteristics of a social object or class of social objects. As an affective reaction, it is a covert or implicit response. It is a drive-producing response which elicits motives and thus gives rise to overt behavior. The evaluative reaction is based upon conception of the referent in terms of facilitation or inhibition of attainment of already-existing goals. Attitude scales measure only one dimension of the affective reactions: positivity- negativity. (p. 11) An attitude is a characteristic that implies a type of relationship between ther person and specific aspects of his/her environment. Attitudes differ from values, motives, opinions, habits, concepts, beliefs, and traits in that they possess an evaluative function. An attitude is a set of affective reactions toward an attitude object, derived from the beliefs that the individual has concerning the object. This motivates the individual to behave in a certain manner toward the attitude object. Although closely related to attitude, neither the propositions that the individual accepts about the objects/beliefs nor the action tendencies are a part of the attitude itself (Shaw & Wright, 1967). Attitudes have been found to (a) be learned responses, (b) be relatively stable, (c) have a specific referent, (d) vary in direction and intensity, and (e) possess varying degrees of definitiveness. 47 An attitude scale purports to measure the acceptance of evaluative statements about the attitude object. The attitude toward the object is inferred from the statements endorsed by the subject, based on the summary evaluation of ‘the nature of the characteristics attributed to the object as measured on a positive/ negative scale. The development of an instrument for the measurement of organizational climate in middle school settings through the individual responses gathered on an attitude inventory is detailed in Chapter III. Organizational Climate Relative to Selected Independent Varieples The four independent variables of (a) average teacher age, (b) average years of teacher experience, (c) teacher gender composition, and (d) instructional organization were used tn) examine the differences in the organizational climate dimensions that were determined in this study. The age, years of experience, and gender of an individual are all personnel variables that often factor into district policy decisions. Research that identifies personnel factors that can explain differences in organizational climate would assist educational leaders in the discussion of issues related to district policy and procedure. Middle-level schools organize their students into self- contained classrooms, departmentalized courses, interdepartmental teams, or a combination of these various instructional strategies. 48 Exploration of the relationships among the various organizational strategies and climate dimensions identified in this study would be of interest to educational leaders concerned with middle-level schools. Teac r A e and Teacher x eri n e Demographic studies have indicated that Michigan classroom teachers are an aging population group. ihi an analysis of fUture statewide enrollment and staffing demands, Ignatovich (1985) reported that an 18% decrease in student population from the 1978- 1979 to 1983-84 academic years was paralleled by a 14.8% decline in teacher population. This five-year period of enrollment decline was brought about by weak economic conditions and has had a lasting effect on the profile of Michigan teachers. During this period, the median age of secondary classroom teachers increased from 35.3 to 40.2 years, with the percentage of teachers between the ages of 40 and 54 increasing from 28.5% to 42.8% of the total population. The decrease in teachers during this period can be realized in part by the retirement of 59% of those 55 years and over, the layoff or leaving of 15% of those under 29, and the leaving/layoff/retirement of 11% between the ages of 30 and 54. Based on age-category survival rates, Ignatovich (1985) projected estimates for student enrollment and classroom teacher demands for the 1988-1989 school year. A continuing decline in student enrollment will parallel teacher attrition as the aging work force moves toward retirement. The 1988-1989 school year (the year 49 of this study) is projected as the beginning of a modest teacher replacement rate (3.0%) as teacher attrition exceeds the number of lost positions due primarily to a continued enrollment decline. In her study on the relationship of personal teacher variables to the indicators of job-related stress, Gould (1985) found that younger teachers in comparison with older ones tended to hold perceptions indicating both a greater amount of emotional exhaustion and a higher degree of depersonalization but a stronger sense of personal accomplishment. The highest means on all six criteria for job-related stress occurred for either the 23- to 34-year-old or the 35- to 40-year-old group. The relationship(s) between teacher age and teacher experience and the organizational climate factors found in this study might offer additional insight into the staffing policies of school districts as they address future personnel issues. Teacher Gender The teaching profession has traditionally been staffed by a majority percentage of women, although there is currently a modest increase: in the number of' men entering the profession (Nelson, 1985). Sex-role socialization has been identified as a leading factor in the occupational selection of teaching by women. Teaching has been described as a "natural" career that allows the balance of family and home life. Miller (1986) suggested that being a teacher allows many' women to transfer their socially internalized 50 expectations of themselves as nurturing females into their professional role. The effects of the female-dominated classrooms have been evidenced by research on gender-related teacher differences in schools. Male students have been socialized to be more active, assertive, independent, and idemanding of ‘the teacher’s time and attention. Brophy and Good (1974) speculated that high-achieving males assert themselves by dominating class discussions, answering questions without being recognized, and demanding recognition. Low- achieving males generally nfisbehave and challenge the teacher for attention by violating classroom rules and norms. Because the prior sex-role socialization of the female teacher is often incompatible with the socialization of the male student, the female teacher responds reactively by giving a disproportionate amount of quantitative and qualitative feedback to males (Irvine, 1985). The effects of this dissimilar and often discordant sex-role socialization are evident in the research exploring teacher gender and the predictors of job stress (Litt & Turk, 1985). Perlin and Schooler (1978) reported that males were better able to use coping strategies to reduce the effect of work stressons. Gould (1985) indicated that female teachers in comparison with male teachers tended to register significantly lower perceptions of depersonaliza- tion and a higher degree of personal accomplishment on the job. In the same study, Gould found that both male and female teachers who furnished instruction at grades four to eight could be anticipated to demonstrate perceptions of slightly greater emotional exhaustion 51 and somewhat higher degrees of depersonalization than those teachers providing instruction at the lower grade levels. The exploration of the relationship(s) between teacher gender and the climate factors identified in this study might provide additional insight for educational leaders involved with personnel issues. Instructiopel Organization' The Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education in 1918 specifically recommended "junior and senior periods" of secondary' education. Junior high schools were designated as a bridge from the self-contained classrooms of the elementary school to the departmentalized structuring of the senior high school. Indeed, the establishment of the middle schoOl was an attempt to create a richer curriculum than the elementary school can offer and a more personal atmosphere than the high school is able to develop (Alexander, 1988). In response to these two major philosophical goals underlying the middle school concept, the use of interdisciplinary teams as an instructional organization strategy has evolved. The interdisci- plinary team is a group of two to four teachers who work coopera— tively with an identified group of students for all basic curricular instruction. This design allows the staff to use the subject matter within and across subject lines and to focus on some other organiz- ing center such as personal and social concerns. Understanding the unique developmental needs of' middle school students, the 52 interdisciplinary team design connects the curricular content to the social and emotional needs of the students. The team of teachers can facilitate a guidance and counseling support network with the ”family" of students they cooperatively instruct (Batezel, 1973; Lawhead, 1973; Levy, 1988). This cooperative networking of teachers also provides a peer support group and addresses the professional isolation so often identified by teachers. Isolation is a structural component of both the elementary self-contained and secondary departmentalized curricular organization and has been identified as a source of individual teacher frustration and negative building climate (Gould, 1988; Jordell, 1987). Numerous studies of exemplary middle schools identified build- ings where faculty and curricular schedules were organized into interdisciplinary teams (Alexander, 1988; Alexander & George, 1981; Valentine, 1984). In addition, interdepartmental teaming has been identified as a significant factor in determining an effective middle school program (Romano et a1., 1973). An exploration of the difference among the instructional organizations of a school and the dimensions of organizational climate would be of interest of instructional leaders concerned with curricular and staffing decisions relative to middle-level schools. ghapter Summary The concept of organizational climate has been an area of concern for research in numerous settings. The evolution of 53 organizational climate and the major measurement instruments developed for use in elementary and secondary school settings were discussed in this chapter. Drawing from a discussion of the related literature, seven dimensions were defined and described to operationalize the construct of organizational climate in middle- 1eve1 school settings. Teacher age, years of teacher experience, teacher gender, and instructional organization were discussed as independent variables that have a potential effect on policy and procedure issues of importance to educational leaders. These variables and their relationship to middle-level organizational climate were addressed in this study. The recording of climate perceptions through a written response on an attitude inventory was discussed as the methodology of collecting the data that were used in this study. The development of 'this measurement instrument, determination of the population sample, and collection of the data are discussed in Chapter III. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Instrument Development As developed from the related literature in Chapter II, seven dimensions were identified and hypothesized to represent the organizational climate of middle—level schools. The following descriptions define the seven constructs and served as the structure for the selection of items to represent the various dimensions. Dimension I: Principal(s) efforts to control the internal functioning of their school through the coordination of work. This dimension describes actions by the principal(s) that are interpreted by the faculty as controlling and authoritarian in nature. Dimension 11: Interactions between the building principal(s) and the instructional staff that serve to create a climate that is perceived to be a cooperative working environment by the faculty. Dimension III: Interactions between the teachers and their students that indicate the degree of control exerted over the student population. This dimension measures the faculty’s perception of the level of control needed to maintain an educationally conducive climate. Dimension IV: The faculty’s force of motivation toward their school’s academic orientation to student achievement. This 54 55 dimension was measured through the faculty’s perception of expectancy, instrumentality, and valence as rewards for their collective efforts. Dimension V: The faculty’s perceptions of their colleagues’ attitudes toward their professional relationships. This dimension reflects the staff’s interpretations of the professional attitudes and actions of their peers. Dimension VI: Teachers’ close social relationships among faculty members. This dimension reflects the teachers’ perception of personal social interactions among staff members. Dimension VII: The physical and material aspects of an organization as perceived by the faculty. Field Test of Preliminary Instrument Survey items were generated to represent the various dimensions of middle-level organizational climate as described by the definitions above. Numerous items were selected and modified from the measurement instruments of Kottkamp et a1. (1987), Willower et a1. (1967), and Miskel (1982) to represent the hypothesized dimensions. Additional items not contained in the measurement instruments cited above were created primarily from a review of effective schools research. Effective schools have been found to have a blend of specific variables believed to positively influence student behavior, including strong leadership; high expectations for all students; an orderly, relatively quiet, and pleasant atmosphere; and a strong 56 emphasis on the mastery and measurement of reading skills (Edmonds, 1979). Original items generated from this broad body of literature were used to (a) augment dimensions identified both in this study and by the researchers listed above and (b) represent the new organizational climate dimensions identified for measurement in this study. In summary, 75 items were compiled to represent the seven dimensions hypothesized to operationalize the organizational climate of middle-level schools. The following names and summary descriptions were assigned to the dimensions, based on a review of the content of the items included in each respective dimension. Dimension I: Organizational Structural Linkages. Principals’ efforts to control the internal functioning of their school through the coordination of work. Dimension 11: Managerial Control--Agministration/Teechers. Interactions between the building principal(s) and the teaching staff that serve to create the working environment. Dimension III: Managerial Control--Teacher/Students. Interac- tions between the teachers and their students that indicate the degree of control exerted over the student population. Dimension IV: Physical Building Envirpnment. Physical indications of an orderly environment conducive to the educational process. me ' n V: anc an oti a io . Faculty’s force of motivation toward their school’s academic orientation of student achievement.' 57 Dimensi n 1: Teacher r fessional B haviors. Teachers’ perceptions of their colleagues’ attitudes toward their professional relationships. Dimension VII: Teacher Social Needs. Teachers’ socializing on a personal level, which is not necessarily associated with task accomplishment. An independent panel of judges (Appendix B) was asked to participate in the field testing of the middle-level climate survey instrument by reviewing this initial list of 75 proposed items. Judges were recommended from their active participation in the Michigan Association of Middle School Educators (MAMSE) (Appendix C) and selected based ("1 their interest, expertise, and experience working with middle-level schools. Each judge received a copy of the survey items, sorted into the seven respective dimensions. However, to reduce the possibility of response bias, the original source of the items was not disclosed. The judges were asked to analyze each individual item following the format below: 1. Evaluate whether the item represents the variable category as described. 2. Evaluate whether the item reflects an important aspect of middle-level schools. 3. Evaluate whether the item is clear and concise in its wording. 4. Indicate any further questions and/or areas that should be included in an inventory of middle-level organizational climate. 58 Of the total panel of judges, 59% chose to respond to the item analysis and assist in the content validity of the climate items. As a result of the field testing, the following decisions were made to assist in the content and clarity of the middle-level organizational climate instrument. It was determined that any change in the wording of an item taken from a previous measurement instrument could, in some unmeasurable way, be violating the item’s original intention. Consequently, all items from other authors were returned to their original wording. Both selected items from previous instruments and original items had been chosen for use in the preliminary form of the climate instrument. Item revision was considered if 40% or more of the judges identified an item for review. Following this criterion, several of the original items were reworded and three additional items were created as a result of the field testing. Relative to the selected items from previous instruments, the decision was made that research instruments must be used in their entirety to maintain their theoretical and statistical integrity. This decision necessarily added items to the survey instrument, but the potential psychometric trade-offs were believed to outweigh the negative possibilities associated with such a lengthy measurement instrument. Middle-Level Climate Survey-~Initiel Form Working from the revisions cited above, the Middle-Level Climate Survey--Initia1 Form was developed. All original items from 59 the Rutgers Secondary School Climate Inventory-Final Form (Mulhern, 1984), Pupil Control Ideology Form (Willower et a1., 1967), and Expectancy Motivation Scale (Miskel, 1982) were used in the develop— ment of the initial form of the middle-level climate instrument. In summary, all 33 items from the OCDQ-RS, including 13 items that are common to both the OCDQ-RS and the OCDQ, along with all 20 state- ments from the Pupil Control Ideology Form and all 15 items from the Expectancy Motivation Scale were incorporated into this instrument. Permission to use items from the above instruments was granted by each of their respective authors (Appendix D). To maintain the psychometric integrity of the original instruments, the survey items were used in their basic original form. However, pronouns were changed to reference the group rather than the individual perception, gender biases were eliminated, and "principal" was expanded to include all building principals. Items from the PCI (Willower et a1., 1967) were modified to reflect perceptions of behavior rather than ideology, and statements from the Expectancy' Motivation Scale (Miskel, 1982) were restated to reflect a group reference rather than an individual perception. To reduce the potential of response patterns, attempts were made to vary the response set with intermittent negative qualifiers. For example, the following was an original Expectancy Motivation Scale item: Having positive relationships with students. This item was modified into the following statement: 60 It is NOT important that our staff has positive relationships with students. The modification represented an attempt to state the item as a group reference with a negative modifier while maintaining the integrity of the original statement. In addition to the 68 items from the previous research instruments, 34 survey items were generated from both a review of the effective schools literature discussed previously and feedback from the panel of judges. One item originally from the OCDQ-RS was inadvertently listed twice. In total, 103 items were assembled to create the climate instrument administered to the teachers and principals of schools participating in this study. This climate instrument is referred to as the Middle School Organizational Climate Survey-Initial Form (MSOCS-IF) and can be reviewed in Appendix E. The instrument consisted of brief statements describing situations and events that, at times, may occur in middle-level schools. Faculty members were asked to indicate on a Likert-type scale "the response that most nearly reflects your personal opinion of YOUR SCHOOL." Each respondent was asked to "mark your best response to EVERY statement" using the following scale: Rarely Occurs Sometimes Occurs Often Occurs Very Often Occurs The survey instrument was produced at Michigan State University with the cooperation of the Computer Laboratory and the University Printing Office. It was determined that a survey instrument with 61 the items and corresponding Likert scale contained on one form would facilitate both data collection and the scoring of data. Before this survey instrument was distributed, application was made to the Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects. The committee reviewed the research protocol and granted approval as the rights and welfare of human subjects appeared to be protected (Appendix F). Sampling Procedures The population identified for this study was the public schools in Michigan that serve students between the ages of 10 and 14. The sampling frame used in this project was the 1989 Michigan Education Directory, which lists all K-12 public and private educational institutions in Michigan. Each of the 606 educational institutions identified as a public middle-level school was assigned a three- digit reference number. A cross-sectional research design was used to select 130 sampling units from a random numbers table. Evaluation of the return response rate indicated the necessity to increase the sample size. A second random selection resulted in an additional 105 schools. In all, 235 Michigan middle-level schools were selected to participate in this study. The middle-level schools were chosen through a cluster sampling survey design with individual teachers and building administrators as the target sampling element. 