AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS’ ACQUISITION. USE, AND DISSEMINATION OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH FINDINGS Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JOHN LEE MAIOR 1974 Li; MiC’} ;:";“I‘t I- ”5,”. UDLC: Si“ This is to certify that the thesis entitled An Investigation To Determine School Administrators' Acquisition, Use, and Dissemination of Applied Educational Research Findings presented by John Lee Major has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Administration and Higher Education 'fl/J/Z/ Major professor Date February 14, 1974 0-7639 ‘ it 8 ‘ ‘ ‘ 'v BINQINO ax 9 . : annxamurnvmc N‘- LIBRARY SINGERS ., n minimalism” . ‘i . ‘r \ imp». . «a .o . , - v. F a r “ 'A 7 O .- 7” 2. a- u. a .I . T _u_ ,. v r . o Sn. 'msnurw moms"? I‘d.“ ‘nVenx ~ '- - ) '4.| . lwntstrarcfi » 1H1 rotatwws'y . ~ ~ I -' Cf Rummage I ,. tion at" .5’ t- o‘- thc educa'.‘ ~ . . .aghe'i r-v'.” , ) 1y Hatred 1: n; . . mi researr“ u‘h, . 2e 7 I .I ‘I I I0 IMFhE'K“ ""E{31".‘.3." .3 3“," :' ~7 ,i 7%.: " *0!!th and a RF“ .It n--.'-".-;Icm.\ ”meats,“ u “with! ,3; , :3 g-‘twobtm Pb 7'. ‘uifi‘utmtm fails tr: dtf‘wmtrste mew H516 may I . rpmrch activities mm 9:.» a: .4 at «m1 mgz‘it: I“ data school amtciutxv '1: NM oret‘ew (cs 7‘ " mrfimwfl'kfis 4me I'dvtscuw. ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS' ACQUISITION, USE, AND DISSEMINATION OF APPLIED .Ir-z; -» EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH FINDINGS By x John Lee Major This investigation was undertaken to empirically describe the ’ schodl administrator's relationship to applied educational research ‘(AER). This relationship revolved around the school administrator's acquisition of knowledge of AER findings, his use of AER findings, a." fond his dissemination of AER findings to others. . I Since the educational inquiry domain is quite broad (including fiasic research, applied research, evaluation, and action research), this i;~§tudy purposely limited itself to only one type of research activity, applied'educational research (AER). AER is defined as an activity which produces generalizable eknowledge of immediate or practical application; ifiwistmission-oriented and aimed at producing knowledge relevant to 9‘: g a general problem. "~7bp" ‘ Hhile the literature fails to differentiate between the various : r°f educational research activities when speaking of school admin- . I ,tit suggests that school administrators have preferences in xmlthods of acquiring research-related information (discussions Daeducators and conferences-workshops are highly regarded treading is somewhat downgraded). Moreover, John Lee Major j iiifihstrators are described as having somewhat less than a favorable . :feiitude towards educational research; plus they only infrequently ,ufiilize educational research findings. Finally, there is some jfldication that few administrators make any effort to disseminate .Qducational research findings to others. Two distinct populations (a population of Michigan principals (and a population of Michigan superintendents) were under consideration in this investigation. Representing K-lz districts with 2,000 plus students, the populations numbered 273 superintendents and 2,832 prin- cipals, respectively. Stratified random sampling was employed in selecting subjects from each particular population. One hundred and thirty-six superintendents and two hundred and forty-six principals were sent a specially-prepared, pretested questionnaire. The latter :tnstrument dealt with principals' and superintendents' knowledge, use, :and dissemination of AER; principal and superintendent questionnaires , were virtually identical. Eighty-five (62.5%) superintendents and one hundred and fifty-six (63.4%) principals ultimately responded. The results of this study indicated that school administrators .Prfgiamdliarize themselves with AER in many ways, but personal reading ,ggens-to be the most popular method. Regarding the latter method, I“A? nest administrators typically read accounts of studies rather than '1tigtgghejoriginal studies themselves. They read many more AER studies in, th:?e§ptdeel more knowledgeable about, educational administration and I . 'xj“. .7igu1um than AER studies in educational psychology, educational John Lee Major :JEJE :sL Hhile few administrators feel that the locating of relevant ‘IiWWonnation is a major problem, most administrators only infre- " .aaenriy survey the literature for pertinent AER studies. Most admdnistrators do have AER-oriented publications at hand, however. School administrators tend to look favorably upon education ‘ courses and conferences-workshops which attempt to disseminate AER findings. Nevertheless, they only infrequently discuss AER studies with other educators. Interestingly, administrators perceive that other administrators typically attach more value to AER than do teach- ers. Also they believe that more attention should be given to the dissemination of AER findings. School administrators are, in fact, using AER in the perfor- mance of their professional roles. Most notably, they were found to use AER in their everyday, operating decisions; in the leadership of it their staffs; in the developing of new educational programs; and in the furthering of their professional growth. Superintendents seem to be _37 fiiusing AER somewhat more frequently than are principals. While both uprincipals and superintendents have a favorable attitude towards AER, aperintendents are even more positive about AER than are principals. '3? In addition, school administrators are assisting in the dis- Vij;;l ion of AER by passing along relevant AER articles to others and -~g.ing-that AER materials are at hand. Moreover, most administrators “ 7 thet they have a responsibility to keep other groups (educators John Lee Major “I vs» a .Sfix3.rtantly, one correlate variable was found to be directly h&5”principals' and superintendents' knowledge, use. and dissem- V'offlAER. This was the number of AER—related courses which the 4 administrator had previously taken. ‘Many of these findings are at odds with the literature; this AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS' ACQUISITION, USE, AND DISSEMINATION OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH FINDINGS By John Lee Major A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University ».. an partial fulfillment of the requirements a for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 5 College of Education 1974 DEDICATION To my wtée, Ruth, whose patience and toue wehe heueh-endihg and to my patent», Mn. and Mao. John Majoh, who have phoutded encouhagemeht and auppoht in a££ my academic puhouiiz. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to many individuals who contributed to the successful completion of this study: to the Chairman of my Doctoral Committee, Dr. Philip Cusick, who provided guidance along the way, but most importantly, kept the faith; and to my Committee Members, Dr. Robert Craig, Dr. Louis Romano, and Dr. Wilbur Brookover, whose suggestions proved invaluable. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of my wife's parents, Mr. and Mrs. James Hudgens, in the final preparation of this document. Finally, I would like to thank my two closest friends, Karen and Lou Helfrich, for their continued moral support. ***** iii TABLE OF CONTENTS j g Page . :QILIOH. 1 7 Iatra=or TABLES .......................... vi . pg. THE PROBLEM ........... . . ........ . . l ; Need . . ................ , ...... I Purpose ............ . .......... 3 3‘ Questions ................... . . . 5 Overview . . . .................... 5 '. 11. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . ........ . . ..... 6 ' Introduction ............... . ..... 6 Applied Education Research (AER) ........... 6 School Administrator's Relationship to Educational Research ......... . . . ........ 12 .-.-, Summary . ...................... 30 .ffj’:. RESEARCH METHOD ..... . . . ............. 34 '8 ' - Sample .................. t . 34 Measures ....................... 38 Design. . ......... . .......... 44 Testable Questions . ............. . 49 Analysis . ...................... 51 Summary ....................... 59 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS .......... . ...... 63 .Summary ...... . ........... . . . . . 108 SNMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........... . . 119 Questions . ........ . ..... . . . ‘ ology ................ . ’Findings and Their Relation to Past Research. . tcenclusiens . ............... . . . - thuggestiOns for Future Research . , . . . . 1V APPENDIX Page A. Principal and Superintendent Questionnaires, Reminder Letter, Second Cover Letter, and a Description of Respondents ................ 134 B. Additional Analyses Conducted .............. l66 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................... 202 LIST OF TABLES Page ' . Superintendent and Principal Population Sizes, Sample Sizes, and Sample Sizes as Percentages of Population Sizes .......................... 36 '. 3.2 Superintendent Strata Population Sizes, Strata Sample Sizes, and Strata Sample Sizes as Percentages of Strata Population Sizes ................. 37 3.3 Principal Strata Population Sizes, Strata Sample Sizes, and Strata Sample Sizes as Percentages of Strata Population Sizes ................. 38 3.4 Chronological Schedule of Mailings of First Questionnaire and Reminder Letter, Telephone Contacts, and Mailing of Second Questionnaire; Plus Rates of Response ....................... . . 47 3.5 Responses of Superintendents by Strata ..... . . . . . 48 3&6‘ Responses of Principals by Strata ............ 48 3. 7 90% Confidence Intervals for Superintendent and Principal Population Proportions (P) Based on a Range of Possible Sample Proportions (p) ......... 56 D;l Chi-Square Comparison of Principals' Responses to the Different Subject Areas Listed in Item 6 ....... 66 A.2 Chi—Square Comparison of Superintendents' Responses >to the Different Subject Areas Listed in Item 6 ..... 66 AIS Chi-square Comparison of Principals' Responses to . . fi,_ Items 5a and 5b ..................... 68 _ _ ggfi Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' Responses if i.i to Items 5a and 5b .................... 68 “ISIS Chi-Square" Comparison of Principals' Responses to . ‘ Items 13 ...... . ......... . 72 Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' Responses Queens 13 and 15 . . . . . ............. 72 vi Page Chi-Square Comparison of Principals' Responses to Items 16 and 17 ..................... 74 4.8 Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' Responses to Items 16 and 17 .................... 74 4.9 Chi-Square Comparison of Principals' Responses to the Different Methods Listed in Item 20 ......... 76 4.10 Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' Responses to the Different Methods Listed in Item 20 ........ 77 4.11 Chi-Square Comparison of Principals' Responses to the Different Subject Areas Listed in Item 19 ...... 80 i 4.12 Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' Responses to the Different Subject Areas Listed in Item 19 ..... 80 I 4.13 Analysis of Variance Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Mean Responses to the AER Knowledge Index .......................... 81 4.14 Chi-Square Comparison of Principals' Responses to Items 23, 25, 27, 29, and 31 ............... 88 4.15 Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' Responses to Items 23, 25, 27, 29, and 31 ............. 89 4.16 Analysis of Variance Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Mean Responses to the AER Use Index . . . 90 4.17 Chi-Square Comparison of Principals' Responses to Items 41a, 41b, and 41d ................. 104 4.18 Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' Responses to Items 41a, 41b, 41c, and 41d ............. 105 Al. Sex ofiRespondents .................... 164 A2. Age of Respondents .................... 164 A3. Years of Educational Experience of Respondents ...... 164 A4. Highest College Degree Respondents Have Obtained . . . . . 165 A5. Elementary, Junior High, and Senior High Breakdown on Principals Hho Responded ............... 165 vii Page Repeated Measure Design, Analysis of Variance Comparison of Principals' Mean Responses to Items 2b and 4 ...................... 166 B2. Repeated Measure Design, Analysis of Variance Comparison of Superintendents' Mean Responses to Items 2b and 4 .................... 166 B3. Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 6 (Reading AER Studies in Educational Administration) .......... 167 B4. Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 6 (Reading AER Studies in Educational Psychology) ............ 167 I BS. Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 6 (Reading AER Studies in Educational Sociology) ............ 168 I B6. Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 6 (Reading AER Studies in Curriculum) .................. 168 B7. Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 6 (Reading AER Studies in Counseling) .................. 169 88. Analysis of Variance Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Mean Responses to Item 8 ......... 169 B9. A Listing of the More Frequently Cited, AER-Oriented Publications Nhich Principals and Superintendents Personally Subscribe to (Item 11a) and Their Schools or School Districts Subscribe to (Item 11b) ....... 170 810. Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 12 ............. 171 811. Chi-Square Comparison of Principals' Responses to Items 12 and 14 ..................... 171 312 Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' Responses to Items 12 and 14 .................... 172 313. A Listing of Those Nays, Suggested by Principals, Hhereby More Attention Should Be Given to the Dissemination of AER (Item 22) .............. 172 viii 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325. 326. A Listing of Those Ways, Suggested by Superintendents, Whereby More Attention Should Be Given to the Dissemination of AER (Item 22) .............. Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 19 (Knowledge of AER Findings in Educational Administration) ....... Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 19 (Knowledge of AER Findings in Educational Psychology) ......... Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 19 (Knowledge of AER Findings in Educational Sociology) .......... Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 19 (Knowledge of AER Findings in Curriculum) ............... Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 19 (Knowledge of AER Findings in Counseling) ............... Analysis of Variance of the Overall Regression in Predicting Principals' AER Knowledge Index Scores from Certain Correlate Variables ............. Analysis of Variance of the Overall Regression in Predicting Superintendents' AER Knowledge Index Scores from Certain Correlate Variables ......... Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 44 ............. A Listing of the Ways in Which Principals Use AER in Their Everyday, Operating Decisions (Item 24) ..... A Listing of the Ways in Which Superintendents Use AER in Their Everyday, Operating Decisions (Item 24) . . . A Listing of the Ways in Which Principals Use AER in the Leadership of Their Staffs (Item 26) ....... A Listing of the Hays in Which Superintendents Use AER in the Leadership of Their Staffs (Item 26) ..... Page 173 175 176 178 179 328. 329. 330. 332. 333. 334. 335. B36. B37. B38. 339. 340. 341. Chi-Square Comparison Principals' Responses A Listing of the Ways the Developing of New A Listing of the Ways AER in the Developing (Item 28) A Listing of the Ways Their Relations with the Lay Public (Item 30) A Listing of the Ways of Superintendents' and to Item 2 in Which Principals Use AER in Educational Programs (Item 28) . . . in Which Superintendents Use of New Educational Programs in Which Principals Use AER in in Which Superintendents Use AER in Their Relations with the Lay Public (Item 30) . . . A Listing of the Ways in Which Principals Use AER in the Furthering of Their Professional Growth (Item 32) A Listing of the Ways AER in the Furthering (Item 32) Chi-Square Comparison Principals' Responses Chi-Square Comparison Principals' Responses Chi-Square Comparison Principals' Responses Chi-Square Comparison Principals' Responses Chi-Square Comparison Principals' Responses Chi-Square Comparison Principals' Responses Chi—Square Comparison Principals' Responses Chi-Square Comparison Principals' Responses in Which Superintendents Use of Their Professional Growth of Superintendents' and to Item 33d ............ of Superintendents' and to Item 33e ............ of Superintendents' to Item 339 of Superintendents' to Item 33h of Superintendents' to Item 33i ............ of Superintendents' to Item 331 of Superintendents' and to Item 33m of Superintendents' and to Item 33p Page 183 185 187 187 B42. B43. B44. B45. B46. B47. B48. 349. 350. 351. 352. 353. 354. Analysis of Variance of the Overall Regression in Predicting Principals' AER Use Index Scores from Certain Attitude Items .................. Analysis of Variance of the Overall Regression in Predicting Superintendents' AER Use Index Scores from Certain Attitude Items ............... Analysis of Variance of the Overall Regression in Predicting Principals' AER Use Index Scores from Certain Correlate Variables ............... Analysis of Variance of the Overall Regression in Predicting Superintendents' AER Use Index Scores from Certain Correlate Variables ............. Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 45 ............. Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 34a ............ Analysis of Variance Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Mean Responses to Item 35a ........ Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 34b ............ Analysis of Variance Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Mean Responses to Item 35b ........ Repeated Measure Design, Analysis of Variance Comparison of Principals‘ Mean Responses to Items 35a and 35b .................... Repeated Measure Design, Analysis of Variance Comparison of Superintendents' Mean Responses to Items 35a, 35b, and 35c ................ Analysis of Variance of the Overall Regression in Predicting Principals' Responses to Item 12 from Certain Correlate Variables ............. Analysis of Variance of the Overall Regression in Predicting Principals' Responses to Item 14 from Certain Correlate Variables ............. xi Page 193 194 195 196 197 198 198 199 TABLE Page 355. Analysis of Variance of the Overall Regression in Predicting Superintendents' Responses to Item 12 from Certain Correlate Variables ............. 199 356. Analysis of Variance of the Overall Regression in Predicting Superintendents' Responses to Item 14 from Certain Correlate Variables ............. 200 BS7. Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 47b ............ 200 358. Chi-Square Comparison of Superintendents' and Principals' Responses to Item 47d ............ 201 xii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Need Over the years many resources (time, human energy, and money) have been committed to the conducting of educational research with the hope that such research will prove beneficial to the schools. It is assumed that for educational research to have a positive effect on the schools it must be considered, examined, and utilized by local educators. One type of educator, who by virtue of his position, has an excellent opportunity to take full advantage of educational research findings is the school administrator (local principal and superintendent). Admin- istrators ostensibly occupy the role of change agents and thus are able to bring educational research to bear on problems affecting an entire school or district. Administrators stand between available research on the one hand and its broad implementation on the other. Great efforts have been made to bring educational research to the attention of principals and superintendents. That is, graduate courses have been devised which promulgate educational research findings or which teach educational research methodology; educational and behav- ioral science journals have attempted to report studies of relevance to ‘administrators; conferences, workshops, and institutes have been held .IHhich'attempt to keep the administrator informed of educational research ... .au “1‘ of interest. However, beyond this attempt to disseminate educational research findings and to provide a basic understanding of research methodology, little has been accomplished in terms of describing how educational research relates to district principals and superintendents. That is, few studies have attempted to investigate how school adminis— trators go about acquiring knowledge of educational research findings, how they try to use research findings, or how they disseminate research findings to others. Moreover, the work which has gone on in this area has typically been concerned with only one aspect—-to the detriment of other equally important aspects-—of the administrator's relationship to educational research. Consequently, there is a need for a thorough and comprehensive examination of the school administrator's behavior and attitude towards educational research. Such information would prove valuable to many groups and indi- viduals. For example, it would be useful for researchers to know the attitudes which administrators hold towards educational research and the extent to which administrators use research findings in the schools. Organizations and government agencies attempting to foster and promote educational research would likewise be interested in the methods admin- istrators commonly use in acquiring knowledge of research findings. Ihdividuals responsible for administrator preparation programs would probably like to have some indication of the extent to which research findings should be incorporated into administrator curriculums. Fifially, individual administrators could use such information in pireonally evaluating their relationship to educational research. “it"‘g -H_n Purpose Educational research, it should be noted, is not a unidimensional activity. Rather, it is multifaceted in nature and subsumes such inquiry activities as basic research, applied research, evaluation, and action research. The latter differ in their objectives, their generalizability, and their immediate usefulness. Consequently, when speaking of educational research, it is important to be precise and specify the particular inquiry activity in mind. Likewise, when investigating school administrators and their relationship to educa- tional research, it is necessary to outline the particular type of educational research involved. This study, therefore, attempts to determine how a particular type of educational research--applied educational research (AER)--relates to a particular group of edu- cational practitioners--school administrators. Applied educational research (AER) can be defined as an activity which produces generalizable knowledge (unlike evaluation and action research) of