62 at C lle tion The district superintendents from 235 randomly chosen middle- level schools were sent a cover letter from the Executive Director of the Michigan Association of School Administrators and a letter of transmittal, which explained the purpose of the study (Appendix G). A copy of the survey instrument was included for the superintendents’ review (Appendix H), and a return post card was included, asking for 'the' superintendents’ response as indicated below: Yes, you may send further information to the building principal seeking his/her willingness to participate in this study. Please send me a copy of the results of this study. Please call me to answer further questions I have regarding this study. No, our middle school will not participate in this study for the following reason: Superintendents who did not respond within ten days were sent a follow-up letter of transmittal (Appendix I) along with another copy of the survey instrument and return post card. Nonresponse after another ten days resulted in a follow-up telephone call to the superintendent. Of' the total sample, 82% of the superintendents or their designees responded with a written or verbal communication. Reasons most often cited for nonparticipation included (a) time constraints of the faculty to other commitments and (b) similarity of the study to the school-improvement program in which many buildings were currently engaged. 63 Following authorization to contact the district middle school, the researcher sent the building principal a packet including a cover letter from the Executive Director and Assistant Director for Middle Level of the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals, a letter of transmittal, and a copy of the survey instrument (Appendix J). Principals were given five working days to contact the researcher with questions or to decline participation in the study. If no contact was made, a package of materials was mailed to the school. This packet included: 1. Directions for administering the survey instrument. 2. Cover' letter, survey, and post card requesting research results for each teacher and principal. 3. Addressed/stamped return envelope for teacher responses. 4. Cover letter, survey form, and separate return envelope for building principal(s) (Appendix K). Procedures for administering the survey instrument were standardized to reduce the possibility of invalid responses. The primary approach for survey completion was to distribute and collect all teacher instruments at a faculty meeting. Principals were asked to be absent from the room while the teachers completed and collected their surveys. In several cases, survey instruments were handed out at faculty meetings and collected by a staff member over a period of approximately one week. No attempt was made to verify the percentage of building staff members who did not participate in the study, e.g., those who were absent from school or had extracurricular obligations. In total, 64 1,749 middle-level faculty members chose to participate in this study. Schools whose completed packet was not returned within a reas- onable length of time were sent a reminder post card (Appendix L). Sample Returns Of the 235 middle-level schools randomly selected for this research project, 39.6% participated in this study, yielding 1,749 sampling units. Although the sample was randomly drawn from the Michigan population, participation in this research study was voluntary; therefore, the pool of respondents must be defined. The degree to which one may generalize the results of this study back to the population must be qualified through a comparison analysis of the participants and nonparticipants in the random sample. Two hundred thirty-five sampling units were selected for this study. However, four units were removed from the final sample because they had been incorrectly identified as middle-level schools in the sampling frame. The following demographic factors were used in the definition and comparison of the participants and nonparticipants from the random sample: (a) school building membership, (b) professional instructional staff membership, (c) teacher/pupil ratio, (d) State Equalized Valuation per state aid member, (e) community type (where the middle-level school is located), (f) median household income, and (9) student achievement: math scores, reading scores, and science scores. 65 A t-test analysis of the data indicated with 95% confidence that there was no statistically significant difference between the school membership size of sample schools that participated in this study and those schools that did not participate (see Table 3.1). Table 3.l.--School building membership.a Building Membership N Mean S.D. Std. Error Sample participant 92 495.370 235.761 24.580 Nonparticipant 139 530.453 240.807 20.425 t-Value gt Pooled variance estimate -1.09 229 aThe number of pupils legally enrolled in the school district building at the close of school on the fourth Friday following Labor Day of the school year. 'The count includes prorated portions of instructional time spent by private school pupils in the public school district (Michigan Department of Education, 1989b). A t-test analysis of the data indicated with 95% accuracy that there was no statistically significant difference between the number of teachers assigned to a middle-level building of sample schools that participated in this study and those sample schools that did not participate (see Table 3.2). A t-test analysis of the data indicated with 95% confidence that there was no statistically significant difference between the teacher/student ratio of sample schools that participated in this study and those sample schools that did not participate (see Table 3.3). 66 Table 3.2.--Professional instructional staff membership.a Professional Staff Membership N Mean S.D. Std. Error Sample participant 92 34.380 16.088 1.677 Nonparticipant 139 35.950 14.595 1.238 t-Value g: Pooled variance estimate . -O.77 229 3The number of professional staff assigned to the middle-level building (Michigan Department of Education, 1989b). Table 3.3.--Teacher/student ratio.a Teacher/Student Ratio N Mean S.D. Std. Error Sample participant 92 14.639 2.940 0.306 Nonparticipant 139 14.714 2.833 0.240 t-Value g: Pooled variance estimate -0.19 229 8Average number of students per teacher in each middle-level school. This number' was computed for each building from data generated from the racial/ethnic census by building (Michigan State Department of Education, 1989b). A t-test analysis of the data indicated with 95% confidence that there was no statistically significant difference between the State Equalized Valuation of sample participants and nonparticipants (see Table 3.4). 67 Table 3.4.--State Equalized Valuation (SEV) per state aid member.a SEV N Mean S.D. Std. Error Sample participant 92 77359.391 51682.121 5388.234 Nonparticipant 139 68961.216 48232.186 4091.001 t-Value gt Pooled variance estimate 1.26 229 aThe SEV figure represents a calculation made by dividing the taxable value of real estate and personal property (assessed value as finally equalized by the State Tax Commission) in the district by the number of pupils legally enrolled at the close of school on the fourth Friday following Labor Day of ‘the school year (Michigan Department of Education, 1987). Sample frequency and participant frequency of schools in each community type (where the middle-level school is located) are shown in Table 3.5. The community types are defined as follows (State of Michigan, 1988-1989): Type I: Metropolitan Core--One or more adjacent cities with a population of 50,000 or more that serve as the economic focal point of their environs. Type II: City-—Community of 10,000 to 50,000 that serves as the economic focal point of its environs. Type III: Town--community of 2,500 to 10,000 that serves as the economic focal point of its environs. Type IV: Urban Fringe--A community of any population size that has as its economic focal point a metropolitan core or a city. Type ‘V: Rural Community--A community of less than 2,500. 68 Table 3.5.--Community type. Community Typea Sample Frequency Participant Frequency I 21.2% 18.4% II 6.1% 35.7% 111 15.6% 44.4% IV 29.0% 50.7% V 28.1% 43.1% Source: Michigan Department of Education, 1989c. The chi-square distribution chart (Table 3.6) indicated wfith 95% confidence that there was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of the five community types of the sample and the distribution of the community types of schools that participated in this study. Table 3.6.--Chi-square distribution by community type. Comm. Sample Observed Expected Diff. Square 2 Type Number Freq. Freq. (O-E) Diff. (O-E) /E I 49 9 19.50 -10.50 110.25 5.650 II 14 5 5.61 - 0.61 0.37 0.066 111 36 16 14.35 1.65 2.72 0.189 IV 67 34 26.68 7.32 53.58 2.008 V 65 28 25.85 2.15 4.62 0.178 Total 231 92 x2 = 8.091 Source: State of Michigan, 1984. A t-test analysis of the data indicated with 95% confidence that there was no statistically significant difference between the 69 median household income of sample participants and nonparticipants (see Table 3.7). Table 3.7.--Median household income.a Median Income N Mean S.D. Std. Error Sample participant 92 20029.565 5664.834 590.600 Nonparticipant _ 139 18749.295 5741.806 487.014 t-Value gt Pooled variance estimate 1.67 229 aBased on the 1979 reported income for all persons 14 or older. Household income includes the income of everyone~ hi the household (State of Michigan, 1984). T-tests were performed to discover whether there were statistically significant differences in seventh-grade Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) scores between sample schools that participated in the study and those that did not participate. The MEAP contains objective-referenced sets of items measuring selected essential performance objectives in the subject areas of math, reading, and science. In this research project, MEAP scores are reported from Category 4, which includes those students who passed more than three-quarters of the skills. Students attaining enough skills to be in Category 4 are considered to be doing acceptably well (Michigan Department of Education, 1989a). The analysis indicated with 95% confidence that there was no statistically significant difference in MEAP math scores of sample 70 schools that. participated in ‘this study' and those that. did not participate (see Table 3.8). Likewise, no statistically significant difference was found in MEAP reading scores between sample schools that participated in the study and those that did not participate (see Table 3.9). However, a statistically significant difference was found in MEAP science scores between sample schools that participated in the study and those that did not participate (see Table 3.10). Table 3.8.--MEAP math scores (Category 4). MEAP Math Scores N Mean S.D. Std. Error Sample participant 92 73.535 11.725 1.222 Nonparticipant 139 70.877 14.662 1.244 t-Value gt Pooled variance estimate 1.46 229 Source: Michigan Department of Education, 1989a. Table 3.9.--MEAP reading scores (Category 4). MEAP Reading Scores N Mean S.D. Std. Error Sample participant 92 84.172 9.286 0.968 Nonparticipant 139 82.104 11.619 0.985 t-Value gt Pooled variance estimate 1.43 229 Source: Michigan Department of Education, 1989a. 71 Table 3.10.--MEAP science scores (Category 4). MEAP Science Scores N Mean S.D. Std. Error Sample participant 92 34.986 13.602 1.418 Nonparticipant 139 30.340 17.660 1.498 t-Value gt Pooled variance estimate 2.14* 229 Source: Michigan Department of Education, 1989a. *Significant at alpha = .05. ngmary of Semple Returns Even though a 39.8% sample participation in this study was a lower than ideal representation of the population, the preceding analysis of demographic factors indicated that there was no significant difference between the respondents and nonparticipants when comparing the demographic factors of school building membership, number of teaching staff per building, teacher/pupil ratio, State Equalized Valuation per state aid member, median household income, and MEAP math and reading student assessment scores. A significant difference was found, however, in the MEAP science scores of pupils from participating and nonparticipating schools. This difference may be attributed to the fact that this was the first year schools were required to administer the MEAP science test. Many school science curricula were not in alignment with the state objectives, and consequently there was a wide variance in statewide scores. The science test therefore may be 72 more sensitive to school differences and might have been a weak standard of sample demographic differences. Nine demographic variables were used to compare the respondents and nonparticipants in this study. The results from eight of the variables indicated that the respondents were representative of the sample drawn. Probability random sampling was used to select the sample from the population; consequently, the results of this study may be generalized to the population. Treatment pf Data After participants completed the survey instruments, responses from each form were colored over with a scan-sensitive pencil to maximize scanning accuracy. Any survey instrument with more than ten omitted items or with obvious response sets was deleted from the data set. A computer program was written to record the survey responses as they were read by the scan machine. Copies of the survey form were printed at two different press times, and a technical printing error resulted in a shift of timing marks. Consequently, the surveys had to be hand-sorted into two separate runs, and a second computer program was written before the second batch of data could be recorded. Individual survey forms were manually compared to the computer tape of recorded data. Responses that were recorded incorrectly by the scan machine were individually corrected in the software data bank. All analyses of the data were performed at the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory on the IBM 3090-180VF VM/HPO CMS 73 facility. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X) Release 3.0 was the software package used in all analysis procedures. Maintaining unit-of-analysis consistency, survey items were stated to reflect group perceptions. Means were computed on the items across individuals within each group, and statistical procedures were used to verify school means. The correlation matrices for factor analysis were computed across groups using group means. Teachers within each school responded to group-referenced items so collectively, as a school unit, dimensions could be measured as a systemic versus person-focused measurement. The item means represented the central tendency of distributions of measures of a property of teachers. Consequently, measurements must be interpreted as an estimate of the magnitude of an attribute of the school, not an attribute of teachers in the school. In this manner, climate dimensions were being measured where the responses by persons within the group were solely a function of contextual constraints. Each measurement exists as one quantity indicating the magnitude of a single property of the group. Studying individuals as perceivers within schools would be an interesting but separate issue from the stated purpose of this study, which was to look at the differences between groups based on single measurements of a systemic property. Sirotnik (1980) identified a potential statistical problem with the between-group analysis if the number of instrument items was greater than the number of participant groups. Indeed, in this 74 study, 103 items were included on the survey form and only 92 middle-level schools participated in this study. Any school with fewer than ten participants was dropped from the study if that number equated to a less than 60% building participation rate. Following that criterion, the data from four schools were dropped from this project. A preliminary varimax rotational analysis was processed with the 103 items and the 88 participant schools. During the analysis, a warning was issued and all eigenvalues were computed to zero, beginning with the eighty-eighth factor. Because of the lower than hoped for sample participation, it was necessary to reduce the item set from 103 to 88 items. Using the individual teacher as the unit of analysis, a varimax rotational factor analysis was processed. The program was set to record any items that loaded greater than .30. Of the total 103 items, 15 were chosen for deletion based on the following criteria: 1. Two items were duplicates (Items 16 and 26); Item 16 was deleted. 2. Nine original items drawn from the literature listed a factor loading less than .40. Because of their low loading and lack of prior psychometric validation, the following items were deleted from the item set: Items 31, 49, 64, 70, 76, 91, 94, 96, and 102. 3. To maintain the reliability of the three instruments used in this study, five items were deleted in the following manner: Four of the OCDQ (Halpin & Croft, 1962) and OCDQ-RS (Mulhern, 1984) items did not show a loading. All four of the items were from the 75 subtest Teacher Frustration. The last item (Item 3) was deleted. To maintain the integrity of the OCDQ-RS instrument, the item showing the lowest factor loading (.313) was deleted from the Teacher Engagement subtest (Item 28). Two items (Items 41 and 42) did not load and were deleted from the PCI scale (Willower, 1967). All of the Expectancy/Motivation Scale (Miskel, 1982) items loaded onto a factor; however, four items loaded below .40. Because it had the lowest loading (.310), Item 73 was deleted. Following the rationale discussed above, the revised item set was reduced to 88 items and is listed in Appendix M. This reduced instrument, the Middle School Organizational Climate Survey-Revised Set (MSOCS-RS) was used for all analyses involving the school as the unit of analysis. All further analyses in this study were computed using the 88- item instrument as modified above. It is recognized that having to reduce the original item set was a less than desirable situation. Still, given this analysis problem induced by less than desired returns, the deletion method was thought to be the least disruptive to the dimensions originally envisioned. It is hoped this discussion will assist future researchers as they consider the number of variables in their instrument in congruence with the number of schools that agree to participate in their research study. Analysis Procedures for Research Questions I. To determine both the number and qualities of dimensions present in the organizational climate of middle-level schools, the following analysis procedures were applied to the data set: 76 1. Field testing of the preliminary survey items by an independent panel of judges to assist in content validity. 2. Aggregation of data for each building by school and item means. 3. Factor analyses of all items using the unspecified N-factor criterion and also a range of specified N-factor criteria. 4. Alpha reliability analyses of items in various specified factor solutions. 5. Item deletion based on a systematic revision of factors consistent with the analytic procedures outlined above. 6. Factor analysis of the reduced item matrix using a speci- fied factor criterion. II. If through the statistical procedures outlined above the dimensions of organizational climate could be defined, second-order factor analysis in various specified factor solutions was used to determine and define the interrelatedness of the identified dimensions. 111. If through the statistical procedures outlined in Item I above the dimensions of organizational climate could be defined, the following analysis procedures were used to explore in what ways the independent variables of teacher age, teacher experience, teacher gender, and instructional organization accounted for the differences in organizational climate in middle-level schools: 77 l. One-way analysis of variance for each of the independent variables and the identified dimensions of middle-level organizational climate. 2. Bartlett Box-F test for homogeneity of variances. ghapter Summary Chapter III was devoted to a detailed discussion of the methodology used in developing an instrument for the measurement of organizational climate in middle school settings. Field testing of the preliminary form of the survey instrument resulted in significant content and clarity revisions. This revised instrument was entitled the Middle School Organizational Climate Survey-Initial Form and was the vehicle used to collect the data. in this study. Two hundred thirty-five middle-level schools in Michigan were randomly selected to participate in the study. Systematic and detailed mail survey techniques resulted in 39.6% of the sample participating in this study. A comparison of survey participants and nonrespondents indicated that the returns were representative of the sample. The climate data were collected on scan-sensitive forms and recorded at the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory. Because of a lower than hoped for return rate, it was necessary to reduce the item set to correspond with the number of participating schools. This reduction of items resulted in the survey instrument entitled the Middle School Organizational Climate Survey-Reduced 78 Set, which was used for all analysis procedures outlined earlier and discussed in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The Problem Reviemeg The research of Halpin and Croft (1962) and Kottkamp et a1. (1987) has contributed to the understanding of the kinds of behavior on the part of teachers and principals that are associated with the organizational climate differences found in various elementary and secondary schools. The problem identified in this study was the lack of comparable organizational climate measurement scales for use in middle-level schools. .The researcher’s primary purpose in this study was to opera- tionalize the construct of climate through the development of an instrument to identify and describe the dimensions that are present in the organizational climate of "fiddle-level schools. Given an identified dimensionality of middle-level organizational climate, the researcher’s second purpose was to explore whether or not the various dimensions relate to each other through an examination of second-order factor solutions. The identification of a defined organizational climate factor structure allowed a review of the four independent variables of teacher age, teacher experience, teacher gender, and instructional organization to explore their effect on the differences found in middle-level organizational climate. 