immediate or practical application (unlike basic research). It is mission-oriented and aimed at producing knowledge relevant to solving a general problem. AER is characteristically concerned with the prediction and control of educationally significant phenomena. As opposed to basic research, which studies detailed fundamental processes and molecular levels of behavior, AER deals with gross macro processes and molar levels of behavior. AER typically pays only a moderate amount of attention to theoretical considerations. Often called field research, AER is frequently conducted in situations that are similar or identical to those in which the findings are to be applied. This study then attempts to meet three objectives. First, it examines the different methods school administrators use to acquaint themselves with AER findings. These include personal reading, dis- cussions with other educators, education courses, and conferences- workshops. (The literature suggests that administrators tend to look favorably upon all of these methods, save personal reading.) Second, this study examines school administrators' use of AER in five partic- ular areas: in everyday, operating decisions; in the leadership of staff members; in the developing of new educational programs; in relations with the lay public; and in the furthering of professional growth. At the same time, administrators' attitudes toward AER are explored. (The literature implies that administrators only infrequently utilize educational research findings, plus have somewhat less than a ' favorable attitude towards educational research.) Third, this study examines the different methods school administrators use to dissemi- nate AER findings. These include discussing AER studies with others, passing along relevant AER articles to others, and insuring that AER materials are readily available for others. (The literature indicates that few administrators make any effort to disseminate educational research findings.) In directing itself to the three described objec- tives, this study additionally examines a number of variables thought to be related to school administrators' knowledge, use, and dissemina- tion of AER. \ I M Three general questions are thus considered in this study. They are: 1. How do Michigan principals and superintendents acquire knowledge of AER? 2. How do Michigan principals and superintendents use AER? 3. How do Michigan principals and superintendents disseminate AER to others? Overview In the following chapters, there is a full discussion of the scope of this problem, of the attempts to obtain information on the problem, and of the answers that were obtained to the problem. In Chapter II, AER is further defined and distinguished from other research and research-related activities; articles and studies relevant to the school administrator's relationship to educational research are also examined. In Chapter III, the research method (sample, measures, design, testable questions, and analysis) employed in this study is discussed. Finally, in Chapter IV, there is a full explanation of the results (specific answers to the three research questions) of this investigation. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction The following discussion is divided into two parts. The first part attempts to place AER (applied educational research) in perspective with other research activities. That is, it attempts to explicitly define AER plus differentiate it from other educational inquiry activ- ities. In so doing, it can be seen that AER is a distinct and separate activity with its own particular characteristics. The second part of this discussion attempts to review those articles and studies relevant to the school administrator's relationship to educational research. That is, it attempts to provide some background on how principals and superintendents acquire knowledge of educational research, how they use educational research, and how they disseminate educational research to others. Applied Educational Research (AER) The educational inquiry domain can be described as consisting of (I) research (basic and applied), (2) evaluation, (3) development, and (4) diffusion. Without a detailed discussion of the philosophy of science and its relation to education, it is necessary to discuss 6 A and delineate these activities. Glass1 differentiates the latter in the following manner: RESEARCH is the activity aimed at obtaining generalizable knowledge. This knowledge, which may result in theoretical models, functional relationships, or descriptions, may be obtained by empirical or other systematic methods and may or may not have immediate application. EVALUATION is the determination of the worth of a thing. It includes obtaining information to judge the worth of an educational program, product, or procedure. DEVELOPMENT in education is the production and testing of curriculum materials (including books, films, computer— assisted instruction programs, etc.), organizational or staffing plans (e.g., team teaching, differentiated staff- ing, modular scheduling), and other applied media or educational innovations. DIFFUSION encompasses planning, designing, and conducting activities which insure the application in educational programs of knowledge or products of research and devel— opment efforts. This may be done by various means, including (a) the use of communication techniques to disseminate information about the product or knowledge, (b) the conducting of demonstrations to establish the utilit and applicability of the product or knowledge, and (c procedures which facilitate adoption or appli- cation of the product or knowledge. In terms of scientific inquiry, Glass views both research and evaluation as primary or direct ingpiry activities. "In every case, the specified research or evaluation produces knowledge, however general or specific, not previously available."2 Because they do 1Gene V. Glass, "Interrelationships Among Research and Research- Related Roles in Education: A Conceptual Framework," American Educa- tional Research Association Technical Papers No. 4: Task Force on Training Research and Research-Related Personnel, June 1970, pp. 3-4. 2Ibid., p. 7. not meet this criterion of producing knowledge, Glass views development and diffusion, on the other hand, as secondary or inguiry-related activities. Although research and evaluation both fall under the rubric of primary or direct inquiry activities, they are different in very many respects. Glass outlines at least ten viable methods of contrasting these two activities. (It should be said at the outset, however, that the contrasts between research and evaluation are marked and distinct when one thinks of research as basic research; however, these distinc— tions become somewhat more blurred when one tries to differentiate applied research and evaluation.) Recognizing that there are always exceptions, Glass3 offers the following general comparisons between research and evaluation: l. Motivation of Inquirer Research and evaluation appear generally to be undertaken for different reasons. Research is pursued largely to satisfy curiosity; evaluation is done to contribute to the solution of a practical problem. 2. Objective of the Search Research and evaluation seek different ends. Research seeks conclusions; evaluation leads to decisions. (Cronbach and Suppes“ also draw this distinction between conclusion-oriented and decision-oriented inquiry.) 3. Laws versus Descriptions Research is the quest for laws (nomethetic) while evaluation seeks to describe a particular thing (ideographic) with respect to one or more scales of value. ’Ibid.. pp. 15-28. l‘Lee J. Cronbach and Patrick Suppes, eds., Research for Tomorrow's Schools: Disci lined In uir for Education (New York: cm an ompany, , pp. - Role of Explanation Research seeks the “why" and the "how,“ e.g., why a particular program is good or bad or how it operates to produce its effects; evaluation does not seek to explain, i.e., it is satisfied to know which program meets a particular objective. Properties of the Phenomena which Are Assessed Evaluation seeks to assess the worth or social utility of a thing while research is an attempt to assess scientific truth. Universality of the Phenomena Studied Research results tend to be generalizable across time, geography, and to similar instances of the phenomenon; evaluation results are of parochial importance. Salience of the Value Question In evaluation, value questions are the sine ua non and usually determine what information is sought, whereas they are not the direct object of research. Investigative Techniques In the main there are far more similarities than differences between research and evaluation with regard to the techniques used to collect and analyze empirical data. Criteria for Judging the Activity The two most important criteria for judging the adequacy of research are internal validity and external validity. For evaluation, the criteria of highest importance are isomorphism of informa- tion and credibility of that information. Disciplinary Base Research is frequently conducted from the standpoint of a particular discipline while evaluation, by necessity, must attempt multi-disciplinary answers. Subsumed under research are both basic and applied research. The National Science Foundation has adopted the following definitions BASIC RESEARCH is an activity "primarily motivated by the desire to pursue knowledge for its own sake. Such work is free from the need to meet immediate objectives and is undertaken to increase understanding of natural laws."5 APPLIED RESEARCH "is carried out with practical applications in mind and may either be concerned with translating existing knowledge into such applications or creating new knowledge for this purpose. It differs from basic research in that it seeks to show or indicate the means by which a recognized need may be met."6 Carroll7 does an excellent job of comparing and contrasting basic and applied research. He points out that while basic research concerns itself with detailed fundamental processes, applied research directs itself to gross macro processes. In the behavioral sciences, basic research deals with a molecular level of behavior, applied research with a molar level. Carroll explains that basic research in learning, for example, is concerned with the precise combinations of stimulus and responses variables that produce certain effects, whereas applied research might be concerned with the effects, say, of massive doses of positive reward, which for certain groups of school learners might on the average produce significantly beneficial effects. According to Carroll, basic research depends to a great degree on models of functional relationships that involve small error compo- nents; applied research, on the other hand, tends to use models that 5Federal Funds for Research, DevelopmentI and Other Sgientific As11x111g§,Vol. 16, quoted in Educational Research and Development in te United States (Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, l969), 6Ib'id. 7John B. Carroll, "Basic and Applied Research in Education: Definitions, Distinctions, and Implications," Harvard Educationa] Review 38 (Spring l968): 27l. are more probabilistic and error-laden. Whereas applied research is often called field research because it is conducted in field settings where the results are to be applicable, basic research is undertaken in highly controlled laboratory situations. Applied research pays little attention to theoretical considerations; basic research is very con- cerned with the development of theory and models for the explanation of phenomena. While applied research infrequently leads to more basic research on a phenomenon, basic research often spawns applied research on a particular subject. Applied research is frequently confused with both evaluation and action research. Glass points up the distinction: “Evaluation has sometimes been considered merely a form of applied research which focuses only on one curriculum, one program, or one lesson. This view ignores an obvious difference between the two--the level of generality produced. Applied research is mission-oriented and aimed at producing a solution to a ggpgrg] problem. Evaluation is focused on collecting specific information relevant to a specific problem, program, or product."° Borg9 also differentiates between applied research and action research--action research being highly related to evaluation. Although admitting that action research possesses the highest level of reality possible and is intended to bring the scientific method to bear on classroom practices, Borg believes that applied research exerts. aGlass, p. 9. 9Walter R. Borg, Educational Research: An Introduction (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1967). pp. l9-Zl. ‘ considerably more control over extraneous variables and has significantly more generalizability in its results. Of the primary inquiry activities of basic research, applied research, and evaluation (action research), there is occasional overlap and resulting confusion. However, since in the main there are more differences than similarities between these activities, it appears fruitful to distinguish between them. Thus because AER (applied educational research) can be defined plus differentiated from other activities, the school administrator's relationship to AER can, in fact, be assessed. School Administrator's Relationship to ucat1ona Research The remaining discussion directs itself to the relationship of the administrator to educational research. Unfortunately, the articles and studies cited here fail to distinguish between basic research, applied research, and evaluation (action research). Rather they view research as being a global concept encompassing all of these activities. Nevertheless, because these same articles and studies do provide some insight into the administrator's relationship to AER, they have been included here. Part of a school administrator's relationship to educational research is his acquisition of knowledge of educational research find- ings. There are certainly different ways a school administrator can acquaint himself with educational research. For example, he can read studies reported in educational and commercial publications; he can learn of studies through discussions with other educators; he can enroll in education courses which emphasize research findings; and he can attend conferences, workshops, or institutes which disseminate educational research findings. There apparently is a good deal of dissatisfaction regarding one of these methods—-the reading of educational and commercial pub- lications--of acquiring knowledge of educational research findings. Williams’° reports, for example, that administrators often claim they lack the time to ferret out new ideas from research reports. Steinhoff and Owens11 have said that journal articles are of little value to practitioners because they are frequently contradictory, too often written in a highly stylized language, and typically devoid of sug- gestions for the application of research findings. Guba12 has claimed that for practitioners to acquaint themselves with research they unfortunately must choose between wading through technical reports, which they are ill-equipped to understand, or summaries, which are likely to be too general to be useful. Anderson13 concurs with Cuba by stating that reviews of research rarely say anything of importance to school personnel about educational practice. 1°Allan S. Williams, "School Administrators and Research Today, " Educational Administration and Sppervision 42 (December 1956): 480. 1‘Carl R. Steinhoff and Robert G. Owens, Impact of Research Findin s and Recommendations in Urban School Districts: A Case Anal sis (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 042 231, 1971), 2. p. 12159 on 6. Cuba, The Place of Educational Research in Educational Changep (Bethesda, Md: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 028 196, 1969 13Richard C. Anderson, "The Role of Educational Engineer," Journal of Educational Sociolo 34 (April 1961). 377 A Regarding some of the studies relevant to this subject, one of the earliest was a rather limited survey of administrators by Johnson.‘“ His study revealed that many administrators felt that research reports were too formal, limited in scope, or inconclusive. Also he found that the research that did, in fact, reach the adminis- trator underwent a refining process and reached the administrator through his own administrator periodicals. Daly,15 in a survey of 125 junior high school principals from the Detroit Metropolitan Area, reported that principals felt that some research information was dif- ficult to obtain, read, and understand. Godfrey and Ivor16 recently questioned 397 superintendents and discovered that the nation's chief school officers believe that research reports should be more easily readable. Also they reported that professional administrator journals far surpassed AERA, ERIC, and NEA research publications and bulletins as sources of information in keeping superintendents abreast of research and development activities. Chorness et al.17 likewise found, in a 1“Loaz W. Johnson, "What Administrators Want and Will Use from Research Workers,“ American Educational Resear h Association's Offi 1 Report (Washington, D.C., 1949), pp. lO-11. “ Francis M. Daly, "A Study of the Utilization of Educational Research by the Junior High School Principals of the Detroit Metro- politan Area," Dissertation Abstraets 27 (February 1967): 2310-A. 16Eleanor P. Godfrey and Wayne Ivor, "Educational Research and the School Administrator," in Abstractlene: 1970 AERA Annual Meeting Paper Sessions, ed: William Pilder Washington, D.C.: American Educa- tional Research Association, 1970), pp. 4—5. A more detailed discussion of Godfrey and Ivor's study can be found in: Educational Research and Development in the United States (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969 , pp. 1465153. ‘7M. H. Chorness, C. H. Rittenhouse, and R. C. Heald, Decision Processes and Information Needs in Ed ation: A Field Surve (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 026 748, 1969), pp. 49-52. A study of administrators from 65 school districts in the San Francisco Bay Area, that the least used source of new information for adminis- trators were reports from federally funded R & D and information programs. In an attempt to determine the types of educational publications school superintendents typically read and rely upon, Fulks18 surveyed 271 of the nation's chief school officers. He found that superintendents typically utilize trade publications like School Management, Nation's Schools, American School Board Journal, and American Sghool and Unive - gigy; they also rely heavily upon general educational periodicals like Education Digest, NEA Journal, and state education aSsociation journals. Fulks notes that these types of publications do not contain an abundance of theory or research, but rather have a practical orientation. That is, they concentrate on reports of existing eduCational practice and miscel- laneous happenings in the educational domain. Fulks did find, however, that younger superintendents with the doctorate were more likely to utilize Saturday Review and Phi Delta Kappan; he concluded that the nation's superintendents were not using significant periodicals as a source of ideas and knowledge. Brown” lately conducted a study investigating the particular type of research that is reported in administrator periodicals. Con- ducting a content analysis on Educational Administration Quarterly and 18D. G. Fulks, "Su erintendents and Periodicals," Phi Delta Kappan 50 (September 1968): 7. 1’Daniel J. Brown, The Poverty of Educational Administration (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 061 582, 1972) i 16 Administrator's Notebook articles from 1966 to 1971, he found that a disproportionate amount of the research reported in these publications utilized the humanistic approach over the scientific approach. The humanistic approach he characterized as emphasizing case studies, participant observation studies, and studies utilizing verbal theory and soft data; the scientific approach, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with experimental studies and studies utilizing formal theory and hard data. Another method whereby administrators can keep abreast of educational research findings is through discussions with other edu- cators. Godfrey and Ivor2° found in their study of the nation's superintendents that word-of-mouth techniques were by far the most popular method of acquiring knowledge of R & D activities. Likewise, Chorness etpel.” learned that the most frequently used research-related information source used by San Francisco area administrators was other administrators in their own school systems. Wolf and Fiorino,22 in their study of 600 educators, noted that innovative subjects regarded colleague contact to be important in the acquisition of new educational knowledge. Williamsz3 has written, however, that administrators depend too much on "bull sessions" with other administrators, to the detriment of other methods of acquiring research-related information. 20Godfrey and Ivor, p. 151. 21Chorness, Rittenhouse, and Heald, pp. 49-52. 22W. C. Wolf and A. J. Fiorino, A Study of Educational Knowledge Diffusion and Utilization (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 061 772, 1972), p. 83. 23Williams, p. 480. Enrolling in further education courses is another viable method of acquiring knowledge of research findings which is open to the school administrator. Greggz“ has stated that 1940 administrator preparation programs greatly emphasized the practical, art aspect of administering the schools; current preparation programs consist of courses stressing administrative concepts, theories, and research. Apart from courses which disseminate educational research findings, further courses in educational research methodology are thought to be of benefit to the school administrator. Turner’5 has said that for the school administrator to be a true consumer of research, he should acquire a knowledge of statistics and research design. Greer26 concurs in the importance of research design and analysis methods, but also feels that the school administrator should be familiar with educa- tional measurement and instrumentation. Goetz27 found, in a study of 203 elementary school principals from seventy-four suburban Detroit school districts, that the preparation of school administrators is often weak in the area of statistics and research methods. Daly,28 however, noted in his survey of junior high school principals in the Detroit 2'‘Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 4th ed., sv. "Preparation of Administrators," by Russel T. Gregg. 25Harold E. Turner, "The Principal--Moving Toward Research." Education 89 (February 1969): 232—233. 2“John T. Greer, "Administrator's Responsibility Toward Research," High School Journal 48 (January 1965): 239. 27Francis R. Goetz, "Innovation and the Public Elementary School Principal," issertation Abstraets 26 (March 1966): 5156. 