79 80 Summary of Analysis Procedures To determine both the number and qualities of dimensions present in the organizational climate of middle-level schools, the preliminary set of survey items was field tested by an independent panel of judges to assist in content validity. Aggregate building scores for each item were subjected to numerous factor analysis and reliability analysis procedures. A systematic deletion of items and a final factor analysis of the reduced item matrix resulted in the final form of the middle school climate instrument. The final set of dimensions identified to portray the organizational climate of middle-level schools was subjected to a second-order factor solution to determine the underlying factor structure. The effects of staff age, staff experience, gender composition, and instructional organization on the various dimensions of organizational climate were explored through one-way analysis of variance and a Bartlett Box-F test. Apelysis Procedures: Dimensions of Middle-Level Organizational Climete To determine both the number and qualities of dimensions present in the organizational climate of middle-level schools, the unspecified N-factor varimax rotation was used for the initial extraction of factors (Table 4.1). Various numbers of iterations were required to extract the factors from the raw data. Consistently, the principal components analysis yielded 15 factors Table 4.l.--Initial factor analysis: tion, 88-item set. 81 Principal components extrac- Factor Var. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 35 .83236 74 .83000 36 .82832 47 .82144 48 .81437 34 .79946 33 .79618 79 .76002 83 .74956 38 .73500 72 .70217 88 .69756 -.32310 32 .69153 69 .69059 .33916 68 .68458 .35344 87 .68144 .30850 86 .67874 82 .67430 75 .66613 51 .63946 .37689 .32164 50 .62904 .33619 89 .62859 .38784 93 .60891 85 .60403 98 .58291 .38873 .31038 92 .57262 .31493 71 .56797 80 .56681 -.44051 78 .56454 .42074 77 .52674 .45267 .35470 27 .49026 97 .47736 .40735 .30730 95 .41821 .36063 10 .90026 20 .89035 24 .84840 12 .84402 18 .81423 21 .79890 8 .76021 -.32602 11 -.73146 Table 4.1.--Continued. 82 Var. Factor 4 .46428 .30031 .69505 .68891 .66905 .66160 .62001 .60880 .56981 .50353 .42863 -.44846 .35003 .38121 .30649 .37790 -.31207 -.33543 .38331 .75925 .71469 .67758 .66220 .63863 .62428 .62325 .57416 .33582 .36469 .35479 .30515 .30075 .89102 .85059 -.78692 .87846 .84293 .82767 .72768 .93625 .89560 .76048 .52400 .79525 .70734 .67681 .39588 .56158 54854 :46034 Table 4.1.--Continued. 83 Var. Factor 15 -.48547 17 -.54401 22 -.33043 -.36337 81 .42708 .39756 .36816 .40955 .35286 .45884 -.30494 .34981 Var. Factor 12 13 14 15 -.36038 .37502 84 Table 4.l.--Continued. Factor 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Var. 93 .33392 92 .32232 71 -.30108 78 .48208 97 -.33384 95 -.39639 23 -.34027 19 .56191 67 .38060 57 .36024 Table 4.1.--Continued. 85 Var. Factor 10 11 12 13 14 15 25 13 100 101 103 .72209 .55439 .54284 .30512 .56123 .54114 .48668 .41409 .44181 .81026 .71315 -.67936 .54459 .59071 with an eigenvalue of 1.00 or greater (Table 4.2). 86 As a measure of the proportion of variance explained by each factor, an eigenvalue of 1.00 was used as the initial threshold criterion of a "true" factor. A scree test indicated seven factors from the identified 25 were likely meaningful factors (Figure 4.1). Table 4.2.--Initia1 factor analysis: tion, 88-item set. Principal components extrac- Percent of Cumulative Factor Eigenvalue Variance Percent V1 27.76365 31.5 31.5 V2 9.01737 10.2 41.8 V3 6.90366 7.8 49.6 V4 3.88811 4.4 54.1 V5 3.49769 4.0 58.0 V6 2.98977 3.4 61.4 V7 2.66758 3.0 64.5 V8 2.45043 2.8 67.2 V9 2.21802 2.5 69.8 V10 2.01147 2.3 72.1 V11 1.55384 1.8 73.8 V12 1.43829 1.6 75.5 V13 1.38678 1.6 77.0 V14 1.32508 1.5 78.5 V15 1.23954 1.4 79.9 Items were determined to be viable indicators of a factor if they had a factor loading of .40 or higher. analyses and alpha reliability coefficients for five-, Steps involving factor six-, and seven-factor solutions were repeated a number of times. The reliability analysis also provided item-total correlations, which identified the relative strength of the relationship between each 87 27.764 EIGENVALUES 2.450 + + 2.011 1.240 + ***** ********** -+—+-+-+-+-+—+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+—+-+—+-+- .599 + 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728 .OOO +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Principal components, 88-item set. Scree test: Figure 4.1: 88 item and the remaining items in the factor. A separate statistic also indicated what the alpha coefficients for the factor would be should any given item be deleted. In the final analysis, it was determined that seven factors best identified the domain of organizational climate in middle-level settings. These seven factors were found to explain 62% of the total variance. Items that had a negative loading were identified from the factor analysis. matrix and reversed when using these items in subsequent analyses. The rotated factor matrix, percentage of variance, and reliability analysis for the seven-factor solution are included for further reference in Tables 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5, respectively. Using the strength of factor loadings on both the large-factor solution and the subtest factor solutions, the information from the alpha reliability analyses, and persistent assessment of the conceptual integrity of the subtests, the seven factors were gradually refined into the Middle School Organizational Climate Survey-Final Form (MSOCS-FF). In the seven-factor solution, 83 items out of the total set of 88 items loaded above .40. Following the decision rule outlined below, 13 additional items were deleted. 1. An item was considered for deletion if the factor’s alpha was raised through deletion of the item. 2. An item was considered for deletion if the item loaded on two (or more) factors and there was less than .10 difference between the two factor loadings. 89 Table 4.3.--Rotated factor matrix—-seven factors specified: Principal components, 88-item set. Factor Var. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 V36 .85177 V33 .85159 V35 .84973 V34 .82593 V47 .82532 V48 .79778 V74 .75706 -.30143 V32 .74327 V79 .72342 .32628 V72 .68856 V83 .67671 .41988 V38 .66761 V82 .62910 .36710 V75 .61081 .40888 V87 .60845 .30462 .44357 V86 .59788 .32412 .38629 V88 .59456 -.36156 .33619 V69 .59144 -.46339 V68 .58631 -.30699 .36793 V51 .57526 -.40493 .33414 V78 .57346 .39342 .41008 V50 .56347 -.35661 V71 .56056 V93 .55997 -.38782 V85 .55986 V89 .54700 .54368 .30517 V98 .53031 .31451 .34260 -.36260 V27 .49336 V29 V24 .86343 V10 .85886 V12 .83855 V20 .82396 V23 .78755 V18 .78119 V11 .78071 V19 .73461 V21 .73057 .45442 V8 .70114 -.39418 V17 .70020 .35571 .38594 V15 .68031 .31789 V14 .60615 Table 4.3.--Continued. 90 Factor Var. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 V52 .58364 -.38562 V9 .55201 .53357 V6 .52288 .51270 V58 .68523 V46 .31576 .67026 V60 .35285 .66676 V44 .65984 V30 .37145 .60354 V45 .58043 V57 .56312 V40 .31872 .56076 V55 .52947 -.30065 V92 .51490 .52093 V43 .50245 V77 .47982 .49670 -.32816 V84 .48105 V59 .44854 V54 .44140 V39 .43691 V97 .41895 .42893 .40310 V65 .42288 -.35900 V90 .37434 -.41910 .42009 -.35863 V61 .38754 V37 .30636 .31479 -.30767 V53 V56 V62 .80436 V63 .77774 V66 .62171 V2 .59092 V81 .44918 .39960 .46538 V80 .44368 .46128 V26 .86839 V25 .85373 V13 -.67646 V22 -.52110 .30807 .52302 V67 .40913 .44357 .32027 .47521 V7 .41808 .46253 .35076 91 Table 4.3.--Continued. Factor Var. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 V101 .83763 V100 .83515 V99 .77196 V103 .73268 V4 .73063 V5 .62037 V1 .30604 .61851 V95 -.38464 .46410 Table 4.4.--Principal components extraction--seven factors speci- fied, 88-item set. Percent of Cumulative Factor Eigenvalue Variance Percent l 27.42646 31.2 31.2 2 8.72841 9.9 41.1 3 6.54853 7.4 48.5 4 3.47264 3.9 52.5 5 3.10635 3.5 56.0 6 2.58661 2.9 58.9 7 2.31886 2.6 61.6 92 Table 4.5.--Reliability analysis--all items greater than .40: Seven-factor solution. FACTOR 1: 28 Variables Scale Mean: 84.5392 Scale Variance: 43.6552 Std. Dev.: 6.6072 Alpha . .9705 FACTOR 2: 16 Variables Scale Mean: 46.6143 Scale Variance: 30.3556 Std. Dev.: 5.5096 Alpha = .9491 FACTOR 3: l9 Variables Scale Mean: 35.7882 Scale Variance: 15.8663 Std. Dev.: 3.9833 Alpha = .9216 FACTOR 4: 6 Variables Scale Mean: 17.9930 Scale Variance: 4.4803 Std. Dev.: 2.1167 Alpha = .8555 FACTOR 5: 6 Variables Scale Mean: 14.3548 Scale Variance: 2.6970 Std. Dev.: 1.6422 Alpha = .7736 FACTOR 6: 4 Variables Scale Mean: 9.1232 Scale Variance: 1.7949 Std. Dev.: 1.3397 Alpha = .9182 FACTOR 7: 4 Variables Scale Mean: 7.0762 Scale Variance: 1.3006 Std. Dev.: 1.1404 Alpha = .7464 93 3. An item was considered for deletion if removal of the item did not affect the alpha rating. 4. An item considered for deletion as described in Items 1 through 3 above was retained in the factor if, in the estimation of the researcher, the item explored a unique aspect of the factor. For example, in the third factor (PCB), two items with relatively strong but split loadings were retained because the items made a substantial contribution to the conceptual depth and scope of the factor. Through the above process of analysis and refinement, the MSOCS-FF was developed to portray the organizational climate of middle-level schools. Collectively, the seven factors contain 70 items. Two of the factors describe the behavior of the principal(s), and five of the factors describe characteristics of the faculty' as a group. Each factor' was named and described following a review of the final list of items. The two factors that describe the behavior of the principal(s) are (a) Administrative Support and (b) Administrative Control. The five factors that describe the characteristics of the faculty as a group are (a) Expectancy and Motivation, (b) Pupil Control Behavior, (c) Tangible Environment, (d) Teacher Intimacy, and (e) Teacher Frustration. The final seven-factor' varimax: rotational solution and percentage of variance are presented in Tables 4.6 and 4.7, respectively.. Almost every item in the final large-factor analysis 94 Table 4.6.--Rotated factor matrix--seven-factor solution: Reduced 70-item set. Factor Var. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 V36 .85245 V33 .84847 V35 .84723 V34 .82245 V47 .82165 V48 .80076 V74 .76020 - 32229 V32 .72620 V79 .71142 V72 .68819 V83 .67811 .36854 .30476 V38 .66920 V82 .61550 .30311 V75 .61413 .36872 V87 .60841 .31267 .36976 V68 .59919 -.36899 V69 .59605 -.48208 V86 .59399 .40897 V88 .59274 -.38011 V51 .58627 -.43934 V50 .58073 -.39270 V78 .56494 .40574 .39926 V93 .56258 -.37368 V71 .56069 V85 .55274 -.32609 V98 .54225 .33600 .31870 -.31625 V27 .48301 V24 .87311 V10 .86262 V12 .83466 V20 .82719 V18 .79888 V23 .78696 V11 .78374 V19 .73822 V21 .73359 .35422 V8 .72437 -.32970 V17 .67930 35201 .34333 V15 .66607 V14 .62929 -.30777 V52 .61258 -.30755 Table 4.6.--Continued. Factor Var. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 V58 .78014 V60 .32845 .72280 V46 .30278 .72229 V44 .65793 V45 .63843 V30 .35524 .62542 V57 .57866 V77 .45023 .55867 V55 .55063 -.31578 V40 .31347 .53024 V92 .51383 .52067 V54 .49820 V84 .48255 V43 .44452 V59 .41943 V62 .87293 V63 .80224 V66 .67454 V2 .59932 V81 .44129 .40463 .46024 V25 .92393 V26 .92238 V13 -.75748 V100 .80507 V99 .79343 V101 .79289 v4 .79288 V1 .31685 .63835 V5 .63573 96 loaded primarily on the factor to which the item was assigned. The two items that were exceptions (Items 92 and 81) had nearly equal loadings on both factors. Table 4.7.--Reduced item set--seven-factor solution: Percentage of variance. , Percent of Cumulative Factor Eigenvalue Variance Percent 1 23.09843 33.0 33.0 2 7.40614 10.6 43.6 3 5.29026 7.6 51.1 4 3.08482 4.4 55.5 5 2.57032 3.7 59.2 6 2.30969 3.3 62.5 7 1.86846 2.7 65.2 A comparison of the 88-item set and the reduced 70-item set illuminates the similarities between both climate instruments. Both sets of data identified the same seven climate factors, with a similar item structure loading onto each factor. Similar percentage of variance and reliability scores provide further evidence for the construct validity of the final seven factors established in the middle school survey. Consequently, the similarities of the number and structure of the seven factors along with the generally improved percentage of variance and reliability scores determined the reduced item set to best represent the organizational climate of middle- level schools. 97 A comparison of the item identification and reliability coefficients for the 88- and 70-item sets is presented in Table 4.8. Ultimately, the resultant seven factors that portray the organizational climate of middle-level schools were created from the 88 items in the Middle School Organizational Climate Survey-Revised Set. The following section contains a description of each factor and a discussion of how the items were distributed into the seven final factors. . Analysis of the Seven Final Dimensions pf the Middle School Organizationel Climate Survey Dimension 1: EXPECTANCY AND MOTIVATION Expectancy and motivation refer to behavior of the faculty that is characterized largely by a student orientation. A group of teachers who have high perceptions of expectancy and motivation appear to be genuinely concerned with the mental, emotional, and social development of the middle-level student. The faculty holds high expectancy' for' both student. outcomes and professional gratification through its efforts of hard work and dedication. To achieve these goals, the faculty continually works at improving its effectiveness in the classroom. The faculty that generates a low score on this dimension collectively holds the perception that hard work and dedication will not result in appreciable positive student outcomes or professional gratification. 98 N.me e.Fe ca mm I: II Amzeumev coop L.N o.~ m e me. me. mo.eo._o mm.mo.¢o.2o -mcomzau cmeuame Azoev m.m m.N m 9 mm. mm. _op.oop.m¢ mo_.eo_.ooe.mm somewaco Laeuame LN Azouo_baaomacwse< Pm Azmwev acme 3.3 m.m m 0 am. am. _m.ee.me.me.mo .om.ee.me.we.wo -eocw>=m m_nam=ee Am.~m.om.ew No.3m.ee.oe.mm .Le.me.oe.mm.mm .wm.am.mm.em.ee .Am.mm.em.ea.ma Amuav cow>agmm o.~ 9.“ mp m_ we. mm. .me.¢e.m¢.oa.om .ee.me.oe.mm.om _028:oo _La=a mm mm.a~.m~._~ .¢~.m~._N.o~.m_ .o~.m_.m_.a_.mp .mp.up.mp.ep.~2 Aazmo co a msmuH Lo .02 a;a_< 2.55:2 cowoeuCc_ocmeH sage mez amounzm .mcmm meme _m=PC one seacasw_mca 8;» noon :2 mommpnam LL-muomz com mocmwcm> co mmmpcmocmq can .mpcmwowemmoo prppnmwpoc agape .cowamowwmucmc_ EmuHI-.w.¢ mpamh 99 Ten items from the Expectancy Motivation Scale (Miskel, 1982) and three OCDQ-RS items from the Teacher Engagement subtest combined with 13 original items from the a priori subtests of Pupil Control Behavior (8 items), Expectancy and Motivation (4 items), and Teacher Professional Behaviors (1 item) to form the EXPECTANCY AND MOTIVATION factor. Dimension II: ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT Administrative support refers to behavior by the principal(s) that is characterized by his/her efforts to recognize and support the professional endeavors of the faculty. A faculty that scores high in administrative support perceives the principal’s behavior as positively assisting the faculty in achieving its instructional goals by facilitating, encouraging, and supporting its professional efforts. The principal(s) provides instructional leadership within an environment conducive to student learning while being sensitive to the personal welfare of the faculty. A staff that scores low in this dimension believes the principal(s) goes through the motions of his/her job but is not genuinely committed to collaborative support or overall staff morale. This factor generated the majority of items from the OCDQ-RS. Six items from Principal Support and three Principal Control items collapsed into this new factor. Four original items from the a priori dimension of Organizational Structural Linkages combined with one item from the Pupil Control Ideology Scale (Willower et 100 a1., 1967) to form the ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT factor. Elimination Of items with similar loadings on the first and fifth factors along with strong alpha reliability coefficients provided evidence in support of the final group of selected items. Dimension III: PUPIL CONTROL BEHAVIOR This dimension refers to the faculty’s perceptions of the student body. This belief is manifested through a custodial orientation to the relationships between teachers and students. A group Of teachers scoring high on this dimension perceive their students to be incapable of demonstrating positive academic and behavioral self-direction and believe they must be controlled by the faculty on an impersonal basis. These teachers, who reflect this negative orientation toward students, also feel isolated and unsupported by their colleagues. A faculty that scores low on this dimension perceives its school to be an educational community where students learn positive self-discipline through participatory activities and mutual respect. This factor is composed of 11 items from the Pupil Control Ideology Scale (Willower et a1., 1967), two items from the Expectancy Motivation Scale (Miskel, 1982), and two items from the Teacher Engagement subtest in the OCDQ-RS. Dimension IV: TANGIBLE ENVIRONMENT Tangible environment refers to faculty expectations of a clean and functional building conducive to instructional business. A 101 faculty that records a high score on this dimension perceives there are adequate instructional materials as well as an operational building to facilitate its ability to promote positive student and professional outcomes. A faculty with low perceptions of tangible environment believes its school is an oppressive and stifling environment. This original dimension is formed of three original items from the Tangible Environment factor, one original item from Organizational Structural Linkages, and one item from the Expectancy Motivation Scale (Miskel, 1982). Dimension V: ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL Administrative control refers to behavior by the principal(s) that is characterized by close supervision of the faculty’s actions and activities. A group of teachers scoring high on this dimension perceives the principal’s behavior to infer that he/she does not trust the faculty to perform its professional duties without the control of' the administration. Theser principals demand on-task behavior in an authoritarian manner. A faculty that scores low on this. dimension perceives its school environment to have a collaborative relationship between staff and administration. Throughout numerous analytic procedures, this factor maintained its independent identity and withstood attempts to have it collapse or merge into another factor. This factor is composed of three items from the OCDQ-RS Principal Control subtest. 102 Dimension VI: TEACHER INTIMACI Teacher intimacy refers to the faculty behavior that is characterized by close social relationships. This factor only reflects a social-needs orientation outside of the professional workplace environment. A teaching staff that scores high in Teacher Intimacy perceives its colleagues to engage in high levels of interaction outside of the workplace. A low Teacher Intimacy score would indicate a staff that does not continue its relationships outside the working environment into a social setting. This factor withheld its identity as an independent dimension just as in the OCDQ and OCDQ-RS studies. Three OCDQ-RS items from Teacher Intimacy Behavior form the sixth factor, which retained the factor name of TEACHER INTIMACY. Dimension VII: TEACHER FRUSTRATION Teacher frustration describes the faculty’s dissatisfaction with noninstructional responsibilities that interfere with its teaching assignments. A faculty that scores high on this dimension tends to view the administration as interfering and counterproduc- tive to its job of teaching. A low faculty score, however, repre- sents a staff that perceives the assignment of auxiliary responsibilities does not distract the teachers from their primary job of instruction. Three items from the Teacher Frustration subtest in the OCDQ-RS form this final factor, which retained the factor name of TEACHER FRUSTRATION. 103 Summary: Identification of Items by Source In summary, 74% of the OCDQ-RS items were retained in the MSOCS-FF} The OCDQ-RS subtest Teacher Intimacy maintained its identity, with three of the four subtest items loading onto the factor also called TEACHER INTIMACY. Kottkamp et a1. (1987) reported an alpha reliability of .71, whereas the same factor in the current study yielded a .93 reliability. Six out of seven items in the OCDQ-RS subtest Principal Support merged with three items from the Principal Control subtest into one factor: ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT. Three other items from the Principal Control subtest combined to form an independent factor, ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL. Three items from the Teacher Engagement subtest (Kottkamp et a1., 1987) collapsed lntO' the factor' EXPECTANCY AND MOTIVATION, whereas two other items from the same subtest merged into the PUPIL CONTROL BEHAVIOR factor. Three items from the Teacher Frustration subtest maintained their identity by forming the factor also called TEACHER FRUSTRATION. 0f the 12 items common to both the OCDQ and the OCDQ-RS, eight emerged as items in the MSOCS-FF. Ninety-three percent of the Expectancy Motivation Scale (Miskel, 1982) items were retained in the current study. Ten of the items combined to form the factor EXPECTANCY AND MOTIVATION. Two items merged into the factor PUPIL CONTROL BEHAVIOR, and one item disbursed into the factor TANGIBLE ENVIRONMENT. Miskel reported a mean reliability of .78 for his Expectancy Motivation Scale. The~ 104 Expectancy Motivation factor in the current study had a .97 reliability coefficient. Sixty-seven percent of the Pupil Control Ideology items (Willower et a1., 1967) were retained in the MSOCS-FF. Eleven PCI items merged into the factor PUPIL CONTROL BEHAVIOR, and one item loaded into the factor ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT. Willower reported a mean reliability of .91 for his Pupil Control Ideology Scale. The comparative factor in the current study had a .92 reliability coefficient. Eighty-eight percent of the original items developed from the related literature were retained in the final form of the Middle School Organizational Climate Survey. Original items merged into the factors of EXPECTANCY AND MOTIVATION, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT, and TANGIBLE ENVIRONMENT. The seven dimensions of middle-level organizational climate that are assumed to be measured by the MSOCS-FF factors are described and items included in each factor are presented in Appendix N. Second-Order Factor Analysis Following the research of Halpin and Croft (1962) and Kottkamp et a1. (1987), a second-order factor analysis was completed to explore the underlying structure of the seven climate factors. The initial second-order rotated factor matrix, percentage of variance, scree test, and correlation matrix were examined for a second-order factor solution. Three factors showed an eigenvalue of 1.0 or 105 higher and accounted for 67% of the total variance (Table 4.9). However, the lack of horizontal leveling in the scree test (Figure 4.2), absence of a clear factor matrix (Table 4.10), and generally weak measures of association in the correlation matrix (Table 4.11) supported the conclusion that the seven first-order factors could not be reduced to a second-order solution. Due to the availability of data, the analysis was continued with an examination of a two-, three-, four-, five-, and six-factor solution, continuing to use sequential iterations to see if clarity of structure would emerge. An examination of all second-order solutions confirmed the same information regarding the absence of a second-order factor solution. Independent Variables and Organizational tlimate In addition to the development of an instrument for the measurement of organizational climate in middle school settings, several exploratory analyses were conducted to determine whether selected independent variables accounted for differences in middle- level organizational climate. These independent variables consisted of average building teacher age, level of years of teaching experience, breakdown of faculty gender, and building instructional organization. Average Age of Teaching Staff The average age of the teachers for each of the 88 middle-level schools was determined. Descriptive statistics and a histogram Table 4.9.