2"Daly, p. 2310-A. Metropolitan Area that principals did, in fact, desire more training in research activities. Yet a final method whereby administrators can acquaint them- selves with educational research is through attending conferences, workshops, and institutes which attempt to disseminate educational research findings and techniques. Johnson” found in his early study that research that eventually reached the administrator was frequently conveyed through the mechanism of administrator conferences. Godfrey and Ivor's3° study indicated that the nation's superintendents have a favorable attitude toward workshops that disseminate R & D information. Chorness et al.1‘1 concluded that San Francisco administrators frequently used contacts with other administrators and curriculum specialists at professional meetings as sources of research-related information. Wolf and Fiorino's32 study indicated that personal, direct involvement type diffusion strategies like workshops and institutes were very popular with innovative educators. Even with the different methods of acquiring knowledge of educational research findings, some administrators evidently feel that certain research is not reaching them. Godfrey and Ivor33 discovered that the nation's superintendents believe that more attention should be 2’l.. W. Johnson, p. 11. ” Godfrey and Ivor, p. 152. 31Chorness, Rittenhouse, and Heald, pp. 49-52. 32Wolf and Fiorino, p. 83. 33Godfrey and Ivor, p. 152. 19 given to the feedback and dissemination of R & D results. In a nation-wide study, Coladarci e§_el.3“ surveyed 169 large city super- intendents and asked them what administrative problem areas were most crucial and deserving of research priority. The five listed areas, in order of importance, were: research on the school staff; research on the educational program; research on public relations; research on plant planning and school finance; and, finally, research on the role and responsibility of the American public school system. Rittenhouse,35 in a more recent national survey, asked administrators and other edu- cational practitioners in 528 districts to identify the types of substantive and methodological information they needed most in making educational decisions. In order of importance, the top twelve areas where research-related information was most needed were: (1) drugs and health, (2) flexible scheduling, (3) sex education, (4) individualized instruction, (5) new social services, (6) non-graded procedures, (7) increasing vocational awareness, (8) program budgeting, (9) differential staffing, (10) establishing educational goals, (11) program evaluation, and (12) system analysis. Integral to the administrator's relationship to educational research is his attitude toward, and use of, educational research. 3"A. P. Coladarci, E. Brooks, and W. R. Odell, "Research Priorities in Educational Administration,” Journal of Educational Research 47 (April 1954): 626-628. . asCarl Rittenhouse, Innovation Problems and Information Needs of Educational Practitioners (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 040 976, 1970), p. 28. 20 Regarding attitudes towards educational research, Kerlinger36 has stated that educators frequently have an ignorance of, and a negative attitude toward, science and research. Ludlow37 has said that although school administrators have read research journals, have been exposed to courses in research methodology, and have attended conferences and conventions where research is disseminated, they typically feel quite apart from the mysterious world of research. Greer38 reports that it is important for administrators to have a positive attitude toward research because such an attitude will likely rub off on staff members. Williamsas concurs by stating that a favorable attitude towards research can go a long way in establishing a positive research climate in an administrator's school or district. Concerning those studies relevant to the school administrator's attitude toward educational research, Daly“° studied Detroit junior high principals and found only one-third of these had a strong belief in research. Goetz,"1 in a study of elementary principals from suburban Detroit districts, discovered that a principal's attitude toward research was positively related to his innovativeness. Goetz also observed that 5 Fred N. Kerlinger, "The Mythology of Educational Research: The Methods Approach, " School and Society 88 (March 1960). 37H. Glenn Ludlow, "Alice in Wonderland: Elementary School Admin- istrators in the Jungle of Research," National Elementary Principal 40 (December 1960): 30. a"Greer, p. 241. ”Williams, p. 487. “°Daly, p. 2310-A. “Goetz, p. 5156. I'V- 21 Detroit suburban principals believe their superiors are favorably oriented towards research. In a study of Kentucky superintendents, Varland"2 found that superintendents with little experience as superintendents saw educational research to be of significantly less value to school practice than superintendents with more experience. Johnson"3 learned that Washington state administrators were generally cautious about placing confidence in educational research findings; however, he also found that once administrators participated in local research and experimental projects, they became more interested in research. Johnson,““ in a British study, gave some support to the contention that an administrator's attitude towards research may "rub off" on staff members. She observed that there was a significant positive correlation between the attitudes of headmasters (principals) and the attitudes of their staffs (teachers) regarding educational research. Regarding the use of educational research, different writers have pointed out the benefits which can accrue to research-oriented administrators. Williams“5 has written that research can increase an administrator's professional security, can help the administrator avoid professional stagnation, and can preclude the wasting of money and “PGerald L. Varland, "Accessibility of the Public Schools in Kentucky for Research Purposes," Dissertation Abstracts 31 (February 1971): 3850-A. “3C1ifford W. Johnson, "A Study of the Use of Research and Experimental Techniques in School Districts of the State of Washington," Dissertation Abstracts 23 (February 1963): 2769- 2770. ”'Margaret Johnson, "Teachers' Attitudes to Educational Research, " Edueational Research (British) 9 (November 1966): 7. “5Williams, pp. 481-482. ri‘ 3; ‘- ( 22 resources in an administrator's school system. Ludlow,“ in addition, has said that research can aid the administrator in making more rational changes in educational programs and practices, plus enhance the admin- istrator's probability of reaching the best decisions on controversial issues. While Turner"7 believes that research can help keep an admin- istrator in the mainstream of innovative instructional activity, Stratton“° feels that research can help in explaining present and future educational programs to the board of education and community at large. While some have discussed the benefits of using educational research findings, other writers have noted that there is little use of ! research in today's schools. Guba"9 has said that current educational practice is not based on research, that virtually none of today's pre- dominant practices (e.g., the length of the school day, the nature of the curriculum, the grading practices, etc.) have any foundation in research findings. Brickell50 has written that although one cannot say that research has no influence on school practice, one can say that as “ume,m fl. I”Turner, p. 231. l"’Vinton Stratton, "The Role of the Future Elementary Administrator in Carrying on Research," California Elementar S hool Administrators' Association Twenty-Fifth Yearbook (California, 1953), pp. 144-145 “’Guba. PP. 5-6. 5°Henry M. Brickell, quoted in EgonG Guba, The Place of Educational Research in Educational Chan e (Bethesda, Md. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 028 496, 1969), pp. 5-6. 23 of 1967 school practice in the nation cannot be understood as based primarily on research. Stratton51 has said that there is a chasm of immense proportion between what is known and what is done in education. He estimates there is a time lag of 15 to 30 years in translating research into common practice. Van Dalen52 concurs and estimates the time lag to be in the neighborhood of 25 years. Ludlow,53 however, is less conservative as he believes 50 to 100 years is a more accurate figure. Many individuals have set forth reasons for the little use of research by practitioners. Guba,5‘ for example, believes that there are at least four major reasons. First, research has not been cumula- tive; that is, the practitioner who goes to the literature finds either a paucity of research on his topic of interest or competing, conflicting research which leaves him in an equivocal position. Second, research has not been programatically oriented, with major problem areas being systematically explored; too much research has been of an ad hoc nature. Third, research has not typically been oriented toward practical prob- lems but rather to problems of a theoretical nature, amenable to experimental methods, and consistent with the psycho-statistical tradition. Fourth, there are no adequate mechanisms to link the worlds of the researcher and practitioner; that is, few educational 51Stratton, p. 145. 52D. B. Van Dalen, Understandin Educational Research (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1962), p. 14. 53Ludlow, p. 30. 5"Guba, pp. 15-16. 24 middleman (e.g., educational developers, engineers, evaldators, diffusers, and demonstrators) exist. On this fourth point, Ward55 is in agreement and calls for the establishment of a particular middleman, a research utilization specialist who would serve to package research findings for delivery to the practitioner. On this same point, Steinhoff and Owens56 note that it will take some time before the middleman suggested by Cuba is available; consequently, they propose that in the interim, the university professor assume the responsibility of transmitting research findings to practitioners. Van Dalen57 also suggests some reasons for the low utilization of educational research findings by practitioners. He believes the latter condition frequently results from a lack of knowledge (educators are unaware of studies conducted by researchers), a lack of commitment (educators are unwilling to apply the outcomes of research), or a lack of support (educators are faced with inadequate facilities and restrictive policies). . Schmuck,58 on the other hand, posits that unproductive researcher-administrator relationships greatly account for the little use of research findings. Such research-administrator relationships 55William G. Ward, Research Utilization Specialist: Review and §ynthesis of Selected Literature on Research_Develgpment (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 056 171, 1972), pp. 13-14. 56Steinhoff and Owens, pp. 2-3. 57Van Dalen, p. 14. 58Richard Schmuck, Social Psychological Factors in Knowledge Dtilization as Applied to Educational Administration (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 017 041, 1968), pp. 39-40. 25 are characterized by poor communication, negative stereotypes, and distrust and suspicion supported by the inconsistent norms of each other's reference group. Some psychological processes contributing to those difficulties in interpersonal relations include selective perception of each other's behavior, distortions of memory, a tendency to place low value on each's work, and the possibility of collaboration threatening the self-concepts of both researcher and administrator. Steinhoff and Owens59 have also noted that a social psychological gulf separates the researcher and administrator with the latter viewing the researcher as an "ivory-tower" academician or dilettante who need not face the "nitty-gritty" problems of running the schools. Egermeier and Nallace6° conducted a rather recent study which gives evidence of the perceived differences between researchers and administrators. When forty-six Oklahoma administrators were asked to rate research personnel plus themselves on 49 psychological character- istics, administrators judged themselves different on over half (25) of the characteristics. On these same characteristics, teachers interestingly did not feel that they differed from research personnel in as many ways as did administrators. Egermeier and Wallace concluded that, compared to teachers, administrators were not especially suited for research. 59Steinhoff and Owens, pp. 4-5. 60John C. Egermeier and Gaylen R. Wallace, Norms and Expectations for "Research-Oriented" Public School Personnel (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 011 251, 1967), p. 9. 26 Concerning other studies, Johnson61 found that administrators in his survey believed that research was of small value in helping them improve their school programs. These same administrators admitted, however, that they were not utilizing the research relevant to their problems. Johnson noted that the administrators desired brief, simplified, conclusive research which suggested practices that have tested beyond question. In Godfrey and Ivor's62 national survey of superintendents, it was established that superintendents could see little connection between educational research activities and innovative classroom practices or school system operations. These superintendents felt that research should be oriented more towards application and development than to theory; that is, research should provide programs and models of implementation. Godfrey and Ivor noted that superintend- ents believe that most researchers are more interested in refining their research than in seeking the implementation of their results. Since these investigators also found that superintendents are not conducting significant amounts of research themselves, save an occa- sional curriculum development project, superintendents should right- fully be considered consumers, as opposed to producers, of research. In Daly's63 study, junior high school principals in the Detroit Metropolitan Area felt that researchers did not fully understand the problems school practitioners have to contend with, nor the difficulty 61L. W. Johnson, pp. lO-ll. 62Godfrey and Ivor, pp. 146, 151-152. 53Da1y, p. 2310-A. 27 that exists in applying research to the school program. Much like Godfrey and Ivor, Daly discovered that few principals are producers of research; only one in seven principals personally conducted any type of research activity in his school. Daly did conclude, however, that there is a readiness on the part of Detroit junior high school principals to utilize research results in their schools. Cook and Damico‘“ conducted a study which sheds some light on the ways school superintendents and educational researchers perceive their responsibility toward implementing research findings. These investigators surveyed 222 administrators and 260 AERA researchers and asked them to respond (by answering "strongly agree," "agree," "disagree," and "strongly disagree") to each of the following four summarized position statements: (1) separate-functionalist the researcher's job is to generate workable solutions to educational problems, while the implementation of new techniques is solely the responsibility of the administrator; neither of these professionals must understand the processes, objectives, or environment of the other. (2) communicator the onus of responsibility in imple- menting educational research findings is the admin- istrator's; the administrator must have a thorough understanding of the methods and language used by the researcher; however, it is neither required nor necessary for the researcher to have a detailed understanding of the administrator. (3) persuader the onus of responsibility in imple- menting educational research findings is the researcher's; the researcher must have a thorough °“Desmond Cook and Sandra Damico, Role Perceptions of Educational Administrators and Researchers Relative to Implementation of Research Findin 5 (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 027 610, 969 9 pp. 5'83 14‘15. 28 understanding of the administrator and his methods; however, it is neither required nor necessary for the administrator to have a detailed understanding of the researcher. (4) mutual-understanding administration and research cannot be separated; in order to have effective implementation of educational research, the primary condition is a mutual understanding of the needs, means, objectives, and restrictions which affect both administrators and researchers. The results of the study indicated that administrators and researchers were very similar in their perceptions on all four positions. More specifically, the majority of both groups tended to strongly agree with the mutual-understanding position and strongly disagree with the separate-functiopelist position. Cook and Damico felt that this indi- cates that administrators and researchers do have a deep awareness of the need for communication in effectively implementing educational research findings in the schools. Contrary to what others have written, there does appear to be at least some common agreement between these two groups. Another vital aspect of the school administrator's relationship to educational research is the administrator's dissemination of research to others. Greer65 has written, for example, that an administrator should have research literature readily available for staff members within his school or district; also he should, on occasion, dispense relevant research articles to such staff members. Regarding principals, Stratton66 has said that myriad teachers stand ready and willing to 65Greer, p. 240. 66Stratton, p. 146. 29 utilize new methods and techniques, but administrators frequently fail to pass on relevant research to them or give these teachers the support they need to make use of such research. Smittle67 learned in his study that research-related information is not effectively communicated to the classroom teacher and that institutionalized arrangements for communication are generally poor. There is some evidence, however, that administrators may fail to adequately perform this disseminating function because they do not view the classroom teacher as being as concerned about research as some may say. Egermeier and Wallace68 discovered that administrators from ten of the larger school systems in Oklahoma felt that their teachers were definitely not as research-oriented in their behavior as they should be. Three of the more noteworthy ways in which administrators felt teachers were deficient were: teachers only infrequently sought the administrator's assistance in locating research findings relevant to the teacher's particular area of specialization; teachers only infrequently consulted privately with the administrator regarding new educational approaches; and, finally, teachers only infrequently attempted to bring up, or discuss, the subject of new educational approaches in staff meetings. There are other forms of dissemination besides the school administrator's disseminating educational research findings to teachers. 67George B. Smittle, "A Study of the Perceptions of Teacher Involvement in Critical and Routine Decisions in Selected Schools of Ohio," Dissertation Abstracts 23 (March 1963): 3213-3214. 68Egermeier and Wallace, pp. 1-5. 30 For example, principals and superintendents alike can disseminate relevant research information to other administrators or the lay public; superintendents also can pass along research findings to board of education members. Unfortunately, the literature does not appear to speak to these points. Summary The educational inquiry domain can be described as consisting of (1) research (basic and applied), (2) evaluation (action research), (3) development, and (4) diffusion. Research and evaluation are con- sidered primary or direct inquiry activities and differ from development and diffusion by producing knowledge, however general or specific, which was not previously available. Research and evaluation also differ: evaluation, for example, seeks to assess the worth or social utility of a thing while research attempts to assess scientific truth; research results tend to be generalizable across time, geography, and to similar instances of the phenomenon, while evaluation results typically are of parochial importance. Research itself can be subdivided into basic and applied research. Basic research is often called pure research or fundamental research because it pursues knowledge for its own sake; applied research, on the other hand, is an activity which is carried out with practical applications in mind and is characteristically concerned with creating new knowledge for this purpose. Thus it is possible to define AER (applied educational research) and distinguish it from other research and research-related activities. 31 The school administrator's relationship to AER revolves around three vital questions: (1) how do principals and superintendents acquire knowledge of AER, (2) how do they use AER, and (3) how do they disseminate AER to others? Since unfortunately the literature fails to differentiate between basic research, applied research, and evaluation (action research) when speaking of school administrators, the articles and studies reviewed must be concerned with the administrator's rela- tionship to the global concept of educational research. However, these same articles and studies do provide some insight into the school admin- istrator's relationship to AER. There are certainly a number of ways a school administrator can acquire knowledge of educational research findings. For example, this can be accomplished through reading different publications; through discussions with fellow educators; through enrolling in further edu- cation courses; and through attending conferences, workshops, and institutes. Administrators apparently favor some methods over others. Regarding the method of reading, administrators seem to feel that much of the research which is reported in educational journals is somewhat difficult to read and understand. Consequently, the research that does, in fact, reach the administrator often goes through a refining process and reaches him through his own administrator Ffiriodicals. Unfortunately, one study has shown that the more popular administrator periodicals devote much more attention to reports of existing educational practice than to research findings. Adminis- trators make little of formal research publications like American Eflucational Research Journal, ERIC, and NEA research bulletins. 