--Initia1 second-order factor analysis: variance. 106 Percentage of Percent of Cumulative Factor Eigenvalue Variance Percent 1 2.44634 34.9 34.9 2 1.23858 17.7 52.6 3 1.01729 14.5 67.2 4 .83490 11.9 79.1 5 .68755, 9.8 88.9 6 .50819 7.3 96.2 7 .26715 3.8 100.0 2.466 + * I E I I I G I E I N I V 1.239 + A I L 1.017 + * U .835 + E .688 + S .508 + * .267 + * .000 + ----- + ----- + ----- + ----- + ----- + ----- + ----- + 1 3 6 7 Figure 4.2: Initial second-order factor solution: Scree test. 107 Table 4.10.--Initia1 second-order factor matrix: Rotated factor matrix. Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EXM .69944 .43836 .37449 TGEN .56079 TIN .62783 ADSUP .56802 TRFRUS -.51974 PCB -.33919 -.48397 ' -.53947 ADCON .46562 Note: EXM = Expectancy and Motivation, TGEN = Tangible Environment, TIN = Teacher Intimacy, ADSUP = Administrative Support, TRFRUS = Teacher Frustration, PCB = Pupil Control Behavior, ADCON = Administrative Control. Table 4.ll.--Initial second-order factor solution: Correlation matrix. Factor EXM ADSUP PCB TGEN ADCON TIN TRFRUS EXM 1.00000 ADSUP .35803 1.00000 PCB -.67388 -.28910 1.00000 TGEN .44029 .18067 -.23493 1.00000 ADCON .01414 .04225 .16315 .04066 1.00000 TIN .38302 .03643 -.43375 .09631 -.12856 1.00000 TRFRUS -.12148 -.23520 .23526 .00172 .15524 -.19276 1.00000 Note: EXM = Expectancy and Motivation, TGEN = Tangible Environment, TIN = Teacher Intimacy, ADSUP = Administrative Support, TRFRUS = Teacher Frustration, PCB = Pupil Control Behavior, ADCON = Administrative Control. 108 chart are presented in Figure 4.3. The frequency distribution approximates a normal curve with an average staff age ranging from 35.5 to 48.2 years. The aggregated data were divided into the following quartile groups: Group Average Age of Teachers Per School 1 Less than 39.48 2 Greater than 39.48 but less than 41.18 3 Greater than 41.18 but less than 43.43 4 Greater than 43.43 One-way analysis of variance and Bartlett-Box F test for homogeneity of variances were computed for each of the seven dependent climate variables and group average teaching age (Table 4.12). Statistical analysis indicated, with 95% confidence, that no two average age groups were significantly different for the dependent variables of Expectancy' and Motivation, Pupil Control Behavior, Administrative Support, Administrative Control, Tangible Environment, and Teacher Frustration. However, analysis indicated with 95% confidence that there was a significant difference in mean Teacher Intimacy between faculties in Groups 1 and 4 and between faculties in Group 1 and Group 3. Referencing the group categories as defined above, these data indicated that faculties with a mean age less than 39 years old showed a significantly higher score in Teacher Intimacy than faculties averaging more than 41 years old. This indicated that as the schools’ average teacher age increased, the existence of close social relationships with co-workers decreased. Conversely, schools Count 0 -4 C3 (0 (D -J —J 01 0) C) 01 “D a: C) C) &I 01 —l h) R) ‘4 Note: Midpoint 34. 34. 35. 36. .00 37 37. 38. 39. 4O 40. 41 42. 43 43. 44. 45. 46. 46. 47. 48. 49. 00 75 50 25 75 50 25 .00 75 .50 25 .00 75 50 25 00 75 50 25 00 109 *************** ***** ****************************** ******************** ************************************************** ************************************************** **************************************** ******************************************** ************************* ************************************************** *************** ****************************** ***** *********************************** ********** ********** ***** 0000000000000000000000000 One * - approximately .20 occurrences. Mean - 41.574, Std. Error = .310, Median = 41.176, Mode - 39.00, Std. Dev. = 2.909, Variance = 8.463, Kurtosis = -.511, Skewness - .257. Figure 4.3: Average age of teachers. Table 4.12.--One-way analysis of variance: 110 average age of teaching staff. Seven climate scales/ I. EXPECTANCY AND MOTIVATION Source Of Between groups 3 Within groups 84 Total 87 Sum of §QU3YES .2646 4.3718 4.6364 Bartlett-Box F = .389, p = .761 Group Count 1 22 2 21 3 23 4 22 Mean 3.0654 3.0744 2.9383 3.0073 Mean F- F- Sguaresflatjefirob. .0882 .0520 Standard 0.9mm .1960 .2360 .2314 .2462 II. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT Source gt Between groups 3 Within groups 84 Total 87 Bartlett-Box F = 1.182, p = . Group Count 1 22 2 21 3 23 4 22 Sum of Sguares .1792 10.4059 10.5851 315 Mean Sguares .0597 .1239 Standard Deyiation .3769 .2787 .4111 .3200 1.6946 .1744 Standard Error .0418 .0515 .0483 .0525 F- F- Ratio Prob. 0.4822 .6956 Standard Error .0804 .0608 .0857 .0682 111 Table 4.12.--Continued. III. PUPIL CONTROL BEHAVIOR Sum of Mean F- F- Source gt Sguares Sgoares Ratio Erob. Between groups 3 .1774 .0591 1.4098 .2456 Within groups 84 3.5235 .0419 Total 5 3.7009 Bartlett-Box F = .980, p = .401 Standard Standard Group Count ean Deviation Error 1 22 1.8454 .1590 .0339 2 21 1.9378 .2289 .0500 3 23 1.9213 .2075 .0433 4 22 1.9671 .2179 .0464 IV. TANGIBLE ENVIRONMENT Sum of Mean F- F- Source gt Sguares Sguares Ratio Erob. Between groups 3 .5814 .1938 1.2390 .3008 Within groups 84 13.1393 .1564 Total E 13 . 7207 Bartlett-Box F = .671, p = .570 Standard Standard Group Count ean Deviation Error 1 22 2.9923 .3544 .0756 2 21 3.0107 .3571 .0779 3 23 2.8078 .3948 .0823 4 22 2.9655 .4640 .0989 Table 4.12.--Continued. 112 V. Source gt Between groups 3 Within groups 84 Total 87 Bartlett-Box F = .419, p Group Count 1 22 2 21 3 23 4 22 VI. Source gt Between groups 3 Within groups 84 Total 87 Bartlett-Box F = 1.285, p = . Group Count 1 22 2 21 3 23 4 22 Sum of Sguares .1071 8.9288 9.0359 =’.739 Heap 2.1282 2.0396 2.1213 2.1110 TEACHER FRUSTRATION Sum of gum—res .2064 9.1403 9.3467 278 Mean 1.7819 1.9130 1.8447 1.8093 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL Sguares .0357 .1063 Standard Deviation .3437 .3493 .3292 .2781 Sguares .0688 .1088 Standard Deyiation .3436 .3444 .3713 .2445 F- Ratio 0.3359 Ratio 0.6323 F- Erob. .7994 Standard Error .0733 .0762 .0686 .0593 F- Erob. .5962 Standard Error .0733 .0752 .0774 .0521 "'3 H1”: (‘41? \ 113 Table 4.12.--Continued. VII: TEACHER INTIMACY Sum of Mean F- F- §oprce gt Sguares Sguares Ratio Prob. Between groups 3 1.9804 .6601 7.0628 .0003** Within groups 84 7.8511 .0935 Total 87 9.8315 Bartlett-Box F = 1.696, p 2 .166 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 22 2.4685 .3136 .0669 2 21 2.2286 .3036 .0663 3 23 2.1244 .3643 .0760 4 22 2.0831 .2207 .0470 Group Mean Group 4 3 2 1 2.0831 4 2.1244 3 2.2286 2 2.4685 1 * * *Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .05 level. **Significant at alpha = .05. 114 with younger teachers reflected a stronger social-needs orientation than schools with older staff members. Average Years of Teaching Experience The exploration of' relationships between the seven climate scales and the level of years of teaching experience was the second analysis in this sequence. Aggregated data from the 88 schools are reported in the descriptive statistics and histogram chart in Figure 4.4. As expected, the average years of teaching experience correlated with the average age of the teaching staff. Similarly, the data indicated a relatively normal curve distribution with a range from 10.8 years of experience to 24.2 years of average staff teaching experience. The following quartile groups were created from the aggregated school data for purposes of further analysis: Groop Average Years of Teaching Experience Per School Less than 14.78 Greater than 14.78 but less than 16.60 Greater than 16.60 but less than 18.69 Greater than 18.69 hWN—J One-way analysis of variance and Bartlett-Box F test for homogeneity of variances were completed for each of the seven dependent climate variables with level of average years of teaching experience as the independent variable (Table 4.13). Statistical analysis indicated with 95% confidence that no two average teaching experience groups were significantly different with the dependent variables of Expectancy and Motivation, Pupil Control Behavior, Count Midpoint 10. 10. 0 2 (D ‘d \0 (» 11 11 \J \l «5 CD Note: 11 12 13 18. 19. 19. 20. .25 22. 21 22. 23. 24. 25 00 75 .50 .25 .00 13. 14. 15. 16. 16. 17. 75 50 25 00 75 50 25 00 75 50 00 75 50 25 .00 115 ***** *** *** ******** *********************** ****************** ******************** **************************** **************************** ******************** ********** ****************** ****************** *** ********** *** ***** *** One * - approximately .40 occurrences. Error = .294, Median = 16.601, Mode = 15.333, Std. Dev. . 2.760, Variance = 7.616, Kurtosis = -.087, Skewness . .316. Figure 4.4: Mean - 16.730, Std. Average teaching experience. Table 4.13.--One-way analysis of variance: 116 average years of teaching experience. Seven climate scales/ I. §Qfl££§ Between groups Within groups Total EXPECTANCY AND MOTIVATION g: 3 84 87 Sum of Sguares .3010 4.3355 4.6364 Bartlett-Box F = 1.256, p = .288 Group Count 1 22 2 22 3 22 4 22 11. Source Between groups Within groups Total Bartlett-Box F = .206, rou Count .5de N N Q: 3 84 87 P Sum of Solace; .4667 10.1184 10.5851 Mean Square; .1003 .0516 Standard mm. .1813 .2223 .2771 .2177 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT Mean Sguares .1556 .1205 Standard Deviatipn .3299 .3481 .3807 .3270 F- Batip 1.9437 1.2916 F- Erpb. .1288 Standard Error .0386 .0474 .0591 .0464 .2827 Standard Error .0703 .0742 .0812 .0697 117 Table 4.13.--Continued. III. PUPIL CONTROL BEHAVIOR Sum of Mean F- F- §ource g: Sguares Sguaree Batio Prob. Between groups 3 .2558 .0853 2.0787 .1092 Within groups 84 3.4451 .0410 Total 57 3.7009 Bartlett-Box F = .251, p = .860 Standard Standard rou Count ean Devietipn Error 1 22 1.8794 .2006 .0428 2 22 1.8920 .2249 .0479 3 22 1.8887 .1936 .0413 4 22 2.0107 .1891 .0403 IV. TANGIBLE ENVIRONMENT Sum of Mean F- F- §ource g: Sguares Sgpares Ratio Erob. Between groups 3 .3030 .1010 0.6323 .5962 Within groups 84 13.4177 .1597 Total 57 13.7207 Bartlett-Box F = .923, p = .429 Standard Standard figppp Count Meep Devietjpn Errpr 1 22 2.9312 .3589 .0765 2 22 2.9522 .4457 .0950 3 22 3.0242 .3330 .0710 4 22 2.8596 .4479 .0955 118 Table 4.13.--Continued. V. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL Sum of Source 0: Sguacgs Between groups 3 .0289 Within groups 84 9.0070 Total 57 9.0359 Bartlett-Box F = 1.096, p = .349 rou Count Mean 1 22 2.1128 2 22 2.0717 3 22 2.1006 4 22 2.1187 Mean Sguaces .0096 .1072 Standard Deviation .3456 .3891 .2738 .2884 VI. TEACHER FRUSTRATION Sum of Source g: Sguares Between groups 3 .3365 Within groups 84 9.0102 Total 57 9.3467 Bartlett-Box F = .211, p = .889 Group Count Mean 1 22 1.7428 2 22 1.8664 3 22 1.8259 4 22 1.9107 Mean Sguares .1122 .1073 Standard Deviation .3554 .3183 .3002 .3337 F— Betip 0.0900 Ratio 1.0457 F- Erpb. .9654 Standard Error .0737 .0829 .0584 .0615 Standard Error .0758 .0679 .0640 .0711 119 Table 4.13.--Continued. VII. TEACHER INTIMACY Sum of Mean F- F- Source pf Sguares Sguares Ratio Erob. Between groups 3 1.9671 .6557 7.0037 .0003** Within groups 84 7.8644 .0936 Total 87 9.8315 Bartlett-Box F = 1.790, p s .147 Standard Standard Group Count ean Deviation Error 1 22 2.4017 .3194 .0681 2 22 2.3203 .3624 .0773 3 22 2.1665 .3071 .0655 4 22 2.0113 .2165 .0461 Group Mean Group 4 3 2 1 2.0113 4 2.1665 3 2.3203 2 * 2.4017 1 * *Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .05 level. **Significant at alpha = .05. 120 Administrative Support, Administrative Control, Tangible Environ- ment, and Teacher Frustration. Analysis, however, indicated with 95% confidence that there was a significant difference in mean Teacher Intimacy between faculties in Group 1 and Group 4 and between faculties in Group 2 and Group 4. Due to the direct correlation between worker age and ,years of experience, and the earlier findings related to age of staff, it is not surprising that a significant mean difference emerged from this climate dimension. These data indicated that faculties in both Groups 1 and 2, who collectively had less than an average of 17 years of teaching experience, expressed a significantly higher degree of concern with close social relationships than those faculties with more than 19 years of teaching experience. Composition of Faculty Gender In the exploration of the effects of the gender composition of a middle—level building and its relationship to organizational climate, descriptive statistics and a histogram (Figure 4.5) were used to identify the percentage of female staff in each of the 88 schools. The mean percentage of female faculty was 55.1, with a range from 20% to 100%“ Again, the cumulative distribution approximated a normal curve, which indicated the gender composition of the middle-level-school sample was normally distributed. 121 Count Midpoint 1 20 *** 2 24 ***** 0 28 2 32 ***** 5 35 *************** 4 4o ********** 7 44 ********§******** 6 48 *************** 14 52 ................ ,g; ............ ;;;; 9 56 ,,;;;; ................. 1o 50 ************************* 8 64 ******************** 8 68 ******************** 5 72 ************* 2 76 ***** 2 80 **** 1 84 ** 0 88 0 92 0 96 1 100 *** 0 ..... 2 ..... 4 ..... 6 ..... 8. . . . 10 Note: One * = approximately .40 occurrences. Mean = 55.149, Std. Error = 1.490, Median = 55.556, Mode = 50.00, Std. Dev. = 13.974, Variance = 195.285, Kurtosis = .571, Skewness = .147. Figure 4.5: Percentage of female teachers. 122 The aggregated data were divided into three groups for further analysis as indicated below: Group Percentage of Female Faculty l—-low % Less than 50% female 2-—medium % Greater than 50% but less than 60.69% 3--high % Greater than 60.69% female One-way analysis of variance and Bartlett-Box F test for homogeneity of variances were completed for each of the seven dependent climate scales and gender groups (Table 4.14). Statistical analysis indicated with 95% confidence that no two gender groups were significantly different with any' of the seven dependent climate variables of Expectancy and Motivation, Pupil Control Behavior, Teacher Intimacy, Tangible Environment, Teacher Frustration, Administrative Control, and Administrative Support. Even Teacher Intimacy, which showed a significant difference for age groups and years of teacher experience, showed no difference when compared to the composition of faculty gender. Collectively, these data indicated that the gender composition within a middle- 1eve1 building did not have a significant effect on building climate. Instructional Organization Middle-level schools have a variety of instructional-design organizations. This researcher explored the effects of average building instructional design and its relationship to the seven climate dimensions. Each of the three common instructional designs 123 Table 4.14.--One-way analysis of variance: Seven climate scales/ percentage female teachers. I. EXPECTANCY AND MOTIVATION Sum of Mean F- F- urc pf Sguares Sguares Begio Erpp, Between groups 2 .0747 .0374 0.6960 .5014 Within groups 85 4.5617 .0537 Total 57 . 4.6364 Bartlett-Box F = .747, p = .474 Standard Standard Group Count ean Deviation Error 1 33 3.0129 .2586 .0450 2 26 2.9856 .2180 .0428 3 29 3.0582 .2099 .0390 II. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT Sum of Mean F- F- Source g: Sguares Sguares Ratio Prob. Between groups 2 .1588 .0794 0.6473 .5260 Within groups 85 10.4263 .1227 Total 57 10.5851 Bartlett-Box F = .432, p = .649 Standard Standard Group Count ean Devietipn Error 1 33 2.9231 .3806 .0663 2 26 2.8377 .3217 .0631 3 29 2.9375 .3382 .0628 Table 4.14.--Continued. 124 III. Source g: Between groups 2 Within groups 85 Total 87 Bartlett-Box F = .452, p Grpup Count 1 33 2 26 3 29 IV. Souree Qfi Between groups 2 Within groups 85 Total ‘87 PUPIL CONTROL BEHAVIOR Sum of §QU8T§§ .0174 3.6835 3.7009 = .636 (D m 3 _a_c_a mono 4340‘ _: Mean §QU3Y€S .0087 .0433 Standard Deviatjpn .1882 .2210 .2179 TANGIBLE ENVIRONMENT Sum of Sguares .8596 12.8611 13.7207 Bartlett-Box F = 1.047, p = .351 Group Count (ION-J NNQ’ $00100 Mean S uares .4298 .1513 Standard Deviation .4041 .4304 .3275 F- Batip 0.2006 F- Retio 2.8407 F- Erpb. .8186 Standard Errpr .0328 .0433 .0405 F- 2:99; .0639 Standard Ema: .0704 .0844 .0608 Table 4.14.--Continued. 125 v. Source g: Between groups 2 Within groups 85 Total 87 Sum of Sguares .0686 8.9673 9.0359 Bartlett-Box F = 2.593, p 2 .075 Group Count 1 33 2 26 3 29 VI. Source g: Between groups 2 Within groups 85 Total 87 Mean Sguares ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL F- Ratio .0343 .1055 0.3253 Standard Deviation .2735 .2875 .4012 TEACHER INTIMACY Sum of Sguares .0540 9.7775 9.8315 Bartlett-Box F = 1.121, p = .326 Group Count 1 33 2 26 3 29 Mean 2.2568 2.2031 2.2083 Mean F- Sguares Ratio .0270 .1150 0.2347 Standard Deviation .3476 .2801 .3756 F- Prob. .7232 Standard Error .0476 .0564 .0745 F- Prob. .7913 Standard Error .0605 .0549 .0697 126 Table 4.14.--Continued. VII. TEACHER FRUSTRATION Sum of Mean F- F- °"' flf Sguares Sguares Katie Beebe Between groups 2 .0750 .0375 Within grouns 85 9.2717 .1091 '3438 °7‘°° Total 57 9.3467 Bartlett-Box F = .689, p = .502 Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error 1 33 1.8017 .2912 .0507 2 26 1.8724 .3455 .0678 3 29 1.8438 .3573 .0663 was assigned a value ranging on a continuum from the isolated self- contained classroom (value = l) to the more interactive departmen— talized organization (value = 2) and socially interactive interdisciplinary teaming (value = 3) arrangements. An average instructional organization score was determined for each of the 88 middle-level buildings. Analysis of aggregate school scores and histogram (Figure 4.6) indicated a leptokurtic kurtosis. This highly skewed distribution indicated that the majority of middle- 1evel schools reported a departmentalized instructional design. The aggregate data were broken into three groups by creating a nfiddle 127 Count Midpoint 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 17 1 27 1 19 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 .250 .325 .400 .475 .550 .625 .700 .775 .850 .925 .000 .075 .150 .225 .300 .375 .450 .525 .600 .675 .750 ** * ** ********' ** **************************** ********************************************* ******************************** *** ******* ******* ** *** ** ** ** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Note: One * - approximately .60 occurrences. Mean - 1.959, Std. Error = .021, Median . 1.931, Mode - 2.00, Std. Dev. - .193, Variance . .037, Kurtosis = 2.889, Skewness . .714. Figure 4.6: Instructional organization. 128 group composed of scores one standard deviation above and below the mean. In this manner, the following analysis groups were created: Group Instructional Organization Scheme 1 Less than 1.77 2 Greater than 1.77 but less than 2.15 3 Greater than 2.15 One-way analysis of variance and Bartlett-Box F test for homogeneity of variances (were completed for each of the seven dependent climate scales and instructional organization groups (Table 4.15). Statistical analysis indicated with 95% confidence that no two instructional design groups were significantly different on any of the seven dependent variables. These data indicated that most middle-level schools participating in this study had a variety of instructional designs operating within their buildings and the aggregate school scores did not have a significant effect on Expectancy and Motivation, Pupil Control Behavior, Tangible Environment, Teacher Frustration, Teacher Intimacy, Administrative Control, and Administrative Support. Chapter Summary The analysis procedures applied to the data collected from the Middle School Organizational Climate Survey were presented and discussed in this chapter. Through these procedures, it was determined that seven dimensions best represent the organizational climate of middle-level schools. Two factors describe the behavior of the principal(s) and five factors describe the faculty as a group. Continued factor and alpha reliability analyses guided the 129 Table 4.15.--One-way analysis of variance: Seven climate scales/ average instructional design. I. EXPECTANCY AND MOTIVATION Sum of Mean F- F- Source g: Sguares Sgperes Batip Prob. Between groups 2 .1809 .0905 1.7257 .1842 Within groups 85 4.4555 .0524 Total 57 4.6364 Bartlett-Box F = .641, p = .527 Standard Standard rou Count ean Deyiation Error 1 8 3.0234 .2203 .0779 2 68 2.9994 .2199 .0267 3 12 3.1326 .2820 .0814 II. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT Sum of Mean F- F- §ource pf Sguares Sguares Ratip Prob. Between groups 2 .1328 .0664 .5401 .5847 Within groups 85 10.4523 .1230 Total 57 10.5851 Bartlett-Box F = 1.867, p = .155 Standard Standard rou oun Mean Deyiatipn Errpr 1 8 3.0227 .1914 .0677 2 68 2.8942 .3661 .0444 3 12 2.8702 .3322 .0959 Table 4.15.--Continued. 130 III. M d_f Between groups 2 Within groups 85 Total 87 PUPIL CONTROL BEHAVIOR Sum of §QU3V€S .1331 3.5678 3.7009 Bartlett-Box F = 1.225, p = .294 Grpup Count 1 8 2 68 3 12 IV. Source dfi Between groups 2 Within groups 85 Total 57 Bartlett-Box F = 1.181, p EEQQQ Count 1 8 2 68 3 12 Sum of §guares .8646 12.8561 13.7207 = .307 Mean 2.8258 2.9128 3.1833 Mean Scum .0665 .0420 Standard Devietipn .1789 .2153 .1470 TANGIBLE ENVIRONMENT Mean §guanes .4323 .1512 Standard Deviation .4969 .3898 .2935 F- 32119 1.5854 Ratio 2.8583 Ergb, .2109 Standard Errpr .0632 .0261 .0424 Prpb. .0629 Standard Errpr .1757 .0473 .0847 Table 4.15.