32 Discussions with other educators appears to be a popular method among administrators of acquiring research-related information. That is, administrators tend to look very favorably upon this word-of—mouth technique. The literature suggests that education courses stressing edu- cational research findings are increasingly more evident in adminis- trator preparation programs; such courses provide a means whereby the school administrator can familiarize himself with current research findings. Regarding formal courses in educational research methodology, administrators typically feel they are weak in statistics and research methods but evidently desire more training in these areas. Administrators apparently look favorably upon conferences, workshops, and institutes which attempt to disseminate educational research findings and techniques. Administrators seem to like the personal, direct involvement which is inherent in this particular method of research diffusion. Integral to the school administrator's use of educational research findings is his attitude towards educational research. It appears that many administrators do not have a strong belief in research. However, administrators with more years of experience and those pre- viously involved in different research activities have been found to view research more favorably. There is some evidence that the school administrator's attitude toward research can effect his staff's attitude toward this same subject. 33 It is posited in the literature that there is little use of educational research in today's schools; there evidently are myriad reasons for this. One study has shown that school administrators are not utilizing the research relevant to their problems as they view research to be of small value in helping them improve their school programs. Another study has demonstrated that administrators can see little connection between educational research activities and innovative classroom practices or school system operations. A third study has shown, however, that administrators and researchers real- istically perceive that they have an equal responsibility in imple- menting educational research findings in the schools. The literature is far from replete regarding the administrator's dissemination of educational research findings to others (teachers, other administrators, school board members, the lay public). However, one study suggests that research-related information is not effectively communicated to the classroom teacher and institutionalized arrangements for communication are generally poor. Although the literature typically refers to the administrator's relationship to the global concept of educational research, some insight can be obtained, nevertheless, into how the administrator might acquire knowledge of AER, how he might use AER, and how he might disseminate AER to others. CHAPTERgIII RESEARCH METHOD The following discussion is concerned with the methodological aspects of this investigation. That is, it covers--in full detail--the sample, measures, design, testable questions, and analysis of the study. Sample Two separate and independent populations were under considera- tion in this investigation: a population of Michigan school principals (elementary, junior high, and senior high principals) and a population of Michigan school superintendents. These populations consisted of Michigan principals and superintendents from K-12 districts with enroll- ments of 2,000 plus students. Administrators from non K-12 districts or districts with less than 2,000 enrollment were purposely excluded for three specific reasons. First, non K-12 districts are quickly disap- pearing and eventually will cease to exist in the state; second, many administrators in small districts are not truly principals or superin- tendents but, in reality, head teachers; third, it would have been costly to have included in this study principals and superintendents from the entire state of Michigan. A sampling frame or list was obtained of Michigan principals and superintendents from K-12 districts of 2,000 plus enrollment. There were 273 superintendents and 2,832 principals from 273 such districts. 34 35 To determine the size of the samples to be drawn from these populations, it was first necessary--according to Stuart1 and Slonim2-- to specify the error which would be tolerated, the confidence level desired, and the proportion of agreement to the attribute felt to exist in the population. A tolerated error of .05 and a confidence level of .90 were felt to be reasonable; the proportion of agreement to the attribute was commonly and conservatively set at .50. Making use of the formula3 = _29_ .___ tolerated error Za/Z n-l ( ) where "la/2" is the Z value for a confidence level of .90, "p" is the proportion of agreement ("q" is the proportion of disagreement) to the attribute, "N" is the population size, and “n" is the sample size to be determined, it was concluded that a sample size of 136 was necessary for the population of superintendents and a sample size of 246 was required for the population of principals. The operational formulas were: for superintendents, .05 I'M/(115)} 51(233" 136 :3 II 1A. Stuart, Basic Ideas of Scientific Sampling (New York: Hafner l’ublishing Company, 1968), pp. 42-44. 2Morris J. Slonim, Sampling (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), pp. 72-87. 3Maryellen McSweeney, "Unpublished Survey Research Class Notes" (Education 967, Michigan State University, Summer, 1969). 36 for principals, .05 1.64 ( (if S) 2832'" 1 2832 246 3 II For the desired level of precision and confidence, it was necessary to survey 50% of the superintendent population and 8.7% of the principal population. Table 3.1 summarizes population sizes, sample sizes, and sample sizes as percentages of population sizes for both superintendents and principals. TABLE 3.1--Superintendent and Principal Population Sizes, Sample Sizes, and Sample Sizes as Percentages of Population Sizes Population Sample Sample Size as Percentage Size Size of Population Size Superintendents 273 136 50.0% Principals 2,832 246 8.7% To increase the precision of this study, stratified random sampling was chosen as the method of selecting subjects. One strati- fying variable was employed: district enrollment size. This particular stratifying variable was chosen because there was some evidence--Godfrey and Ivor“--that responses in this area were related to district size. Each population was consequently divided into three strata; these strata “Eleanor P. Godfrey and Wayne Ivor, "Educational Research and the School Administrator," described in Educational Research and Development in the United States (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969). P. 146. 37 were based on district enrollment sizes of 2,000 to 5,000, 5,001 to 10,000, and 10,001 plus. Proportional sampling--each stratum was sampled at the same proportion--was followed for each population. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 describe the strata, the strata population sizes, the strata sample sizes, and the strata sample sizes as percentages of strata population sizes for superintendents and principals, respectively. Thus two separate and independent stratified random samples were chosen. Principals and superintendents--not schools or school districts-- were the units sampled. TABLE 3.2--Superintendent Strata Population Sizes, Strata Sample Sizes, and Strata Sample Sizes as Percentages of Strata Population Sizes Strata Strata Strata Sample Sizes Population Sample as Percentages of Strata Sizes Sizes Strata Population Sizes 2,000-5,000 174 87 50.0% 5,001-10,000 65 32 50.0% 10,001+ 34 17 50.0% Total 273 136 50.0% 38 TABLE 3.3--Principal Strata Population Sizes, Strata Sample Sizes, and Strata Sample Sizes as Percentages of Strata Population Sizes Strata Strata Strata Sample Sizes Population Sample as Percentages of Strata Sizes Sizes Strata Population Sizes 2,000-5,000 937 82 8.7% 5,001-10,000 670 58 8.7% 10,001+ 1,225 106 8.7% Total 2,832 246 8.7% Measures In an attempt to obtain information on how Michigan principals and superintendents acquire knowledge of applied educational research (AER), how they use AER, and how they disseminate AER to others, a special questionnaire was constructed and pretested for this study. Apart from seven questionnaire items, principal and superintendent questionnaires were identical. (See Appendix A for principal and superintendent questionnaires.) Besides the cover letter and a reference page, the questionnaire designed for this study had five major parts. The first part (question- naire items 1-22) attempted to elicit information on how the school administrator acquires knowledge of AER; the second part (items 23-33) was devoted to obtaining information on how the school administrator uses AER and the types of attitudes he holds toward AER; the third part (items 34-42) sought information on how the school administrator 39 disseminates AER to others. In the fourth part (items 43-47), a particular AER subject--class size and its relation to student achieve- ment--was chosen and questions were framed regarding the school admin- istrator's knowledge, use, and dissemination of AER on this subject. (The thrust of this fourth section was twofold: (l) to build a validity check into the questionnaire, and (2) to bring together, in one practi- cal example, the major facets--knowledge, use, and dissemination--of the school administrator's relationship to AER.) Finally, the fifth part of the questionnaire (items 48-56) attempted to secure information on a number of correlate variables which were thought to be related to the administrator's responses in the knowledge, use, and dissemination areas. Regarding the cover letter to the questionnaire, an effort was made to cogently and succinctly describe the purpose of the study. The importance of this information to different individuals and groups was also pointed out. To make the questionnaire as personal as possible, with the hope that this would increase the response rate, each respond- ent's name was typed on the cover letter and every cover letter closed with a personal signature. Following the cover letter and preceding the different question— naire sections was a reference page. In the latter, AER was defined and distinguished from basic research, evaluation, and action research. To make the subject of AER even more concrete for the respondent, the titles of ten AER studies (two each from educational administration, educational psychology, educational sociology, curriculum, and coun- seling) were extracted from professional educational journals and 40 magazines and included in this reference page. By defining AER and giving examples of certain AER studies, it was hoped that this would preclude the respondent's lumping such activities as library research, data processing and accounting, teacher classroom evaluation, and the like, under the rubric of AER. Although the questionnaire designed for this study contained both behavior and attitude (opinion) items, greater emphasis was given to behavior items. Mager's5 perspective was taken into consideration in the selection of the types of items to be used in the questionnaire. Mager has contended that an individual's attitude toward an object is best reflected in his behavior toward that object. That is, an indi- vidual with a positive attitude toward an object displays approach behaviors toward that object, while an individual with a negative atti- tude toward an object displays avoidance behaviors. Thus, by relying quite heavily on behavior items, this study attempted to determine the extent to which principals and superintendents "move toward" or "move away" from AER. Three types of questionnaire items were employed in the question- naire designed for this study: (1) objective, forced-choice items, (2) open-ended items requiring a numerical response, and (3) open-ended items requiring a verbal response. Because objective, forced-choice items facilitate data analysis, allow more questions to be asked, and present little problem in evaluating responses, greater emphasis was given to these items. . 5Robert F. Mager, Developing Attitude Toward Learning (Belmont, Cal1f.: Fearon Publishers, 1968), pp. 14-15. 41 A special type of objective, forced-choice item utilized in the questionnaire was the Likert-type item (questionnaire items 33A-33Q); the Likert-type items attempted to measure the attitudes principals and superintendents hold toward AER. Unlike typical Likert items which have a response continuum ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree,“ the Likert-type items used in this study purposely consisted only of "agree," "uncertain," "disagree" response categories. This was done because frequently the more extreme response categories are not used by subjects; plus, in an already rather lengthy questionnaire, finer discriminations would have required subjects to invest even more time and energy. In line with Edward's6 suggestion for attenuating subject response sets, approximately half (8 items) of the attitude items were written to be favorable to AER while approximately half (9 items) were written to be unfavorable. These favorable and unfavorable items were randomly distributed throughout the set of attitude items. In the construction of the questionnaire, great care was taken to assure that the language used was readily understandable to school administrators. Since the latter are typically not researchers, specialized research vocabulary was avoided. The suggestions of Backstrom and Hursh,7 Oppenheim,° and Payne’ were especially important 6Allen Edwards, Techniques of Attitude Scele Construction (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957), p. 155. 7Charles Backstrom and Gerald Hursh, Survey Research (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1963), pp. 67-128. 8A. N. Oppenheim, Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966), pp. 24-80. ’Stanley L. Payne, The Art of Asking Questions (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1951), pp. 32-99. 42 in the wording of questions, writing of directions, determination of item response foils, and general layout and design of the questionnaire. Of the 56 questionnaire items, 49 items were common to both principal and superintendent questionnaires. Seven items (items 9, 10, ll, 14, 15, 41, and 42) differed between the two questionnaires. These differences stemmed from the fact that principals work basically at the school level while superintendents perform their duties at the district level. Although these seven items differed in their wording in the principal and superintendent questionnaires, there was, however, a general one to one correspondence in the types of information sought. Because there frequently are hidden, undisclosed problems in the initial form of a questionnaire, a pretesting of this measuring instru- ment was carried out on March 4, 1972. The pretesting was conducted on a group of 26 principals and 6 superintendents; these were administrators involved in a Michigan State University,College of Education Extern Pro- gram. Since the ultimate target group of the questionnaire was Michigan principals and superintendents, it was important to pretest the instru- ment on a select number of these same individuals. These 32 Michigan administrators were asked to complete the questionnaire plus an attached evaluation sheet. The accompanying evaluation sheet asked the pretest subjects (1) if the purpose of the studywas sufficiently clear from the cover letter of the questionnaire, (2) if they were able to "get a grip“ on the subject of AER from the reference page of the questionnaire, (3) if the directions to the questionnaire were sufficiently clear, (4) if the language used in the questionnaire was in any way esoteric or difficult to understand, 43 (5) if any questionnaire items were especially confusing, ambiguous, or redundant, (6) if there were any shortcomings specific to multiple- choice items or open-ended items used in the questionnaire, (7) if they would object to giving their name if they received this questionnaire in the mail, and (8) the length of time needed to complete the questionnaire. The responses to this evaluation sheet indicated that the vast majority of pretest subjects felt that the purpose of the study was sufficiently clear from the cover letter of the questionnaire; that they could, in fact, "get a grip" on the subject of the AER from the reference page of the questionnaire; that the questionnaire's directions were sufficiently clear; that the questionnaire's language was not typically esoteric or difficult to understand; that the questionnaire's items were not confusing, ambiguous, or redundant; that there weren't any apparent shortcomings to either multiple-choice or open-ended items used in the questionnaire; that they would not object to giving their name if they received the questionnaire in the mail; and that, on the average, it took from fifteen to twenty minutes to complete the questionnaire. In the pretested form of the questionnaire, the Likert type items (items 33A-33Q) had dichotomous response categories of "agree“ and "dis- agree." Many pretest subjects indicated on the evaluation sheet, however, that they did not like, or felt uncomfortable with, such an arrangement. What they desired was a middle or neutral category. Consequently, because of this pretesting, the final questionnaire had “agree," "uncertain," "disagree" categories for the Likert type items. Besides scrutinizing pretest subject answers to the question- naire's evaluation sheet, responses to the individual questionnaire 44 items were also tallied and examined. This was necessary in order to determine the variance of responses, or the ability of individual ques- tionnaire items to discriminate. Many of the items in the pretested form of the questionnaire had a "Yes," "No" response format; pretesting indicated that frequently there was a disproportionate number of "Yes" or disproportionate number of "No" responses. Responses categories of finer gradations were obviously necessary. Consequently, because of the pretesting, questionnaire items 1, 3, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 34A, 34B, and 340 were changed from a "Yes," "No“ format to a "frequently," "occasion- ally," "seldom,“ "never" format. It would have to be concluded that the pretesting of the questionnaire proved to be extremely valuable. Design A typical survey design was employed in this investigation. That is, after defining certain populations and sampling from these popula- tions, a questionnaire was sent to sample members and subsequent follow- ups were made to non-respondents. As the first stage of this design, 382 questionnaires were mailed on March 30, 1972. These went to the original samples of 136 superintend— ents and 246 principals. By April 16, (2 1/2 weeks after the original mailing), only 88 of the 382 administrators had responded. Consequently, a reminder letter4° (see Appendix A) was sent out to the 294 non- respondents (91 superintendents, 203 principals) urging them to complete 1°Each reminder letter and subsequent questionnaire opened with the subject's name and closed with a personal signature. It was hoped that by making the communication as personal as possible, a greater response rate would result. 45 and forward the questionnaire. The latter was the second stage of this survey design. As of May 2 (4 weeks after the original mailing) 154 adminis- trators had responded; however, 228 other administrators had failed to mail back their questionnaires. On this date, telephone calls were begun to 107 (24 superintendents, 83 principals) of these non-respondents. These were administrators who could be contacted through the Michigan State University telephone centrex system; such administrators repre- sented districts in the Detroit, Ann Arbor, Pontiac, and Grand Rapids metropolitan areas. Administrators reached by telephone were asked if they had received the original questionnaire and, if so, would they please complete and forward it. At least thirty of these administrators requested that another copy of the questionnaire be sent to them; this naturally was done. By May 15 (6 weeks after the original mailing) 183 administrators had responded while 199 had failed to return their ques- tionnaire. A second questionnaire was then mailed to 104 administrators (44 superintendents, 60 principals) who had not been contacted by tele- phone and who had not yet responded. These were non-respondents who could not be contacted by telephone because they were located outside of the regions serviced by the university's centrex system. The tele- phone contacts and the second mailing of the questionnaire to those located outside of the centrex system constituted the third stage of this survey design. Thus there were three stages of this survey design. Stage one was the original mailing of the questionnaire; stage two was the mailing of the reminder letter; and stage three was the telephone contacts and 46 second mailing of the questionnaire to those located outside of the centrex system. ‘These survey design stages brought a return from 241 of the original 382 administrators. The last questionnaire was returned on June 9 (9 weeks after the original mailing). Table 3.4 chronologically outlines the mailings of the first questionnaire and the reminder letter, the telephone contacts, and the mailing of the second questionnaire; it also summarizes the rates of response. By June 9, 85 of the original sample of 136 superintendents had responded; this was a return rate of 62.5%. By this date 156 (63.4%) of the original sample of 246 principals had responded. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 describe the respective responses of the stratified samples of superin- tendents and principals. Two things might be noted from Tables 3.5 and 3.6. First, for both superintendents and principals, there is some variance in the per- centage response rates of the different strata. Second, there is little difference in the overall response rates of superintendents (62.5%) and principals (63.4%). Appendix A contains further information identifying the superin- tendents and principals who responded to the questionnaire. More specif- ically, superintendents and principals are described by sex, age, years of educational experience, and highest college degree obtained; prin- cipals are also described in terms of whether they administer an elementary, junior high, or senior high school. 47 Amcwpvms Pmcwmreo gmpwo Pep Fem om>wmumg mcwmccowpmmau awn; mxmmz av a mean mcowmwg mcogampmu mo wuwmpzo emumuop mew; on: “.mcwca om ..muaam cev Am:w_wms mucmccoammgicoc eo— cu chwmwco mewm mop mm_ use pcmm mgwoccowpmmac ucoumm < mxmmz mv mp Am: women cmpwpoaogume muwama usage new .omwpcoa .Long< cc< .uwocpmo on» cw “.mcwga mm Amcvams ..mpasm em mucmucoammcicoc pmcwmwco tween mNN em_ No, op :3 an upped meccaa_mk mead: av N an: A.mcwca mom Amcwp*ms ..muaam _mv mucwucoammcicoc pmcwmwgo Lmumm 4mm mm saw as 3:0 Beam empump cme=PEam mxamz N\F NV 0, Peaa< use ucwm A.m=wga mew ... ... ..muaam mmpv mmcwaccowpmmac Nwm NumF .om coca: mama mpgp an econmmm mama mwch x3 :mxmp cowuu< cums on umpwmu um: umvcoammm um: on: mgoumcumwcwsu< on: mcopmgumwcwsu< we Lonasz mo amassz omcoammm mo magma map; mmcwmccowpmmao vacuum mo mcwpvmz ecu .mpumpcou mcogampmh .meumA LmucPEmm can mcwoccowpmmzo umg_m we mmcwpwmz mo mpsvmsom pmuwmopocogsuiiv.m m4m