--Continued. 131 V. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL Sum of Mean F- Sogrge pf Sgueres Sgpegee Retip Between groups 2 .1155 .0578 0.5505 Within groups 85 8.9204 .1049 Total 57 9.0359 Bartlett-Box F = 1.202, p = .301 Standard rou Count Mean evi 'on 1 8 2.0812 .3264 2 68 2.1187 .3038 3 12 2.0138 .4253 VI. TEACHER INTIMACY Sum of Mean F- §ource g: Sguares Sguares Ratio Between groups 2 .3536 .1768 1.5854 Within groups 85 9.4779 .1115 Total 57 9.8315 Bartlett-Box F = 1.923, p = .146 Standard firpup Count Mean Deyietipp l 8 2.3894 .4235 2 68 2.1925 .3389 3 12 2.2990 .2186 F- Prpb. .5787 Standard Enter .1154 .0368 .1228 F- Erob. .2109 Standard Enter .1497 .0411 .0631 132 Table 4.15.--Continued. VII. TEACHER FRUSTRATION Sum of Mean F- F- §opree g: Sguares Sgpegee Ratio Prpb. Between groups 2 .0837 .0418 0.3840 .6823 Within groups 85 9.2630 .1090 Total 57 9.3467 Bartlett-Box F = .045, p = .956 Standard Standard Group Count ean Deviation Errpr l 8 1.8858 .3547 .1254 2 68 1.8198 .3289 .0399 3 12 1.8979 .3212 .0927 reduction of survey items. The final 70 items represent seven factors, which collectively account for 65.2% of the variability in the measurement of organizational climate in middle-level settings. Various second-order factor analyses were conducted to explore the interrelationship between the seven climate factors. An examination of data supported the conclusion that the seven factors could not be reduced to a second-order structure. Exploratory analyses were conducted to determine whether four independent variables had an effect on the identified dimensions of middle-level organizational climate. The variables of building gender composition and building instructional organization were not found to have an effect on the climate dimensions of Expectancy 133 and Motivation, Pupil Control Behavior, Teacher Frustration, Teacher Intimacy, Tangible Environment, Administrative Control, and Administrative Support. The independent variables of average age of teaching staff and average years of eXperience, however, were found to have an effect on only the climate variable, Teacher Intimacy. Teaching staffs over the age of 41 and with more than 19 years of average teaching experience demonstrated a decreased concern with social need relationships. Chapter V begins with a discussion of the findings for each of the three research questions addressed in this study. Following the summary of findings, each research question is discussed, with recommendations and implications for future research. CHAPTER V SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Summery of the Finding; Dimensionefiof Middle-Level OrganizationelClimate Working from the climate studies of Halpin and Croft (1962) and Kottkamp et a1. (1987), the expectancy motivation study of Miskel (1982), the pupil control ideology study of Willower et a1. (1967), and related literature, the researcher developed an organizational climate instrument and tested it for use in the middle-level school setting. Eight factors representing the behaviors of’ both the principal and teachers were found to operationalize the construct of elementary school organizational climate (Halpin & Croft, 1962). Five factors, also representing the social relationships between the principal and faculty, were identified in the measurement of secondary school organizational climate (Kottkamp et a1., 1987). In addition to the dimensions identified in the studies cited above, the effects of teachers’ expectancy and motivation, pupil control behavior, and tangible environment emerged as factors in the measurement of organizational climate in middle-level schools. Items from the Expectancy and Motivation Scale (Miskel, 1982) and the Pupil Control Ideology Scale (Willower et a1., 1967) were 134 135 modified to assess perceptions of the behavior of the group as opposed to perceptions of the individual. This revision was necessary to create unit—of—analysis compatibility between the study and psychometric phases of instrument development. Previously identified as a component of exemplary schools, the physical and material aspects of a school emerged as a factor in middle school climate. As a result of this study, seven statistically valid and reliable factors were identified and defined to portray aspects of the organizational climate of nfiddle-level schools. Five factors describing the characteristics of the faculty as a group include Expectancy and Motivation (EXM), Pupil Control Behavior (PCB), Tangible Environment (TGEN), Teacher Intimacy (TIN), and Teacher Frustration (TFRUS). Two factors describing the behavior of the principal(s) include .Administrative Support (ADSUP) and Adminis- trative Control (ADCON). Expectancy and Motivation emerged as the largest dimension, accounting for 33% of the total variance. This factor resulted from merging 71% of the items originally from the Expectancy and Motivation Scale (Miskel, 1982), 38% of the items from the Teacher Engagement subtest (Kottkamp et a1., 1987), and 13 original items. Eighty-six percent of the items originally included in the OCDQ-RS subtest of Principal Support and 43% of the Principal Control items combined with four original items and one PCI item (Willower et a1., 1967) to compose the factor entitled Adminis- trative Support. 136 As hypothesized in the research of Mulhern (1984), the development of a Pupil Control Behavior dimension did result in a strong factor reflecting the teachers’ perceptions of the student body as a group. This factor was created through the merging of 61% of the items from the PCI (Willower et a1., 1967) and two items from each of the subtests entitled Expectancy and Motivation (Miskel, 1982) and Teacher Engagement (Kottkamp et a1., 1987). Tangible Environment emerged as a new factor in the measurement of organizational climate and was composed of four items originally designed to represent this dimension along with one item from the Expectancy and Motivation Scale (Miskel, 1982). Forty-three percent of the items from the OCDQ-RS Principal Control subtest remained together to form the factor entitled Administrative Control. Consistent with the elementary school research of Halpin and Croft (1962) and the secondary school research of Kottkamp et a1. (1987), Teacher Intimacy emerged as an independent factor in the measurement of school organizational climate. Seventy-five percent of the items from the Teacher Intimacy subtest (Kottkamp et a1., 1987) remained to form this factor. Teacher Frustration emerged as the weakest factor in middle- level organizational climate, drawing its three items from the Teacher Frustration subtest in the OCDQ-RS (Kottkamp et a1., 1987). The seven resultant factors are collectively composed of 70 items that make up the Middle School Organizational Climate 137 Survey-Final Form (MSOCS-FF). Administration of this instrument could be facilitated in approximately 25 minutes through a building faculty meeting. Second-Order Factor Solution Following the studies of Halpin and Croft (1962) and Kottkamp et a1. (1987), second-order factor analyses were performed to explore the interrelationship of the seven middle-level climate factors. Halpin and Croft identified the three second-order factors of Social Needs, Esprit, and Social Control. Kottkamp et a1. identified two second-order factors representing social needs and task. achievement. However; in the exploration of' middle-level climate, no clear second-order factors were revealed. The MSOCS-FF emerged as seven independent and stable factors that maintain their identity and resist collapsing into a second-order structure. Exploretion of Independent Variables end Climete Feetpns An overview of the relationships between the subtests in the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire-Final Form (MSOCS- FF) and the four independent variables of average building teacher age, average building years experience, building gender composition, and instructional design resulted in additional insights regarding differences in organizational climate. The dimension of Teacher Intimacy was found to show a negative correlation with both building teacher age and years of teaching experience. As teachers increased in both age and years of 138 experience, they showed a decreased concern for close social relationships with co-workers. Teacher age and years of experience, however, did not appear to have an effect on the six other climate dimensions. of’ Expectancy and Motivation, Administrative Support, Administrative Control, Pupil Control Behavior, Tangible Environ- ment, and Teacher Frustration. The gender composition of a middle-level building was not found to have a significant relationship with the seven organizational climate variables identified in this study. Teacher age, gender, and experience aggregated into building data were used to describe the personnel profile of a staff. When exploring the relationships between the composition of building personnel and the seven dimensions of middle-level organizational climate, only Teacher Intimacy emerged as having a significant effect. Working outside the realm of personnel differences into the curricular domain, the average building instructional design was not found to influence any of the seven dimensions identified to be present in the organizational climate of middle-level schools. Discussion end Implicetions for Future Research A summary of findings from each of the three research questions reviewed above led to discussion and consequent implications for future research. The identification and description of seven factors to represent the organizational climate of middle-level schools is used in the comparison of the factors found to be present in elementary, secondary, and middle-level climate. 139 Comparison of Elementary, Secondary, end Middle-Level Organizetionel Dlimate Dimensions The dimensions identified to measure the organizational climate of elementary, secondary, and middle-level schools are listed in Table 5.1, along with respective reliability coefficients and percentages of variance. Princioel beheviors. In defining the behaviors of the princi- pal, Halpin and Croft (1962) identified the subtest Aloofness to represent formal and impersonal principal behaviors toward the staff. This dimension emerged as the weakest factor in the OCDQ and was not found to be present in the organizational climate of either secondary or middle-level climates. In addition, none of the items representing Aloofness in the OCDQ emerged in any form in the OCDQ- RS or the MSOCS-FF. Perceptions of an autocratic and domineering principal emerged in all three levels of organizational climate. Halpin and Croft (1962) identified the behaviors of a domineering principal with the factor Production Emphasis. Kottkamp et a1. (1987) found the same concept to be present in the organizational climate of secondary schools and called this factor Principal Control. Close administrative supervision of the faculty was also identified as a dimension of middle-level schools and was denoted with the factor name Administrative Control. This factor contained three items and represented 3.7% of the variance. 140 Table 5.1.--Comparison of dimensions and corresponding reliability coefficients present in the organizational climate of elementary, secondary, and middle-level schools. OCDQ OCDQ-RS MSOCS-FF (Halpin & Croft, (Kottkamp et a1., (Cheal, 1990) (1962) 1987) Principel Beheviors Aloofness ---------- * . .26 % var = 5.31 Production Principal Control Administrative Emphasis a = .87 Control * - .55 % var . 10.27 a - .91 % var = 4.73 % var - 3.7 Thrust * = .84 Principal Support Administrative % var = 4.29 a = .91 Support % var = 23.45 a = .95 Consideration % var = 10.06 * . .59 % var = 4.20 Ieecher Beheviors Oisengagement * . .73 Teacher Frustration Teacher Frustration % var = 23.80 a = .85 a = .76 ;:::::> % var = 6.70 % var = 2.7 Hindrance * - .68 % var - 11.06 Esprit Teacher Engagement ----- * . .75 a . .85 % var = 7.59 % var - 12.09 Intimacy Teacher Intimacy Teacher Intimacy * - .60 a = .71 a - .93 % var - 5.98 % var - 5.28 % var - 3.3 141 Table 5.1.--Continued. OCDQ OCDQ-RS MSOCS-FF (Halpin & Croft, (Kottkamp et a1., (Cheal, 1990) (1962) 1987) Teacher Behaviors (Continued) .......... Expectancy and Motivation a - .97 % var - 33.0 .......... Pupil Control Behavior a - .92 % var . 7.6 .......... Tangible Environment a . .87 % var . 4.4 KEY: ----- signifies no comparable dimension is present, * indi- cates split-half coefficient corrected by Spearman-Brown formula, a = alpha reliability coefficient, % var - percentage of variance explained by the factor. Halpin and Croft (1962) identified two factors that represented the positive principal behaviors entitled Thrust and Consideration. Thrust was used to denote task-oriented principal behaviors that positively motivated the faculty, whereas Consideration represented principal behaviors of personal concern for the staff. In the study of secondary school climate, Kottkamp et a1. (1987) found items from the above two factors merged to form one factor representing positive and motivating principal behaviors, entitled Principal Support. Positive administrative behaviors also emerged as a strong factor in middle-level organizational climate, with 14 items 142 representing 10.06% of the variability. Six of the seven items from the OCDQ-RS factor Principal Support merged with three items that loaded negatively from the OCDQ-RS factor Principal Control to form the middle-level subtest entitled Administrative Support. Teacher behaviore. In the measurement of organizational climate in elementary school settings, Halpin and Croft (1962) were concerned with the social interactions between the principal and his/her faculty. Specifically describing behaviors of the teachers, Halpin and Croft identified four distinct subtests. A faculty’s attitude toward its work was found to be one of the most important factors in elementary school climate since Esprit obtained a high loading on both Social Needs and Social Control second-order factors. This dimension was also present in the organizational climate of secondary schools as represented by the subtest Teacher Engagement. The concept of a faculty’s orientation toward work had been hypothesized to be present in the organizational climate of middle-level schools but did not emerge as a subtest in this study. However, three items originally from the OCDQ-RS Teacher Engagement subtest emerged in the newly formed Expectancy and Motivation subtest, while two other items appeared in the new subtest entitled Pupil Control Behavior. The other seven items in this hypothesized dimension did not load onto any factor. Possibly the additional items included in this climate instrument have identified a more extensive factor structure. Items that had 143 previously loaded onto one factor have now aggregated differently to form other factors. The dimension of social needs emerged as a consistent subtest in the organizational climate of elementary, secondary, and middle- level schools. Teacher Intimacy in the current study contained three items that accounted for only 3.3% of the variability. In addition, Teacher Intimacy did not emerge as a separate social needs subtest as found in the second-order factor analyses of the OCDQ and the OCDQ-RS. Teacher Intimacy is a dimension found in all levels of K-12 organizational climate, but it did not maintain as prominent a position in middle-level organizational climate. In this study, the mean building age of teachers was found to be 41.6 years. Also, teaching staffs over the age of 41 were found to demonstrate a significant decrease in concern over social needs. Possibly the aging population of Michigan teachers can account for the decreased strength of the Teacher Intimacy subtest in this study. Replication of this research with a variety of faculty age groups would serve to explore the source of decreased Teacher Intimacy. At present, it is unknown whether this decrease in teacher social needs is attributable to the unique aspects of middle-level schools or generalizable to all levels of K912 education due to an aging teacher population. Halpin and Croft (1962) identified two teacher behaviors representing negative perceptions of co-workers and frustration with unnecessary administrative duties. These two factors were denoted with the subtests Oisengagement and Hindrance, respectively. In the 144 identification of organizational climate of secondary schools, Kottkamp et a1. (1987) found the two teacher subtests described above to merge into the one factor, Teacher Frustration. In the middle school study, three items from the OCDQ subtest Hindrance and one item from the OCDQ-RS subtest Teacher Frustration merged to represent 2.7% of the variance. Teacher Frustration had not been hypothesized 'to be a dimension of middle-level organizational climate but did emerge as the weakest factor. Three new dimensions not present in the OCDQ or the OCDQ-RS were explored and emerged as factors in the organizational climate of middle-level schools. In an effort to investigate the social interaction involving students, Kottkamp et a1. (1987) explored the pupil control orientation of teachers as an indicator of the nature of student/teacher relationships. In their study, Kottkamp et a1. had one-third of the staff complete the Pupil Control Ideology Scale (Willower, 1967). Even though they admitted there was a confounding of the unit of analysis, they found a positive correlation between the pupil control ideology of teachers and the pupil control behavior of the staff. This study included the social interactions between a faculty and their students as a dimension in organizational climate. Pupil Control Behavior did emerge as a strong factor in middle school organizational climate. In an effort to explore the academic orientation of each school, Kottkamp et a1. (1987) compared a random participant 145 sampling of the Expectancy Motivation Scale (Miskel, 1982) to OCDQ- RS building climate scores. They found that secondary schools with more open climates had teachers who had higher expectancy motivation than did schools with less open climates. In addition, they found the more humanistic the pupil control ideology of teachers, the higher the expectancy motivation of the faculty. In this study, expectancy and motivation was included as a dimension in middle-level organizational climate and consistently emerged as the strongest dimension accounting for the largest percentage of variance. Staff perceptions of the physical and material aspects of the building were included as an original dimension of middle-level organizational climate and also emerged as a factor. Implications for Middle-Level Educators The identification and definition of the dimensions present in the organizational climate of middle—level schools resulted in seven reliable and valid factors. These seven factors account for 65% of the variability of middle school climate as compared to the five OCDQ-RS factors that account for 57.8% of the variability in secondary school settings and eight factors that account for 66% of the variability in elementary schools. In addition, three new dimensions were explored and emerged as strong factors in the MSOCS-FF. The factors of Expectancy and Motivation, Pupil Control Behavior, and Tangible Environment collectively accounted for 45% of the variability. These three new 146 factors expand the dimensionality of organizational climate as defined in Tagiuri’s (1968) taxonomy. The climate instruments of Halpin and Croft (1962) and Kottkamp et a1. (1987) were concerned solely with the dimension of social systems, which describes the patterned relationships of persons and groups. With the addition of the three new dimensions cited above, the MSOCS-FF includes the physical and material aspects of Tagiuri’s ecology dimension along with the milieu factor, which describes the social dimension concerned with the presence of persons and groups. These three new factors have broadened the dimensionality of climate to include concepts central to the internal dynamics of any K-12 educational institution. It is recommended that, in future research on climate, these three new dimensions also be included in organizational climate scales at the elementary and secondary school settings. Faculty expectancy and motivation toward student achievement, concern with physical and instructional materials, and relationships between teachers and their students are dimensions that will be present at all educational levels. Based on the hypothesis that middle schools are educational institutions distinct from elementary and secondary settings, and following a review of the related literature, 34 original items were generated for use in the middle-level measurement scale. Eighty- eight percent of the original climate items were retained for use in the final form of this scale. 147 The MSOCS-FF is presented for use in middle schools as a reliable and valid measurement scale that was developed and tested in middle-level settings. The addition of items indigenous to the unique aspects of‘ middle schools, three new factors that have broadened the specificity of the climate dimensionality, and psychometric defense: within a setting compatible with the development phase of this study all lend credibility to the practical application of this instrument. Important Considerations for Future Instrument Use A retrospective analysis of this project elicited several areas of' discussion and implications for future use of this climate instrument. Further consideration of the items used in this instrument revealed an incompatibility between several items and the Likert response statements. As discussed in Chapter 111, it was decided to maintain the integrity of the wording of items taken from a previously used measurement instrument in an attempt to avoid misrepresentation of the item’s intention. However, this effort resulted in several items from the Pupil Control Ideology Scale (Willower et a1., 1967) and the Expectancy and Motivation Scale (Miskel, 1982) being stated in a normative frame of reference, whereas the Likert scale reflected the frequency-of-occurrence frame of reference. For example, Item 40 from the PCI was stated as follows: Directing sarcastic remarks toward a defiant student is a good disciplinary technique. 148 An item such as this cannot be responded to by citing its rate or frequency of occurrence (Rarely Occurs, Sometimes Occurs, Often Occurs, or Very Often Occurs). Restating the item in the following manner would make it compatible with the Likert response statements while maintaining the item’s intent. Directing sarcastic remarks toward a defiant student occurs in this school as a disciplinary technique. An analysis of the items contained in the MSOCS-FF revealed six items that should be reworded in future use of this instrument. It is unknown how many of the items eliminated through instrument revisions were due to this incompatibility. It is possible that an item might have loaded onto a factor if its meaning had not been clouded by this incompatibility. Future use of this instrument is recommended with the following item modifications. Item 40: Directing sarcastic remarks toward a defiant student occurs in this school as a disciplinary technique. Item 44: Students in our school are just young hoodlums and teachers treat them accordingly. Item 55: When our teachers become too friendly with our students, it leads students to become too familiar. Item 75: In this school, teachers work hard in the performance of their job. Item 79: In this school, high faculty initiative leads to the attainment of the desired educational objectives. Item 82: In this school, working as hard as we can results in goal accomplishment. 149 Another potential drawback attributed to the MSOCS-FF is the length of the survey instrument. Merging three psychometrically defended instruments with additional original items into one measurement questionnaire resulted in an ambitious and lengthy survey instrument. As predicted in the development stage of this study, some schools (and individuals in participating schools) reported difficulty in completing the survey due to the extensive length of the questionnaire. The length of this instrument leads to further areas of discussion. An instrument with a total number of items greater than the number of schools participating in the study created a significant statistical challenge. .As explained irl Chapter 111, it was necessary to reduce the original 103-item set to a number lower than that of the participating schools in order to complete the factor analysis procedures. It was believed that the methodology used in deleting the 15 items was the least disruptive to the research project, although it is difficult to measure or predict what effects, if any, this reduction had on the overall study. In future replications of this study, researchers should consider the number of items in the measurement instrument as a guideline in determining the number of participants needed for factor analysis procedures. A 39% participation rate was lower than hoped for but might be indicative of a research project that requires two levels of administrative approval and a faculty’s cooperation to insure a high rate of return. Consequently, expansion of the population to include a variety of national or international demographic areas 150 would serve to boost the potential number of participating schools. This expansion of the sample population would also permit the development of broader instrument norms. Such normative information would add external validity and, of course, enhance the utility of the instrument. Middle School Organizational Climate §urvey-Final Form: Reduced Items The MSOCS-FF contains 70 items, which define seven independent factors. Seventy items could still be regarded as lengthy and might reduce the practical application of this instrument. Some schools might reject the use of the instrument based on its completion time. In addition, the length of the instrument might encourage some participants to create inaccurate response sets. To facilitate the use of this instrument in future research without diminishing the psychometric or philosophical integrity, a modification of the MSOCS—FF was undertaken. The factors of Expectancy and Motivation, Administrative Support, and Pupil Control Behavior represent 80% of the total number of items, whereas the factors of Tangible Environment, Administrative Control, Teacher Intimacy, and Teacher Frustration contain five or fewer items each. Without compromising reliability, an effort was made to balance the number of items representing each of the dimensions, which would also serve to reduce the overall length of the survey instrument. The factors of Expectancy and Motivation, Administrative Support, and Pupil Control Behavior were gradually refined following 151 sequential reliability analysis procedures. The last item to load on a factor was deleted from the item set and a revised reliability analysis reviewed before another item was selected for deletion. In this manner, Factor I (Expectancy and Motivation) was reduced from 27 to 10 items while only reducing the alpha reliability from .97 to .95. It. is believed that the slight reduction in reliability was overridden by the advantages of a shorter, more concise s‘cale. Replication of this reduction procedure resulted in reducing Factor II (Administrative Support) from 14 to 10 items while maintaining an alpha reliability of .95. In a similar manner, Factor III (Pupil Control Behavior) was reduced from 15 to 11 items while maintaining the .92 alpha reliability. The factors of Tangible Environment, Administrative Control, Teacher Intimacy, and Teacher Frustration contain five, three, three, and three items, respectively, and were not altered through this procedure. The reduced-item seven-factor varimax rotational solution is shown in Table 5.2. Every item in the reduced-item factor analysis loaded primarily onto the same factor to which the item was assigned in both the preliminary and final forms of the instrument. This consistency of factors through the three forms of this measurement instrument provided additional evidence for the construct validity of the final seven factors. 152 Table 5.2.-~Rotated factor matrix: Middle School Organizational Climate Survey-Final Form, reduced items (MSOCS-FF—RI). Factor Var. l 2 3 4 5 7 24 .88900 20 .87418 10 .87310 12 .86098 18 .78497 23 .77978 21 .76775 .32201 11 .75769 8 .73703 -.34618 19 -.67785 33 .87226 36 .85901 34 .82187 35 .81425 47 .79469 -.32331 32 .75499 48 .75093 -.34791 74 .67422 -.38300 72 .63678 -.36813 79 .63187 -.34159 58 .81876 46 .79347 60 .76865 30 -.70634 44 .69904 45 .67478 77 .34733 .63895 57 .59129 55 .55441 40 .53238 92 .42957 .52657 62 .95939 63 .89299 66 .74517 2 .57553 81 .42717 .36206 .45428 153 Table 5.2.--Continued. Factor Var. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 25 .92688 26 .92453 13 —.75552 100 -.30934 .88911 101 ' .85919 99 .80815 4 .85578 1 .31547 .66643 5 .65385 The MSOCS-FF-RI is a more concise and timely survey instrument. Item identification, reliability coefficients, and percentage of variance for the preliminary, final, and reduced-item forms of the instrument are presented in Tables 5.3 and 5.4. Throughout all three of the instrument forms, the same seven factors emerged. Through factor analytic techniques, essentially the same items loaded onto the same factors. Similar alpha reliability coefficients were maintained throughout the instrument modifications, and the percentage of variance accounted for increased from 61.6% in the preliminary form to 65.2% in the final form, whereas 69.8% of the variability could be explained in the reduced form of the instrument. 154 Table 5.3.--Item identification for the preliminary, reduced-item data sets. final, and Subtest Name Preliminary Set Final Set Reduced Set Expectancy & 27,32,33,34,35, 27,32,33,34,35, 32,33,34,35, Motivation 36,38,47,48,50, 36,38,47,48,50, 36,47,48,72, (EXM) 51,68,69,71,72, 51,68,69,7l,72, 74,79 74,75,78,79,82, 74,75,78,79,82, 83,85,86,87,88, 83,85,86,87,88, 89,93,98. 93,98 Administra- 06,08,09,10,1l, 08,10,ll,l2,14, 08,10,ll,12, tive Support 12,14,15,l7,18, 15,17,18,19,20, 18,19,20,21, (ADSUP) l9,20,21,23,24, 21,23,24,52 23,24 52 Pupil Control 30,39,40,43,44, 30,40,43,44,45, 30,40,44,45, Behavior (PCB) 45,46,54,55,57, 46,54,55,57,58, 46,55,57,58, 58,59,60,65,77, 59,60,77,84,92 60,77,92 84,90,92,97 Tangible Envi- 02,62,63,66,80, 02,62,63,66,81 02,62,63,66, ronment (TGEN) 81 81 Administrative O7,l3,22,25,26, 13,25,26 13,25,26 Control (ADCON) 67 Teacher 99,100,101,103 99,100,101 99,100,101 Intimacy (TIN) Teacher Ol,04,05,95 Ol,04,05 Ol,04,05 Frustration (TRFRUS) 155 Table 5.4.--Alpha reliability and percentage of variance for sub- tests in the preliminary, final, and reduced instru- ments. Alpha Reliability Percent of Variance Subtest Name Prelim Final Reduced Prelim Final Reduced Expectancy & Motivation (EXM) .97 .97 .95 31.2 33.0 13.5 Administrative Support (ADSUP) .95 ' .95 .95 9.9 10.6 28.6 Pupil Control Behavior (PCB) .92 .92 .92 7.4 7.6 9.0 Tangible Envi- ronment (TGEN) .86 .87 .87 3.9 4.4 6.2 Administrative Control (ADCON) .77 .91 .91 3.5 3.7 4.7 Teacher Inti- macy (TIN) .92 .93 .93 2.9 3.3 4.3 Teacher Frus- tration (TRFRUS) .75 .76 .76 2.6 2.7 3.5 Cumulative percent 61.6 65.2 69.8 Because of the psychometric strengths cited above, it is recommended that future researchers at the middle level consider using this streamlined form of 'the instrument. It is further suggested that, in replications of this study using the MSOCS-FF-RI, researchers seek to expand the reliability of the factors of Tangible Environment, Administrative Control, Teacher Intimacy, and Teacher Frustration through the addition of measurement items. Even 156 though these factors had consistent reliability coefficients, expansion of the factors to include more items would serve to strengthen the overall factor structure. All items loaded onto the same factors as in the preliminary and final instrument forms, even though they often emerged in a different order. The following description of each factor defines the items that remained to form the reduced-set version of the instrument. In the rotated factor analysis of the reduced set, Administrative Support was the first factor to emerge. All five items from the Principal Support subtest and one item from the Principal Control subtest (Kottkamp et a1., 1987) remained to form the reduced factor. Four original items were retained to complete the ten variables in the Administrative Support scale. Expectancy and Motivation was the second factor to emerge in the reduced set. Two items from the Expectancy and Motivation scale (Miskel, 1982) and eight original items remained to form this factor. The content of the items eliminated from this dimension necessitated a revision of the factor description (Appendix 0). This scale now represents the expectancy, valence, and motivation of the faculty only toward student achievement. Items that represented teachers’ expectancy, valence, and motivation toward professional gratification were not retained in the reduced factor set. Pupil Control Behavior retained its position as the third factor to emerge. Maintaining their position in this subtest were eight items from the Pupil Control Ideology scale (Willower et a1., 1967), both items from the Teacher Engagement scale (Kottkamp et 157 a1., 1987), and one item from the Expectancy and Motivation scale (Miskel, 1982). As stated earlier, no reduction of items was taken on factors four through seven. A list of the items and a description of each factor in the MSOCS-FF-RI is included in Appendix 0. Second-Order Fector Solution Through an examination of the second-order factor solutions, Halpin and Croft (1962) identified three factors to define the underlying structure of' elementary organizational climate. The Social Needs factor represented individual perceptions of social interactions. The Intimacy and Consideration subtests collapsed to form this factor, which describes individual perceptions of group relationships. The second factor, entitled Esprit, represented the behavior of the group rather than respondents’ individual behavior. The subtests of Esprit and Thrust yielded a high positive loading on this factor, whereas Oisengagement and Hindrance yielded high negative loadings. The third second-order factor was entitled Social Control as it represented the principal’s orientation toward directing and controlling the behavior of the teachers. This factor was composed of the subtests Aloofness and Production Emphasis. Following the same procedures used in the OCDQ, Kottkamp et a1. (1987) found two second-order factors best represented the underlying structure of secondary climate. The first factor to 158 emerge in the second-order solution was composed of four subtests and entitled Openness. The subtests of Principal Support and Teacher Engagement yielded strong positive loadings, whereas Principal Control and Teacher Frustration yielded strong negative loadings. Consistent with the findings of Halpin and Croft (1962), social needs emerged as a single factor. Even though items were worded as a group reference in the OCDQ-RS, staff interactions associated with social needs satisfaction emerged as a single factor. Through an examination of the second-order factor structure of the seven dimensions of middle-level organizational climate, no clarity of underlying structure emerged. The MSOCS-FF contains seven independent factors that did not collapse into a second-order structure. The: addition of’ new instruments and original items created for use in middle schools could have generated new item loading combinations and factors. Possibly the resulting three new factors of Expectancy and Motivation, Pupil Control Behavior, and Tangible Environment provided a broader and more comprehensive definition of climate. Each factor is now capturing a unique and distinct aspect of a more complete measurement of middle-level organizational climate. The MSOCS-FF consists of seven independent dimensions that can be perceived as seven independent scales. This lack of interdependence among the seven dimensions would support further research using selected scales from the MSOCS-FF. This flexibility 159 would allow practitioners to address individual dimensions of climate as determined for their specific school needs. Independent Variables The variables of teacher age and teacher experience were found to have an effect on the dimension of Teacher Intimacy. Faculties over the age of 41 or those with more than 19 years of teaching experience were found to have a decreased concern with close social relationships. It is interesting that this relationship emerged regardless of faculty gender composition. Contrary to conventional wisdom, close social relationships with co-workers emerged as a function of age and experience rather than gender. In the research of Brophy and Good (1974), female teachers were found to react differently to male students due to sex-role socialization. In the study of middle-level climate, the gender composition of a school was found to have no significant effect on the faculty’s perception of teacher/student relationships. Gender-related teacher differences have been identified to explain differences in job stress and emotional exhaustion (Gould, 1985; Litt & Turk, 1985; Perlin & Schooler, 1978). However, in this study, an exploration of gender composition indicated no effect on the faculty’s frustration with their job. Similarly, no difference was found between the variable of faculty gender and concern for the physical and material aspects of a building, expectancy and 160 motivation toward academic achievement, teacher social needs, and administrative support and control. Possibly the effects found when studying gender as an individual variable are altered when studying the effects of group behaviors. Personnel decisions made from a building perspective appear to require different rationale and support than do those focused on individuals. Administrators responsible for district policies and procedures are cautioned not to apply research using the individual as the unit of analysis to situations addressing the collective needs of the staff. The physical arrangement of students for curricular instruction did not have an effect on how teachers perceived the behavior of their students or their expectancy of academic achievement. Also of interest to practitioners is the lack of effect instructional organization had on teachers’ perceptions of the physical environment, teacher frustration, or administrative behaviors. Contrary to what one might expect, instructional organization did not appear to have an effect on teacher social needs or professional isolation, which are often cited as a concern with teachers assigned to a self-contained or departmentalized instructional organization (Gould, 1988; Jordell, 1987). Teaming is often cited as an important variable for an effective middle school program. However, based on the results of this study, the increased personnel costs required for teaming would not result in an enhanced building climate. 161 As discussed in Chapter III, the instructional organization in this sample was skewed toward a departmentalized strategy. This could indicate that departmentalized instructional organization occurs so frequently in Michigan middle schools that obtaining an adequate sample of nondepartmentalized schools is difficult. Consequently, it is believed that the effects of instructional organization on the dimensions of middle-level climate should be further researched with a sample of schools that includes a broader range of instructional strategies. Generalizabili Although the sample was randomly drawn from the Michigan population, participation in this research study was voluntary. In addition, only middle—level schools in Michigan were approached to participate 'hl this study. Therefore, generalizing beyond the sample must be undertaken cautiously and with full cognizance of the limitations of the research design. With these limitations understood, the seven independent factors identified to portray organizational climate appear to have potential as a useful tool for helping describe the differences in middle-level school organizational climate. The factor structure in the instrument was found to be highly reliable and valid. The descriptions assigned to the factors are general enough to be applied to the diverse circumstances that occur in various middle schools but specific enough to be helpful in individual building situations. APPENDICES APPENDIX A MAJOR SCHOOL CLIMATE INSTRUMENTS, CATEGORIZED BY TAGIURI’S CLIMATE TAXONOMY 162! amcmcmponom xuochOLm mmocoemz< Aumcaeeou aumpoomuooco cowumuecmmcowwo cowuoocmc pmoo hummco>mo znpoo< appaomuwmo vooam mu—aommwmo ucosc0cm>co cease» ovaumuum o>mummoz. momum>mpom poozom compo» acomco poapoop—oucw meccpm Ahv omega“ “EV pcoeommmcommo Aav pastch ucoan—o>ov vac oocmscowcom mEmLmOLQ comumosuo cm oowo> mcomum—oc_xcowm>coa:m mcomumpoc xumc:EEOO\poocom mnoopxcoz moomuomca o>mumcummcmen< omumcooeoo humpmscom Emmumco>mm mmocosumpu comuomcm mmoco>mwozou mmoco>mumuoaeou mmoco>mmocoo mmoco>mumuoaeou comuomcm —ocucoo paucoe unecv>co meccum Amy mmmmcan icomuoszEQ Aav compotoommcoo on amoccoop< Ahv xoosmuc_ Apv oocmcvcm: comuoocawpam comuommmmumw moow>c6m pmwooam wo>mucoocm _mwocmcmu ucosawavo cam mpmwcoumz momumpmomw can mamup_=m ucoEc0cm>cm . Aonm_ cca_ocmmv Ammmmv >m>mam pzuzzom_>zm oooxom >mmohzm>z_ hzmzzom_>zm oz_zzmopzu>z_ aooxom >2 Ammo. .Fpozopmzv A_omzv xuoz. mo_pm_mmho<¢m£om mocmcoucwme wsumum Assacmucoov owumEocv uocunomumEoco _Um no 05mm Rasscmucoov omummcmE:c n-_mmuoum:o muoowwo cocooocomuam Aomm_ .occxgv mcomum>cowno A_m¢_ .copuom a asam__wzv Aomov No.4 ooozum do >h_4<:o Awnmp .ucoFutmao: a cmouaomv Aomov mm_4 Joozom no >H_4<=o Aoem_ .coatoocmoezm>z. zo_ea_mommo doozum Amnm_ ...o no automov hommv 4<_hzmmmom_o u_Hzooooma_ oomezou o_a=a mesa—nu Eouwxw Pomoom :cpppz xmopoom vacancumc_ .ooacwpcoo--.p.< o_aah .A:mmpv pmcomumccouc_ muomcumn< comumueommmo .Acwmp azummco>mc3 mcomuam .comumucommmv pmcouooov :oouo on» we cowmw>om "mpoocom xcmvcooom we omep—o pmcomum~mcmmcoz accocpaz .5 “oocaom 1194 any mucovapm $0 mcomuouooaxo vco mcomumspm>o pcomocm on _oo;oa we humpoau pcomoca we comp unapo>o ucocma was pmamocmcm any o>0casm cu mucomwu Adv comumozvo humpmau cow mcomumuooaxo\ccoocoo ucocom Ahv mcomumuooaxo m.~mamocwca we coquOOLom “by ape—muse omsoooo< Ahv o>0ca5_ on ucoEumEEoo acouaum\cocomoh Ahv comuopasoo poocom cam; cow mcomumuooaxo van mcomumzpm>o acomocm A». omo._oo\como umosvo we humpmzo .mcomumu nooaxo .mcowumapm>o azumpwn< Amy mscoc genome» vco swag cosomou we comumuooaxm Amv mace: owEovmo< Amy mcomuouooaxo van mcomumapm>o acomocm Amy mcompmuooaxo . Amnm— ..—m no new mcompmz—m>o menus; co>ox00cmv Amv xumpmuam omeovmo< mocmmccomumoao Ecummm mapmpm acouaum icowumucomco omsovmo< oocoppooxo ovummcmE=z Emmucomom Emmompocumo . camcmuppmmo van o>mmocou Amhmp .xnmmmm EmmomuocumotEmPFmsuoo—pope. a ppmoozv covumpaeo omeovmo< mecmmccomumoao menu—so Eouwxm pmmoom sompmz xmopoom vacancpmc_ .uoacwucoo--.P.< o_oap APPENDIX B PANEL 0F MIDDLE SCHOOL EXPERT JUDGES 165 Panel of Expert Judges Mr. Thomas Barris (MASSP Member and MAMSE Board of Directors) Principal, Webber Middle School Saginaw Public Schools 2600 Prescott Saginaw, Michigan 48601 Mr. John Borgert Principal, Mason Middle School 235 Temple Street Mason, Michigan 48854 Dr. Donald Cooke King Mountain Elementary School Half Moon Bay, California 94019 Dr. Robert Crane Principal, South Intermediate School Saginaw Public Schools 224 North Elm Saginaw, Michigan 48602 Dr. Shirley Davis 222 Hargrove Berkley, West Virginia 25801 Dr. Marcia Fortner 9446 Parkwood Davison, Michigan 48423 Dr. Tom Gatewood Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Education Department Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 Dr. Nick Georgiady 110 West Bull Run Oxford, Ohio 45056 Dr. Glen Gerard 3732 Forest Valley Ct. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49508 Mr. Mike Horning (MASSP Member and MAMSE Board of Directors) Principal, Onsted Middle School Slee Road Onsted, Michigan 49265 166 Dr. Charles Jaquith 324 Ronan Hall Central Michigan University Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48859 Mr. Ronald Johnson Principal, L’Anse Creuse South Middle School 34361 Jefferson Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48045 Mr. Richard Lane Superintendent, Tahquamenon Area Schools 700 Newberry Avenue Newberry, Michigan 49868 Mr. James Lee (MASSP Executive Board Member, MAMSE Board of Directors) Principal,a Drew Middle School 9600 Wyoming Detroit, Michigan 48204 Dr. Suzette Lee, Principal Manistee Junior High School 550 Maple Street Manistee, Michigan 49660 Dr. Dolly McMaster Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Services Northville Public Schools 501 West Main Street Northville, Michigan 48167 Dr. James Morse 2915 Hall Street Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 Dr. William Powell 100 Sandstone Circle Athens, Georgia 30601 Dr. David Prentice Principal, Plainwell Middle School 720 Brigham Plainwell, Michigan 49080-1598 Mr. Mike Samulski (MASSP Board Member, MAMSE 1989-1990 President) Principal, Wyandot Middle School Chippewa Valley Schools 39490 Garfield Road Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48044 167 Mr. Robert Schwenter (MASSP Executive Board Member, MAMSE Board of Directors) Principal, Elk Rapids Middle School 707 East Third Street Elk Rapids, Michigan 49629 Dr. Marie Smith Principal, Franklin Elementary School 801 Overland SW Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 Dr. Ross Stephenson Assistant Superintendent Dexter Community Schools 2615 Baker Road Dexter, Michigan 48130 Mr. Anthony Topoleski Superintendent Gobles Public Schools 409 North State Street Gobles, Michigan 49055 Dr. Pandi Walsh P.O. Box 32 Canyon Estate Tijeras, New Mexico 87059 Mr. Terry Walters (MASSP Member and MAMSE Board of Directors) Saline High School 7265 Saline Ann Arbor Road Saline, Michigan 48176 Dr. Dorita Wotiska Diocese of Lansing 228 N. Walnut Lansing, Michigan 48933 APPENDIX C LETTER FROM MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATORS 168 PROMOTING MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION - .I-u-I-v December 8, 1988 Mr./Ms./Dr. Middle School address City. Michigan 4---- Dear Mr./Ms./Dr.: The organizational climate of a work place has been shown to have an effect on both worker output and job satisfaction. During the past thirty years, researchers have explored the internal climate of industry and business as well as colleges, secondary, and elementary schools. However, there appears to be a lack of research measuring the environment that serves the unique developmental needs of those students growing through the middle school years. You have been identified as having notable expertise in the theoretical and/or practical aspects of a middle school. Therefore, we are seeking your assistance in the review of survey items proposed for use in the measurement of the organizational climate of a middle school. Your input will be used to revise the survey tool for use with approximately 2,000 teachers and principals employed in Michigan public middle schools. These data will be statistically analyzed for identification of the various dimensions present in middle school organizational climate. The resultant Inventory_ of Middle School Organizational Climate will be forwarded to you upon your request. Thank you for sharing your time and expertise so that collectively we can work to improve the effectiveness of the schools in the middle. Please complete the enclosed survey and return in the stamped envelop we have provided on or before December 19, 1988. Feel free to contact Jennifer Cheal at w:517-265-8122 or H:517-265-1385 if you would like more information about this study. sincerely, Louis G. Romano Executive Director Jennifer P. Cheal Principal Researcher MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATORS MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 0 419 ERICKSON HALL EAS TLA,NSING MICHIGAN 48824 0 517/353- 5467 APPENDIX D PERMISSION TO USE PUBLISHED INSTRUMENTS 169 HOFSTRA m... U N I V E R S I T Y February 2. 1989 Ms Jennifer P. Cheal 16 Lakeridge Drive Adrian. Michigan 49221 Dear Ms Cheal: I am in receipt of your letter requesting use of items from the DCDD-RS in your research on the climate of middle schools. I have no problem with items being used in dissertation and scholarly research so long as they are not used for profit making purposes and the origin of the items is properly recognized through some standard scholarly citation system. I would also recall the issue of unit of analysis in our conversation. The OCDQ—RS was designed to be used as a school unit measure not an individual measure. I do not have the Mennuti and Kottkamp article at the office. I shall send it under separate cover. I wish you the best in your work. I look forward to seeing the results of your study and would enjoy receiving a proposal copy if that is possible in the mean time. If you have any comments on the Mennuti and Kottkamp paper I would appreciate receiving them as we are trying to revise it for publication. If you have further questions do not hesitate to call or write. Best wishes, Iva obert B. Kottka p Associate Professor and Director of Doctoral Progam 170 MACMILLAN PUBLISHING COMPANY VISION or MACMILLAN 866 Third Avenue, New York, N. NY. l0022 February 9, 1989 Jennifer P. Cheal 16 Lakeridge Drive Adrian, MI 49221 Dear Ms. Cheal: You have our permission to use the "Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire from THEORY AND RESEARCH IN ADMINISTRATION by Andrew W. Halpin, subject to the following limitations: Permission is granted for usage of the instrument in the manner and for the purpose as specified in your letter of January 31, 1989, and in all copies to meet degree requirements including University Microfilms edition. New permission is required if the dissertation is later accepted for commercial publication; Full credit must be given on every copy reproduced as follows: Reprinted with permission of Macmillan Publishing Company from THEORY AND RESEARCH IN ADMINISTRATION by Andrew W. Halpin. Copyright 0 1966 by Andrew W. Halpin. Permission is granted for a fee of $35.00. This fee is payable upon signing this letter of agreement. If you are in agreement, kindly sign and return one copy of this letter with your remittance; the second copy is for your records. Thank you and best wishes. Since ly, / ./ Ian R. ross Permissions Department AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED: Jennifer P. Cheal 171 16 Lakeridge Drive Adrian, Michigan 49221 February 28, 1989 Dr. Donald J. Willower Rackley Building University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 Dear Dr. Willower: Please find this communication a confirmation of our conversation earlier today. At that time, I asked your permission to incorporate the items from the Pupil Control Ideology Form into my proposed instrument for the measurement of middle school organizational climate. I will be sure to reference the source of the items and forward a final copy of my research to you upon its completion. Please send me a written confirmation of your permission to utilize the PCI items into my research study at your earliest convenience. Thank you for sharing your past research data which will assist me as I continue to pursue the measurement 0 organizational climate for our middle school leadership. Sincerely, 9573 ' Ufa/2141' enni er P. Cheal , r /\ figkl‘g‘f ’1 // w .d 1])”, . | ' 1. QC 1 pl» J pol ILQV pf : / 0¢V1 . I s“ ‘_,I\ ., Uri/V , ,21/ IV \16’ 'LL 4 172 16 Lakeridge Drive Adrian, Michigan 49221 February 20, 1989 Dr. Cecil Miskel, Dean University of Michigan School of Education Room 1110 610 East University Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1259 Dear Dr. Miskel: Please find this communication a confirmation of our conversation last week. At that time, I asked your permission to modify and incorporate your Expectancy— Motivation Scale into my proposed instrument for the measurement of middle school organizational climate. I will be sure to reference the source of the items and forward a final report of my research to you upon its completion. Please send me a written confirmation of your permission allowing me to modify and incorporate the items into my research study at your earliest convenience. Thank you for sharing your past research data which will assist me as I continue to pursue the measurement of organizational climate for our middle school educational leadership. Sincerely, ' / 9%. m/co rafixzz Jennifer P. Cheal M é/W WM APPENDIX E MIDDLE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY-INITIAL FORM (CLASSIFIED INTO HYPOTHESIZED FACTORS) KEY: \IOSU'l-bw 10. 11. 173 MIDDLE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY--INITIAL FORM . #*. . #* #* . #* #i' #* (103 Items) * Identification of item modified from OCDQ-RS (Mulhern, 1984). 3 Identification of original item drawn from the related lit- erature (Cheal, 1990). # Identification of item modified from OCDQ (Halpin a Croft, 962 . @ Identification of item modified from Motivation/Expectancy Scale (Miskel, 1982). & Identification of item modified from Pupil Control Ideology (Willower et a1., 1967). I. Organizational Structural Linkages Administrative paperwork is burdensome at this school. We have adequate instructional materials for our school program. Routine duties do NOT interfere with the job of teaching. Our teachers have too many committee requirements. Assigned non-teaching duties are excessive. Our principal establishes building goals and objectives. Our principal encourages parents to get involved in our school. Our principal’s organization insures maximum classroom time- on-task. w II. Managerial Control: Administration/Teachers Our principal(s) sets an example by working hard himself/ herself. Our principal(s) goes out of his/her way to help teachers. Our principal(s) does NOT explain his/her reasons for criticism to teachers. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 174 Our principal(s) compliments teachers. Our principal(s) does NOT monitor everything teachers do. Our principal(s) is available before and/or after school to help teachers when assistance is needed. Teacher/principal conferences are dominated by the principal. Our principal(s) closely checks teacher activities. Our principal(s) is autocratic. Our principal(s) does NOT look out for the personal welfare of the faculty. Our principal(s) talks more than listens. Our principal(s) recognizes faculty achievements. Our principal(s) provides instructional leadership. Our principal(s) rules with an iron fist. Our principal(s) encourages teacher autonomy. Our principal(s) uses constructive criticism. Our principal(s) supervises teachers closely. Our principal(s) closely checks teacher activities. III. Managerial Control: Teacher/Students Our teachers spend time before and/or after school with students who have individual problems. Student government has an influence on our school policy. Our students are trusted to work together without super- vision. Our students solve their problems through logical reasoning. Our teachers do NOT feel accountable for student failure. Our teachers re-teach material to students as needed. Our teachers continually monitor student progress to adjust their instructional programs. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 175 Teaching strategies in this school are based upon principles of learning. Our teachers attempt to motivate their students to learn. Our teachers plan instructional activities for maximum learning at all achievement levels. It is more important for our students to learn to obey rules than learn to make their own decisions. In this school, teachers listen to all sides of the story and are fair to all students in their final decisions. It is desirable to require our students to sit in individu- ally assigned seats during assemblies. Directing sarcastic remarks toward a defiant student is a good disciplinary technique. Our teachers should consider revision of their teaching methods if these are criticized by their students. Our students should NOT be permitted to contradict the statements of a teacher in class. Our beginning teachers are not likely to maintain strict enough control over their students. A few students are just young hoodlums and should be treated accordingly. Our students often misbehave in order to make the teacher look bad. Our students cannot perceive the difference between democracy and anarchy in the classroom. Our teachers are sensitive to the developmental needs of middle school students as they plan their lessons. Teachers in this building show a genuine caring for their students. In this school, teachers and students together formulate rules governing behavior. In this school, teacher discipline is fair and consistent with classroom rules. Our teachers are friendly with students. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. “COMM“ 176 Our principal(s) gives unquestioning support to teachers in disciplining students. It is justifiable to have students learn many facts about a subject even if they have no immediate application. In this school, too much student time is spent on guidance and activities and too little on academic preparation. Being friendly with our students often leads them to become too familiar. If a student uses obscene or profane language in our school, it must be considered a moral offense. If our students are allowed to use the lavatory without getting permission this privilege will be abused. It is often necessary to remind our pupils that their status in school differs from that of teachers. A pupil who destroys school material or property should be severely punished. Our students are usually NOT capable of solving their prob- lems through logical reasoning. Student governments are a good "safety valve" but should not have much influence on our school policy. IV. Effective Building Climate Our school has a well maintained/clean interior. The exterior of our school is well maintained. I do NOT feel safe when I go to my car. It is safe to leave personal property in our school. Custodial services are available when needed. V. Expectancy and Motivation Our principal maintains high expectations for the profes- sional behavior of all teachers. Our teachers maintain high expectations for the conduct of all students. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. ®®®®® 177 Our teachers maintain high academic expectations for all students. Our school formally recognizes student achievement and effort of all students. Our teachers voluntarily attend training sessions to improve their instructional effectiveness. In this school, it is important that our students acquire an interest in the subject matter. It is NOT important that our staff has positive relationships with students. Our teachers believe that all students can learn. Good job performance by our teachers requires hard work. Our teachers believe it is futile to give extra help to students where there is little home support. Our expending high levels of energy DOES NOT lead to commen- surate levels of student achievement. We have the opportunity to develop our skills and abilities in this school. High faculty initiative leads to the attainment of the desired educational objectives. We emphasize the importance of our students’ behavior. Our teachers have chances to learn new things. Working as hard as we can results in goal accomplishment. We have positive feelings about ourselves as educators. Energetic educators are NOT particularly successful teachers here. We place importance on keeping student frustration at a low level. When we put forth a high degree of effort it leads to a high level of performance. In this school, we have the chance to accomplish something worthwhile. Our intensive efforts lead to high student achievement. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. #* #* #* #* #* #* 178 VI. Teacher Professional Behaviors Teachers are proud of this school. Teachers do NOT really enjoy working here. Our teachers think of their work as a job rather than a profession. Teachers do NOT help and support each other. Teachers share their expertise and materials with colleagues. Teachers do NOT treat one another as professional colleagues. Teachers interrupt other faculty members who are talking at staff meetings. Even though we don’t always agree, teachers share their concerns openly. The mannerisms of teachers at this school are annoying. The morale of our teachers is high. VII. Teacher Social Needs Our teachers’ closest friends are other faculty members at this school. Teachers invite other faculty members to visit them at home. Our teachers socialize with each other on a regular basis. New faculty members are made to feel a part of the group. Our teachers know the family background of other faculty members. APPENDIX F LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS) 179 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY umvmsrrr coumrm: 0N mm nwowmc us? LANSING . IIICI-IIGAN . «524.1111 HUMAN sumo: (11011113) 206 am HALL (517) 351-973: December 19, 1988 W Jennifer Putnam Cheal 16 Lakerid e Drive Adrian, M 49221 Dear Ms. Cheal: Subject: "ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE OF MIDDLE SCHOOLS: DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASUREMENT TOOL IRBfi 38-53 " The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. The pro osed research protocol has been reviewed by another committee mem er. The rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protected and you have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. Ifyou plan to continue this project beyond one year, pleue make provisions for obtaining appropriate CRIBS approval W W Anyjcharlilgles in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by CR S prior to initiation of the change. UCRII-IS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. IfI can be of any future help. please do not hesitate to let me know. Sin rel K. Hudzik, Ph.D. C air, UCRII-IS JKH/sar cc: 5. Moore IIE'IA'I - Alli—Ali. A ' I!- l n APPENDIX G SUPERINTENDENT CORRESPONDENCE 180 MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS Office or IM Elmlm Dinner 421 Wm K-Icmuoo. Lon-ing, Michipn 48933 Telephone 517 371-5250 March 31, 1989 Dear Superintendent: The enclosed information describes a dissertation proposal relative to the organizational climate of middle schools. The proposal includes a survey of 235 pre-selected middle schools in Michigan. A middle school in your district has been selected, and your permission for the building principal and teaching staff to consider participation is being requested. I would encourage your review of the enclosed materials and your district's participation in the survey. The student writing the dissertation is Jennifer Putnam Cheal who is also a Middle School Assistant Principal in Adrian. Your participation will assist a fellow administrator, and the results of the survey could prove beneficial to your district. I encourage your favorable response on the postcard that is enclosed. Sincerely yours, \ Don R. Elliott Executive Director pat Enclosures A Member at the Michigan Congra- ol School Mmunmnrov Association: 181 16 Lakeridge Drive Adrian, Michigan 49221 March 31, 1989 Dr./Mr./Mrs/ "" """" Superintendent -------- Public Schools Address ........ , Michigan 4---- Dear Dr./Mr./Mrs. --------------- : The organizational climate of a work place has been shown to have an effect on both worker output and job satisfaction. During the past thirty years, researchers have explored the internal climate of industry and business as well as colleges, secondary, and elementary schools. However, there appears to be a lack of research measuring the environment that serves the unique developmental needs of those students growing through the middle level years. The --------- Middle/Junior High School in your district was one of 235 schools selected randomly from the Michigan population to be a participant in this project. Identification of the dimensions present in middle level climate will offer educational leaders a measurement tool for affecting change and innovation in their middle level buildings. With your approval, the teachers and principal from your middle level school will be able to consider active participation in this study. I have enclosed a copy of the survey for your review. All teacher responses will be anonymous and the principal's response will be kept confidential. No individual or school will be named in any report of the research. Please complete and return the attached postcard. A copy of the summary results will be forwarded to those who request it. Thank you for your support as we work together to improve the effectiveness of middle schools. Please feel free to contact me if you would like more information about this study (office: 517-265-8122 or Residence: 517-265-1385). Sincerely, Jennifer P. Cheal Enclosures APPENDIX H MIDDLE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY 182 16 Lakeridge Drive Adrian, Michigan 49221 March 1989 Dear Middle School Colleague: The organizational climate of a work place has been shown to have an effect on both worker output and job satisfaction. During the past thirty years, researchers have explored the internal climate of industry and business as well as colleges, secondary, and elementary schools. However, there appears to be a lack of research measuring the environment that serves the unique developmental needs of those students growing through the middle school years. The purpose of this study is to help determine what dimensions are present in the organizational climate of a middle school. As one of 130 middle schools selected randomly to participate in this study, we are interested in your personal perceptions of the internal environment of your middle school building. With your cooperation, we will be able to gather data that will allow us to assist fellow educators 1n structuring positive and effective change 1n their middle schools. Teacher responses will be anonymous and no individual or school will be named in any report of the research. Your principal has designated a teacher to administer, collect, seal, and return your responses. This project will require approximately 20 - 30 minutes to complete. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. Thank you for taking time from your staff meeting to work with us on this project which will benefit all schools "in the middle." A copy of the summary results will be forwarded to those who return the enclosed postcard. Please feel free to contact me if you would like more information about this study (Office: 517-265-8122 or Residence: 517-265-1385). Sincerely, fatal, ° er P. Cheal 183 MIDDLE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE SURVEY Return to: Jennifer P. Cheal, 16 Lakeridge Drive, Adrian, Michigan 49221 —Please do not bend or fold SURVEY FORMS- The following items represent some dimensions of middle school organizational climate. Since we are collecting opinions, there are no correct or incorrect answers. You are to darken the response that most nearly reflects your personal opinion of YOUR SCHOOL. Some of the items might be hard to answer, but please mark your best response to EVERY statement. Please mark all survey answers BY USING A NUMBER-TWO PENCIL. DO NOT USE ink, ballpoint, or felt-tip pens. Avoid making stray marks on the answer sheets. DIRECTIONS: 1. READ each item carefully. 2. THINK about how frequently the described situation occurs in YOUR school. 3. DECIDE whether the situation (R) Rarely Occurs, (5) Sometimes Occurs, (O) Often Occurs, or (V0) Very Often Occurs as described in the item. 4. CAREFULLY darken in the circle which shows the item you have selected. KEY: RARELY OCCURS (R) SOMETIMES OCCURS (S) OFTEN OCCURS (O) VERY OFTEN OCCURS (V0) Example: The situation Rarely Occurs as described. .@©@ Example: The situation Sometimes Occur: as described. ®.@® Example: The situation Often Occurs as described. ®@.@ Example: The situation Very Often Occurs as described. ®@@. 5. ANSWER EACH QUESTION. SurveyCode CECE ®®®®©®®®® ®®@®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®® ooooooooe Do Not Write Here 184 W KEY: RARELY OCCURS (RI. SOMETIMES OCCURS (S). OFTEN OCCURS IO), VERY OFTEN OCCURS (VO) 1. Administrative paperwork is burdensome at this school. I. ©©©© 2. We have adequate instructional materials for our school program. 2. ®©@® 3. Routine duties do NOT interfere with the job of teaching. 3. ®©©© 4. Our teachers have too many committee requirements. 4. ®©©© 5. Assigned non-teaching duties are excessive. 5. ®©©© 6. Our principal establishes building goals and objectives. 6. ®©©© 7. Our principal encourages parents to get involved in our school. 7. @©@@ 8. Our principal's organization insures maximum classroom time-on-task. 8. ®®©© 9. Our principal(s) sets an example by working hard himself/herself. 9. ®®©© 10. Our principal(s) goes out of his/her way to help teachers. 10. ®©©© 11. Our principal(s) does NOT explain his/her reasons for criticism to teachers. 11. ®©©© 12. Our principal(s) compliments teachers. 12. ®®©© 13. Our principal(s) does NOT monitor everything teachers do. 13. ®@©© 14. Our principal(s) is available before and/or after school to help teachers when assistance 14. ®©©© is needed. 15. Teacher/principal conferences are dominated by the principal. 15. ®©@© 16. Our principal(s) closely checks teacher activities. 16. ®©©© 17. Our principal(s) is autocratic. 17. ®@@@ 18. Our principal(s) does NOT look out for the personal welfare of the faculty. 18. ®©©© 19. Our principal(s) talks more than listens. 19. ®©©© 20. Our principal(s) recognizes faculty achievements. 20. ®©©© 21. Our principal(s) provides instructional leadership. 21. ®@@@ 22. Our principal(s) rules with ah iron fist. n. ®@@@ 23. Our principal(s) encourages teacher autonomy. 23. ®@@@ 24. Our principal(s) uses constructive criticism. 24, ®@©@ 25. Our principal(s) supervises teachers closely. 25. ®©©© 26. Our principal(s) closely checks teacher activities 26. @©@@ 27. Our teachers spend time before and/or after school with students who have 27. ®@@@ individual problems. H5 aaaamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssssssssss: KEY: RARELY OCCURS (R). SOMETIMES OCCURS (Si. OFTEN OCCURS (Oi. VERY OFTEN OCCURS (V0) 28. 29. 30. 31. i3 35. 36. 37. 39. 41. 42. 45. 47. a 51. Student government has an influence on our school policy. Our students are trusted to work together without supervision. Our students solve their problems through logical reasoning. Our teachers do NOT feel accountable for student failure. Our teachers re-teach material to students as needed. Our teachers continually monitor student progress to adjust their instructional programs. Teaching strategies in this school are based upon principles of learning. Our teachers attempt to mOtivate their students to learn. Our teachers plan instructional activities for maximum learning at all achievement levels. It is more important for our students to learn to obey rules than learn to make their own decisions. In this school, teachers listen to all sides of the Story and are fair to all students in their final decisions. it is desirable to require our students to sit in individually assigned seats during assemblies. Directing sarcastic remarks toward a defiant student is a good disciplinary technique. Our teachers should consider revision of their teaching methods if these are criticized by their students. Our students should NOT be permitted to contradict the statements of a teacher in class. Our beginning teachers are not likely to maintain strict enough control over their students. A few students are just young hoodlums and should be treated accordingly. Our students often misbehave in order to make the teacher look bad. Our students cannot perceive the difference between democracy and anarchy in the classroom. Our teachers are sensitive to the developmental needs of middle school students as they they plan their lessons. Teachers in this building show a genuine caring for their students. in this school, teachers and students together formulate rules governing behavior. In this school, teacher discipline is fair and consistent with classroom rules. Our teachers are friendly with students. 28. 29. 30. 31. 36. 37. 39. 42. 43. 47. $ 6 ®©@© 0©©© ®©©© ®©@@ -®®©© a ®©©G -®@@© % ®®©0 ®®©© ®©©O -®©@® ®©@© -®©©® M ®©©© ®©©© ®©©@ -®®©© 45. ®©@© -®©©© ®®©© -®©©© -®©©© -®©©© 51. ®©©® KEY: 186 RARELY OCCURS (R). SOMETIMES OCCURS (S). OFTEN OCCURS (Oi, VERY OFTEN OCCURS (V0) 8 8 9 3 8 2 8 fl 3 3 NJ _, fl Our principal(s) gives unquestioning support to teachers in disciplining students. it is justifiable to have students learn many facts about a subject even if they have no immediate application. in this school, too much student time is spent on guidance and activities and too little on academic preparation. Being friendly with our students often leads them to become too familiar. If a student uses obscene or profane language in our school, it must be considered a moral offense. If our students are allowed to use the lavatory without getting permission, this privilege will be abused. It is often necessary to remind our pupils that their status in school differs from that of teachers. A pupil who destroys school material or property should be severely punished. Our students are usually NOT capable of solving their problems through logical reasoning. Student governments are a good ”safety valve" but should not have much influence on our school policy. Our school has a well maintained/clean interior. The exterior of our school is well maintained. I do NOT feel safe when i go to my car. it is safe to leave personal property in our school. Custodial services are available when needed. Our principal maintains high expectations for the professional behavior of all teachers. Our teachers maintain high expectations for the conduct of all students. Our teachers maintain high academic expectations for all students. Our school formally recognizes student achievement and effort of all students. Our teachers voluntarily attend training sessions to improve their instructional effectiveness. in this school, it is important that our students acquire an interest in the subject matter. it is NOT important that our staff has positive relationships with students. Our teachers believe that all students can learn. Good job performance by our teachers requires hard work. 52 a 3 8 8 8 3 .®@@@ a ®®©® ®®©© ®®©® ®©©® ®®©© ®©©© ®©©® ®®©© -®®©® ®©©© ®©©® ®®©© -®©©@ @eoe @eee eooe eeoe -®©©@ -®®©@ ®®©® ®©©© -®®©@ -®©®@ 1M aammaamammmmmaaaamammmmmmmmmumamcmmumnmmmmme KEY RARELY OCCURS (R), SOMETIMES OCCURS (SI. OFTEN OCCURS (O). VERY OFTEN OCCURS (V0) 76. 77. 92. 93. 95. 97. 98. Our teachers believe it is futile to give extra help to students where there is little home support. Our expending high levels of energy DOES NOT lead to commensurate levels of student achievement. We have the opportunity to develop our skills and abilities in this school. High faculty initiative leads to the attainment of the desired educational objectives. We emphasize the importance of our students’ behavior. Our teachers have chances to learn new things. Working as hard as we can results in goal accomplishment. We have positive feelings about ourselves as educators. Energetic educators are NOT particularly successful teachers here. We place importance on keeping student frustration at a low level. When we put forth a high degree of effort it leads to a high level of performance. In this school, we have the chance to accomplish something worthwhile. Our intensive efforts lead to high student achievement. Teachers are proud of this school. Teachers do NOT really enjoy working here. Our teachers think of their work as a job rather than a profession. Teachers do NOT help and support each other. Teachers share their expertise and materials with colleagues. Teachers do NOT treat one another as professional colleagues. Teachers interrupt other faculty members who are talking at staff meetings. Even though we don’t always agree, teachers share their concerns openly. The mannerisms of teachers at this school are annoying. The morale of our teachers is high. Our teachers' closest friends are other faculty members at this school. Teachers invite other faculty members to visit them at home. Our teachers socialize with each other on a regular basis. New faculty members are made to feel a part of the group. Our teachers know the family background of other faculty members. 76- ®®©® 77- ®©©© 73- ®©©© 79- ®®©@ 80- ®©©© 31- ®©©© ®®@© ®®©© 34- ©©©© 85- ®©©© 35- ®©©O 37- ®©©© ®®©© ®©©© ®©@© 91- ®®©O 92- ®®©O 93- ®®@© 94- ®©©© 95®©©© 96- ®®©© 97- ®®©© 93~®©©© 99- ®®©© 10°.®®@. 1m®©©© 1m®©©© 1m®®©© .93 .8 i3 .8 8 188 The following demographic data will assist us in generating profiles and categories of respondents. Please be assured that analyses will be anonymous. Neither you, your district, nor your school will be identified in reporting the results of this study. Print your age and number of years teaching experience you have (counting the present year as a full year) in the appropriate boxes below. Mark your age and years of teaching experience in the scanned area below the boxes. 104. 105. Years of teaching experience In order to answer the following questions, blacken the circle immediately to the left of the response you choose. 106. What is your sex? 0 Male 0 Female 107. What type of teacher certification do you have? OElementary O Secondary 0 K-12 O Other 108. Which of the following identifies the predominate grade-level of the students you teach in your current assignment? OGrade 5 C Grade 6 O Grade 7 0 Grade 8 0 Grade 9 The instructional design of middle schools can be defined with the following terms: — Self- contained: one teacher and one group of students for all academic subjects for an extended period oft — Departmentalized: one teacher who instructse different groups of students in his/her area of expertise for a discrete period of tim ‘ — Teaming: two or more teachers who together plan, teach, and evaluate a selected number of students. 109. Which best describes the majority of instruction for your present teaching assignment? OSeIf—contained O Departmentalized OTeaming 110. Indicate the majority of the instructional design for EACH of the grade levels you teach in your current assignment. GRADE 5 O Self—contained O Departmentalized O Teaming GRADE 6 O Self-contained O Departmentalized O Teaming GRADE 7 O Self-contained O Departmentalized O Teaming GRADE 8 O Self-contained O Departmentalized O Teaming GRADE 9 O Self-contained O Departmentalized O Teaming Thank you for your time and interest in completing this survey. Please return the included postcard at your convenience if you would like to receive the results of this study. APPENDIX I SUPERINTENDENT FOLLOW-UP TRANSMITTAL 189 16 Lakeridge Drive Adrian, Michigan 49221 March --, 19 9 Mr./Mrs./Dr/ -------- Superintendent --------- Public Schools Address ------ , Michigan 4---- Dear Mr./Mrs./Dr. -------- : Please find enclosed a copy of the organizational climate study previously mailed to you. Possibly it never reached your desk or possibly it became buried within the seemingly endless list of priority items. As educational leaders in a changing society, we need direct and practical data on conditions in schools to effectively formulate useful models of innovation. Your willingness to allow the -------- Middle School's principal and teachers to consider participation in this study will assist us in gathering data that should be beneficial to your middle level staff and its students. There is a noticeable lack of educational research specifically on the middle level. Quite often, the schools in the middle must rely on extrapolations from the elementary and secondary school research. It is our belief that middle level schools are matchless environments serving the unique developmental needs of their students. Please complete and return the attached postcard. By marking the first option, you will permit me to send information regarding this study to Mr./Mr. -——- seeking his/her willingness to have the ------ Middle School participate in this study. All teacher responses will be anonymous and the principal's response will be kept confidential. No individual or school will be named in any report of the research. A copy of the summary results will be forwarded to those who request it. Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to assist your middle level school. Please feel free to contact me if you would like more information about this study (Office: 517-265-8122 or Residence: 517-265-1385). Very Sincerely Yours, Jennifer P . Cheal APPENDIX J PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE 190 Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals Serving High School a Middle Level Administrators 2339 School of Education Bldg —The University ol Michigan pan-148109125 9 532?: 311%.?” (313) 769 5497 or (313) 7539350 Associate Director JIM BALLARD President President-Elect Vice-President Aas‘t Director for Middle Level JOSEPH SCHWARTZ GERRI KEESSEL ROGER- 5' FORD JACOB BRlSENDINE Saline Mzddla School Garden City High School Onosso H: gh School Dear Middle Level Principal: We have studied the enclosed survey and have talked to Jennifer Cheal about the use of the findings, and feel that the results could give us some valuable information. It is our hope that Jennifer will publish the findings in our Journal, SECONDARY EDUCATION TODAY. We encourage you to help your colleague, and middle level education, by participating in this study of organizational climate. Sincerely yours, :4 are! A, 54% 0" f5? 25 /Jack D. Bittle /al Lawhead, V. (1973). A block of time--for general education. In Romano, N. Georgiady, & J. Heald (Eds.), The middle school. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Levy, 1. (1988). Making a difference in the middle. Social Education, 52, 104-106. Lezotte, L., & Passalacqua, J. (1978). Individual school build- ings: Accounting for differences in measured pupil perform- ance. Urban Education, 1;, 283-293. Litt, M., & Turk, D. (1985). Sources of stress and dissatisfaction in experienced high school teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 18, 178-185. Litwin, G., & Stringer, R. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Boston: Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration. Lunenberg, G. (1984). “Custodial" teachers: Negative effects on schools. The Clearing House, 58, 112-115. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mehrens, W., & Lehmann, I. (1987). Using standardized tests in education (4th ed.). New York: Longman. Meichenbaum, K., Bowers, K., & Ross, R. (1969). Behavioral analy- sis of teacher expectancy effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 306-316. Mennuti, N., & Kottkamp, R. (1986, April). Motivation through the design of work: A svnthesis of the job-characteristics model and expectancy motivation tested in middle and junior high schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameri- can Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. 220 Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1978). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363. Michigan Department of Education. (1987). Michigan K-12 school districts ranked by selected financial data. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education. Michigan Department of Education. (1989a). Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP): School year 1988-1989. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education. Michigan Department of Education. (1989b). Raciallethnic census by bu 1ding: School year 1988-1989. Lansing: Michigan Depart- ment of Education. Michigan Department of Education. (1989c). Stratum report: School year 1988-1989. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education. Miller, J. (1986). Women as teachers: Enlarging conversations on issues of gender and self-concept. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1, 111—121. Miskel, C. (1982). Structural linkages, expectancy climate, and school effectiveness (Research Report No. 58). Lawrence: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities. Miskel, C., Bloom, 5., & McDonald, 0. (1982). Effects of struc- tural coupling and expectancy climate on the effectiveness of learning strategies intervention: A pilot study to establish reliability and validity estimates (Research Report No. 57). Lawrence: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities. Miskel, C., DeFrain, J., & Wilcox, K. (1980). A test of expectancy work motivation theory in educational organizations. Educa- tional Administration Quarterly. 1e, 70—92. Miskel, C., McDonald, 0., & Bloom, S. (1983). Structural and expectancy linkages within schools and organizational effec- tiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 1g, 49-82. Moos, R. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mulhern, J. (1984). Organizational climate of secondary schools: Revision of the OCDQ. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University. 221 Nelson, H. (1985). New perspectives on the teacher quality debate: Empirical evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey. Journal of Educational Research, 18, 133-140. Ornstein, A. (1985). Considering teacher effectiveness. Clearing House, 58, 399-402. Ouchi, G., & Johnson, J. (1978). Types of organizational control and their relationship to emotional well being. Administrative 5eienee Quarterly, 28, 293-317. Payne, R., & Mansfield, R. (1978). Correlates of individual per- ceptions of organizational climate. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 51, 209-218. Perlin, L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Qpprnal of Health and Social Behavior, 18, 2-20. Persell, C. (1977). Education and ineguality: The roots and results of stratification in America’s schools. New York: Free Press. Phi Delta Kappa. (1980).‘ Why do some urban schools succeed? The Phi Delta Kappa study of exceptional urban elementary schools. Bloomington, IN: Author. Porter, L., & Lawler, E. (1965). Properties of organization struc- ture in relation to job attitudes and job behavior. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 55, 23-51. Romano, L., Georgiady, N., & Heald, J. (Eds.). (1973). The middle school. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Rothbart, M., Dalfen, S., & Barrett, R. (1971). Effects of teacher’s expectancy on student-teacher interaction. Qournal of Educational Psychology, 58, 49-54. Roueche, J., & Baker, G. (1986). Excellence in America’s schools. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. Rutter, M., Maughan, b., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Scheaffer, R., Mendenhall, W., & Ott, L. (1986). Elementary eprvey sampling (3rd ed.). Boston: Duxbury Press. 222 Schneider, J., Glasheen, J., & Hadley, D. (1979). Secondary school participation, institutional socialization, and student achievement. Urban Education, 11, 285-302. Scott, W. (1966). Field methods in the study of organizations. In J. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally. Shaw, M., & Wright, J. (1967). Scales for the measurement of attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill. Silberman, C. (1970). Crisis in the classroom. New York: Random House. Sirotnik, K. (1980). Psychometric implications of the unit-of- analysis problem (with examples from the measurement of organizational climate). Journal of Educational Measurement, 11, 245-282. Stanley, J. (1971). Reliability. In R. Thorndike (Ed.), Educa- tional measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Coun— cil on Education. State of Michigan. (1984, November). School district profiles: 1980 census (Vols. 1-6). Lansing: State of Michigan. Stevens, B. (1987). School effectiveness: Eight variables that make a difference. Lansing: Michigan State Board of Educa- tion, Office of Technical Assistance and Evaluation. Stockard, J. (1985). Measures of school climate: Needed improve- ments suggested by a review of the organizational literature. Eugene: Oregon University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 267 498) Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. (1982). Asking questions: A practical guide to Questionnaire design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. (1968). Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept. Boston: President and Fellows of Harvard College. Thomas, A. (1976). The organizational climate of schools. Inter- national Review of Education, 88, 441-456. Thomas, A., & Slater, R. (1972). The OCDQ: A four factor solution for Australian schools? Journal of Educational Administration, 19, 197-208. 223 Thurstone, L. (1957). Multiple-factor analysis: A development and expansion of the vectors of the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Thurstone, L. (1959). The measurement of values. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press. Tornatzky, L., Brookover, W., Hathaway, 0., Miller, S., & Passa- lacqua, J. (1980). Changing school climate, a case study in implementation. Urban Education, 15, 49-64. Turner, C. (1984). Organizational climate: Fact or fantasy? (Blagdon, England: Further Education Staff College). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 274 038) Tyler, W. (1985). The organizational structure of the school. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 49-73. Valentine, J. (1984). A national study of schools in the middle-— Perspectives on five issues. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. 58, 12-18. Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Vyskocil, J., & Goens, G. (1979). Collective bargaining and supervision: A matter of climate. Educational Leadership, 81, 175—177. Watkins, J. (1968). The 0CDQ--An application and some implica- tions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 5, 46-60. Weber, F. (1971). Inner city children can be taught to read: Four successful schools (Occasional Paper No. 18). Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education. Weick, K. (1966). Laboratory experimentation with organizations. In J. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally. Willower, 0., Eidell, T., & Hoy, W. (1967). The school and pupil control ideology. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univer- sity. Woolfolk, A. (1987). Educational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Wynne, E. (1980). Looking at schools: Good, bad, and indifferent. Lexington, MA: 0. C. Heath. I -,..-,-.1,-.. .,-,-.-.,-,r.,111 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, HI GQN STQTE UNI IV 1111111111111111111111 1111 111111111“ 08903